Do the Apologists Resent Uneducated and/or Gullible Members?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have been ruminating at length upon a certain issue. I had expected a colleague to come through with a crucial bit of data, and when that didn't happen, I felt it was necessary to begin exploring this issue in a more public fashion. Basically, I am curious as to what others think:

Do Mopologists secretly hate and/or resent "Chapel Mormons"?

I ask this in lieu of the past thread that examined Stan Barker's bizarre claim that educated non-Mormons reject the Church due to the fact that they "don't listen." In part of his angry denunciation of educated never-Mos, Barker let this tidbit slip:

many members of the LDS Church don’t know enough about Church history or doctrine

Elsewhere in the SHIELDS blog, Barker suggests that "Chapel Mormons" have a problem when it comes to rumor, gossip, and speculation:

Why do Mormons like to pass around such rumors? I suppose it is partly because they feel it is faith promoting (read: testimony building). But is it? What of those rumors where people have believed them, thinking they have increased their own faith, only to later find out that the rumor is untrue? Take a look at our Hoaxes page to discover just how many false rumors have made the rounds (this is just a small listing of the queries we receive).

I have to confess, I am sort of stunned that SHIELDS--here posing as a sort of LDS "Ghostbusters," as it were--is getting this many "queries." But, it gets worse. In this next bit, Barker is regrettably straightforward in terms of his assessment of the "bonehead" in the Church:

We Mormons are often gullible when it comes to faith promoting rumors.

Ouch! That's not a very nice thing to say about one's spiritual brothers and sisters, Mr. Barker! But, in truth, this seems to be a common sentiment among the upper-echelon Mopologists. Think, for a moment, how many Chapel Mormon authors were lambasted in the pages of FARMS Review. Also consider the derogatory remarks DCP has issued concerning the "uneducated" people in the Church (i.e., that they are a "problem"). Indeed, there seems to be a remarkably angry undercurrent to a lot of LDS apologetics concerning this issue. And what a tricky issue it is! On the one hand, Mopologetics is meant to save testimonies, and yet, on the other hand, apologetics is, to no small extent, all about grasping for power, and appearing "smart." So: the apologists are in a bind. They know that they are under direct orders from the Brethren to save testimonies, and yet, on the other hand, they really despise the "dumbass" members who are "too lazy" to read the FROB, or to examine "deep" issues such as the relevance of the KEP, etc.

I was curious if others had also detected this general mood. For example: consider how MAD/FAIR has treated the less eloquent/scholarly LDS members.... It seems to me that part of apologetics requires at least putting on a half-hearted show of intellect and education, and thus, those who don't/can't/won't get thrown under the bus.

[_Pokatator]

I have detected it but at times I also detect a superiority complex.

[_Ray A]

I think it's like the "barefoot and pregnant" syndrome, "a woman should know her place". As long as "ignorant Chapel Mormons" don't try to defend the faith they're safe, and liked. DCP is a bishop, and I'm sure he doesn't look down on his congregation as "gullible", but he wouldn't expect a lecture in Arabic or apologetics from them, his specialties. On that note, he was also much criticised for his aggressive apologetics (not the least being Eugene England) by some rank and file members, so there must be some tensions.

I once watched Lou Midgley rip into a critic on the FAIR blog. That was nothing new to me, just "standard fare", but a female member, obviously a "Chapel Mormon", was shocked, and turned on Midgley. She pretty much told him it was un-Christian and not acceptable, then she left the blog in disgust (I don't think she was a "player", because before that she was defending the Church). Midgley is not a mild person, and can be very direct and cutting.

Do Mopologists secretly hate and/or resent "Chapel Mormons"?

Hate isn't the correct word, and even resent is a bit strong. As long as "Chapel Mormons" follow like sheep there isn't a problem. It's Chapel Mormons like Paul Osborne they resent, and Rodney Meldrum, the ones who challenge them. “Mr.” Meldrum, you remember? So there are two tiers – the submissive and “ignorant” (of apologetics) Chapel Mormon, and the Chapel Mormons who know at least some of their stuff. DCP, I might add, has at times been challenged by Chapel Mormons on FAIR/MAD, not the “sheep-like” types.

[_Yong Xi]

I don't think hate or resent are the correct words. I do believe apologists see chapel Mormons as inferior, however, primarily because their testimonies are built on faith which, ironically, apologists value less than reason. I sense that apologists are mainly driven by a search for the rational as a way to support their belief. That flies in the face of conventional wisdom and no doubt apologists would deny it. Apologists also seem to believe they have special or privileged knowledge that the average member does not possess.

[_Gadianton]

A welcome and unexpected contribution, Doctor, to a growing body of literature demonstrating the deep resentment the apologists have for the Chapel Mormon.

I won't be surprised to one day see a book written by a senior apologist called, Is the Chapel Mormon my brother?

And a good call on the "rumor" post, I had read that one but didn't make the important connection to the Review. At this point I think we could say that this blog at SHIELDS is a "poor man's FROB".

I would say this though, the tension with Chapel Mormons is a complex one, not a simple resentment only. Well, think of it this way, the apologists like to think they are "special", kind of like heroes with superpowers that make them better than regular people. So, in one sense, yes, they resent the simpleton rubes, but in another sense, they certainly wouldn't want these people to know as much as they do! So, to a degree, the apologists will be somewhat protective of the Chapel Mormon in a patronizing way, kind of like a demigod protecting and honoring the simple folk of his village. But, this is strained when the rubes begin offering their opinions on things, when they publish books, when they bear witness online. When they share their deep doctrinal knowledge.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hate isn't the correct word, and even resent is a bit strong. As long as "Chapel Mormons" follow like sheep there isn't a problem.

