I am actually headed more officially for the mopologist title when the next issue of the now renamed Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Restoration Scripture is finally printed ...
Actually, I wanted to add something (which is completely off topic and shouldn't be taken as being aimed at any of the other participants in this discussion) that this thread made me think about this morning (actually there was another thread on MADB that I saw that was also part of this thought process). I think that the critics of Mormonism sometimes (but certainly not always) raise very interesting questions that are deserving of some consideration. And in looking at these questions, more questions may come up, or we may find ourselves going in different directions in responding to them than we may have originally anticipated. Sometimes, these answers can change our views of an issue or put us into largely uncharted waters. Sometimes I find myself having to deal with something I had never considered, or forced to face something I had believed to be true and clearly was in error. It is almost always a positive experience (learning has never been a bad thing).
At the same time (and this was from the comments on MADB), I read this regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon:
There are so many bits of evidence that often seem to point in different directions. Royal Skousen teaches a word-for-word theory, and Ben McGuire is a proponent of it also. On the other hand, many scholars seem to lean towards an idea-for-idea theory. Blake Ostler proposes a process in which Joseph introduces his own ideas as he translates, similar to the JST of the Bible.
Many of us tend to appeal to whichever suits our argument best at the time.
While my views may be a bit more nuanced than this, there is also a large group of critics and apologists that take this second approach - they appeal to whatever suits their argument at the moment. I am not a fan of this kind of apologetics or this kind of criticism (although, for those that have known me for the 15 years I have been participating in internet forums on the topic of Mormonism will recognize that I have in the past been guilty of this as well, and certainly it has its appeal when facing a similar brand of criticism/dogmatism). I think that there are those who are called apologists, who are called mopologists, who might also be just as aptly be titled theologians, and whose ideas tend to develop and carry weight within their respective communities. Long after I am dead, I would rather be known as a Mormon theologian than a mopologist (even if for now, I get that title).
I appreciate the kind words in this thread, and I have never ceased to be amazed at the places I find myself being quoted or referred to, and the (albeit small) influence I have had on Mormon thought.
Like everyone else, sometimes internet personas irritate me (particularly the acerbic ones), but, in general, these communities are relatively small, and most of the members of them, when I meet them in person, are genuinely nice people with a set of closely held convictions, and I appreciate the variety which we have in both our mopologists and our critics.
Ben McGuire