Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

When you start acting like one, kindly let us know.

As I said, Trevor, tallest building in Tooele.

[_Gadianton]

In an effort to shrink the terrain a little (lol, the LTG pun occurred after I wrote that), I'll focus on one point:

I started out by talking about "deep doctrine" and I maintain, in the face of criticism, that a number of apologists were interested in deep doctrine (mysteries of the Gospel) and saw in Nibley et al.'s work a place to explore it.

I completely agree with you that far.

[_Trevor]

I am more interested in examining the more rancid, vicious, and dishonest parts of the "defense." That is: Why would Bill Hamblin erupt in an epithet-laced outburst on RfM? Why would DCP ask James White if his "arrogance meter" was broken? Why would Lou Midgley verbally harass Sandra Tanner at her bookstore?

In other words, you grant that this defense is more than the sum of the worst parts you see in it, but it is the worst parts that you are most interested in. That would seem to me to be quite a revealing statement. I imagine it would be possible for you to observe a film of my life, pick all of the worst things out of it, and then construct a campaign to beat me into the ground by incessantly publicizing the worst of me. How I hope no one chooses to take me up on this. The results would not be pretty.

Don't get me wrong, Scratch. I do not have faith in Mormonism. I had a pretty negative experience as a member of the LDS Church. And, I do not necessarily condone some of the things you see as the worst in Mopologetics, but for myself I am concerned about the corrosive effects on my own psyche of constantly seeing the worst in everything and both constructing and publicizing an image of others based almost exclusively on the negatives.

It's just that you are talking about something that isn't strictly Mopologetic. See what I mean? You can call us "myopic," but it seems to me that you are just insisting that we discuss a somewhat separate topic. On the other hand, it is fair to say that we (or I, in any case) have tried to focus the discussion and categorization on a pretty strict set of behaviors. The kind of good-natured and inquisitive scholarship you're describing doesn't really fit within that, though.

Scratch, I really don't see you as myopic. I do see your approach to Mormon apologists as being based on a narrow and uncharitable view of these apologists. Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment and recognize that we spend a good deal of our spare time deriding not only the worst moments in Mormon apologetics, but also Mormon scholarship on antiquity in general, and we often simplistically identify the latter entirely with the former, based on the real relationship between the two. Maybe I am just speaking for myself here, but I rather doubt it.

If now you want to exercise greater care in how we criticize Mormon scholars and apologetics, I wish you all the best of luck. Frankly, I don't see it happening, but I could be proven wrong. I see nothing wrong with trying to form categories to help us understand apologists, but I think those categories ought to be more balanced and not simply based on behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes we find risible. My "student of the mysteries" category was an attempt to do this, as imperfect as it may have been. I bear you no ill will, Scratch, and I see nothing wrong in principle with your project of trying to understand apologetics better. The real question is in your motivation for doing so, and I am not entirely surprised that there is a good deal of skepticism among apologists here concerning that.

[_antishock8]

When you start acting like one, kindly let us know.

As I said, Trevor, tallest building in Tooele.

Better than being savaged on a national stage by Robert Spencer by exposing your supposed "expertise" on the subject of Islam. Frankly, I can see why you spend time on forums like these rather than bettering your understanding of Islam and Islamic history. You just don't have it. Google, my friend, is no substitute for fundamental comprehension.

Lucky for you, your primary responsibility lies with apologetics. Your bread, Sir, is buttered by a cult and it shows. Good luck with that.

[_Mister Scratch]

I am more interested in examining the more rancid, vicious, and dishonest parts of the "defense." That is: Why would Bill Hamblin erupt in an epithet-laced outburst on RfM? Why would DCP ask James White if his "arrogance meter" was broken? Why would Lou Midgley verbally harass Sandra Tanner at her bookstore?

In other words, you grant that this defense is more than the sum of the worst parts you see in it, but it is the worst parts that you are most interested in.

For the sake of this thread, yes.

That would seem to me to be quite a revealing statement. I imagine it would be possible for you to observe a film of my life, pick all of the worst things out of it, and then construct a campaign to beat me into the ground by incessantly publicizing the worst of me. How I hope no one chooses to take me up on this. The results would not be pretty.

We are not talking about anybody's "life." We are talking about Mopologetics. (I have often pointed out that I never criticize DCP's job as an Arabist.) Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems that your complaint here is a variation on, "You guys should be nice to the Mopologists! You are being too mean!"

Don't get me wrong, Scratch. I do not have faith in Mormonism. I had a pretty negative experience as a member of the LDS Church. And, I do not necessarily condone some of the things you see as the worst in Mopologetics, but for myself I am concerned about the corrosive effects on my own psyche of constantly seeing the worst in everything and both constructing and publicizing an image of others based almost exclusively on the negatives.

Well, Trevor, feel free to praise the Mopologists to your heart's content. You will be welcomed with open arms on the MADboard. You would have had a gay ol' time at the Yale conference, where many of the LDS scholars shot themselves in the foot by playing "back-slapping bros" with each other.

If now you want to exercise greater care in how we criticize Mormon scholars and apologetics, I wish you all the best of luck. Frankly, I don't see it happening, but I could be proven wrong. I see nothing wrong with trying to form categories to help us understand apologists, but I think those categories ought to be more balanced and not simply based on behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes we find risible.