Ray,

I have to confess, it is stunning that you said this, in a very "deja vu" sort of way. In all honesty, I had considered titling this thread, "The Mopologists vs. the 'Sheeple'", but in the end I decided against it, since I felt that "Sheeple" was too cruel an epithet.

Ultimately, I am fascinated by the fact that it is so difficult to parse out the various "sides" of this issue. Do the apologists and the "Sheeple" get along? Well... sort of, as you point out. So long as they never, ever question Mopologetic "dogma," then they will always be in the clear. This, of course, leads us to another very important question:

---To what extent is Mopologetic doctrine the same as the doctrine of the Church?

I would submit that it is **not** entirely the same, as demonstrated by the 2nd Watson Letter. So, I think we are seeing signs of a very significant problem here.

It's Chapel Mormons like Paul Osborne they resent, and Rodney Meldrum, the ones who challenge them. “Mr.” Meldrum, you remember? So there are two tiers – the submissive and “ignorant” (of apologetics) Chapel Mormon, and the Chapel Mormons who know at least some of their stuff. DCP, I might add, has at times been challenged by Chapel Mormons on FAIR/MAD, not the “sheep-like” types.

You're right, Ray, and I think you are correct to note this "two-tier" system. That said, wouldn't you agree that the apologists rather ironically and hypocritically resent the "submissive" "Sheeple"-type TBMs, as per Barker's posts? I mean, I personally can recall quite a few posts/"missives" from DCP & et al. in which it was announced that there was a great deal "wrong" with the typical Latter-day Saint. As I said: I think that the apologists despise the basic lack of education and gullibility of your garden variety TBM, and yet, on the other hand, I think that they hate/despise even worse the "Sheeple" who dares to challenge Mopologetic orthodoxy. Just for what it's worth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A welcome and unexpected contribution, Doctor, to a growing body of literature demonstrating the deep resentment the apologists have for the Chapel Mormon.

I won't be surprised to one day see a book written by a senior apologist called, Is the Chapel Mormon my brother?

Yes, Dean Robbers, I expect we shall see it. The subtitle will, in all likelihood, be Methods of Detecting the Adversary Amongst the Saints.

[_why me]

I have been ruminating at length upon a certain issue. I had expected a colleague to come through with a crucial bit of data, and when that didn't happen, I felt it was necessary to begin exploring this issue in a more public fashion. Basically, I am curious as to what others think:

Do Mopologists secretly hate and/or resent "Chapel Mormons"?

I was curious if others had also detected this general mood. For example: consider how MAD/FAIR has treated the less eloquent/scholarly LDS members.... It seems to me that part of apologetics requires at least putting on a half-hearted show of intellect and education, and thus, those who don't/can't/won't get thrown under the bus.

One way to judge information in a post is to ask: Is what is said in that post true or false? And is the interpretation valid? By answering these questions about the above post you submitted we can tell if you made a case.

I think that some good points were made by the shields member. But I will not say that Mormon apologists resent such members. But maybe they wish that such members were better informed as a way to prevent a person from leaving the fold when they discover interpretations from critics.

However I would say that critics do not listen to apologist interpretations. Any apologist interpretation is treated with disdain by uneducated critics who refuse to see the other point of view. This can be seen on the polygamy being the greatest downfall thread. Everyone on that thread offers interpretations of facts. Who is right and who is wrong? No one. With Mormon history, most information is about interpretation.

[_why me]

I would say this though, the tension with Chapel Mormons is a complex one, not a simple resentment only. Well, think of it this way, the apologists like to think they are "special", kind of like heroes with superpowers that make them better than regular people. So, in one sense, yes, they resent the simpleton rubes, but in another sense, they certainly wouldn't want these people to know as much as they do! So, to a degree, the apologists will be somewhat protective of the Chapel Mormon in a patronizing way, kind of like a demigod protecting and honoring the simple folk of his village. But, this is strained when the rubes begin offering their opinions on things, when they publish books, when they bear witness online. When they share their deep doctrinal knowledge.

To be read in an affected style of tone:

Ummmm....I would say dear friend that Mormon apologists do not think of themselves as SPECIAL. NOR do they think of themselves as superior. I would say that Mormon apologists have a standard regard for their CHAPEL Mormon brothers and sisters. For in LDS culture, everyone is a brother and sister.

HOWEVER, I would say that the Mormon critic absolutely disdains all Mormons. This disdain can be seen on these BOARDS as THEY exhibit a superioity COMplex that is phenominal in SCOPE.

[_GoodK]

HOWEVER, I would say that the Mormon critic absolutely disdains all Mormons. This disdain can be seen on these BOARDS as THEY exhibit a superioity COMplex that is phenominal in SCOPE.

Quite a bold statement, Brother, as well as an impressive exercise in mind reading. Of course you are wrong, obviously. For the record, I am most certainly a Mormon critic and I most certainly do not disdain all Mormons. I think most if not at all "critics" would agree with me.


Doctor Scratch,

A thought I had while reading your words centered around the role said apologist plays in their own local ward.
From my experience, a FARMS boy is treated like a guru of sorts in the ward. When a member or investigator raises a tough, deep question that the local Chapel Mormons aren't familiar with, the apologist is sought out. DCP has admitted to doing this on behalf of the SCMC, and I know of other examples. Most Bishops - in my experience - are "Chapel Mormons" ill equipped to address things like the KEP or polygamy in the early church.

I agree with Dr. Robbers when he described the relationship as a sort of
"demigod protecting and honoring the simple folk of his village."