I don't really think that they are. The Righteous Warrior of the 2nd Kind, for example, takes into account the "gentler" (or "humble"?) apologists such as R. Bushman. There is a category set aside purely for faith-based reasons as well.

My "student of the mysteries" category was an attempt to do this, as imperfect as it may have been. I bear you no ill will, Scratch, and I see nothing wrong in principle with your project of trying to understand apologetics better. The real question is in your motivation for doing so, and I am not entirely surprised that there is a good deal of skepticism among apologists here concerning that.

I bet. They have always had a problem with accepting a dose of their own medicine.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/11/ ... ormonisms/

Do you feel the same way about these sorts of categorizations, Trevor?

[_harmony]

I think the problem is the tendency to personalize. A theory about LDS apologetics and why people get into it is one thing; a theory about specific LDS apologists is another thing altogether.

We all have bad days, days when we said something we wished we hadn't, lied about something we wished we'd told the truth about, did something we wished we could undo. And then we're stuck with it. Maybe they (the royal they: Daniel and his fellow apologist leaders) never admit to bad days... maybe that's the problem.

[_Ray A]

I would bet that, predictably, the reason why our categories seem so appealing to us is that they reflect our own journeys out of Mormonism better than they reflect a solid understanding of those who stay strong in the faith.

It takes one to know one. I'm quite certain I now what keeps them strong in the faith. Been there, done that.

[_Bond James Bond]

When reading the dossiers Kush remember it was all downhill after this one.

[I totally forgot about being called a "foul mouthed bigot". Fond memories ]

[_Trevor]

For the sake of this thread, yes.

Are you suggesting that overall your practices have significantly diverged from a preoccupation with the worst of Mormon apologetics and apologists?

We are not talking about anybody's "life." We are talking about Mopologetics. (I have often pointed out that I never criticize DCP's job as an Arabist.) Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems that your complaint here is a variation on, "You guys should be nice to the Mopologists! You are being too mean!"

LOL. You know, I am about to say something you might think is facetious, but I mean it. I find discussing this subject with you to be quite fun. I was using my life as an example, but I think it applies to the group of people who engage in Mopologetics. To read your posts about DCP, one would think that he ought to be roundly condemned for his Mopologetics alone. This is because your focus exclusively on the negative amounts to a caricature of the person. I don't think one has to play "nice," necessarily, in order to steer clear of such distortions.

Well, Trevor, feel free to praise the Mopologists to your heart's content. You will be welcomed with open arms on the MADboard. You would have had a gay ol' time at the Yale conference, where many of the LDS scholars shot themselves in the foot by playing "back-slapping bros" with each other.

Indeed, I have, after all, praised Mopologists to the skies all over the place. Thanks for pointing out to me a bastion where I may continue to luxuriate Mopologists with large dollops of praise free of the fear of your withering scorn. But seriously, I would love to see your non-MDB writings. You are simply too good at this not to be a writer. In actual response, I will simply say that acknowledging honestly the strengths of our foes is not imprudent.

I don't really think that they are. The Righteous Warrior of the 2nd Kind, for example, takes into account the "gentler" (or "humble"?) apologists such as R. Bushman. There is a category set aside purely for faith-based reasons as well.

So noted. I commend you for demonstrating balance there.

I bet. They have always had a problem with accepting a dose of their own medicine.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/11/ ... ormonisms/

Do you feel the same way about these sorts of categorizations, Trevor?

LOL. I am assuming that you brought this to my attention to illustrate how we are unfairly categorized by apologists? If so, the first problem here is that this was written by Jay Nelson-Seawright, a person whom I greatly respect for, among other things, having taken on Louis Midgley for Midgley's review of Grant Palmer. JNS is far from being a Mopologist, and I really have few problems with his categories, although I do find them somewhat inaccurate at times and in some cases slightly insulting. JNS is a good guy, and I am sure he would be open to any useful criticisms of these categories.

[_Mister Scratch]

We are not talking about anybody's "life." We are talking about Mopologetics. (I have often pointed out that I never criticize DCP's job as an Arabist.) Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems that your complaint here is a variation on, "You guys should be nice to the Mopologists! You are being too mean!"

LOL. You know, I am about to say something you might think is facetious, but I mean it. I find discussing this subject with you to be quite fun. I was using my life as an example, but I think it applies to the group of people who engage in Mopologetics. To read your posts about DCP, one would think that he ought to be roundly condemned for his Mopologetics alone.

He should be. His behavior---the Quinn gossip; his l-skinny antics; his condescension and ill-treatment of people in pain; his FARMS writings; his equivocation and hypocrisy regarding Mopologetic financing---doesn't speak very well of him at all. I really think he ought to apologize, and express some guilt and regret over these things.

This is because your focus exclusively on the negative amounts to a caricature of the person. I don't think one has to play "nice," necessarily, in order to steer clear of such distortions.

Where is the "distortion"? Nothing I have said about him is wrong or false. I also don't think it's really accurate to say that I have focused "exclusively on the negative" regarding DCP. Did you read the posts on the recent thread in which he announced that translation project? Further, I have often praised DCP's writing skills. (He has never had a decent thing to say about me, however. Not one.)

But what, among his apologetic activities, is "positive", Trevor? What fundamental good has come of this?