Toward a Theory of Mopologetics, Part II

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doctor Scratch,

What an interesting concept piece of scientific inquiry! It never would have occurred to me to do an exhaustive analysis of Mormon apologetic behavior, and then begin to quantify their deeds, tone, content, and attitude in order to create a hierarchical order of Mormon apologists! This is fascinating and useful when taking into consideration the considerable influence, if not outright doctrinal authority Mormon apologists now possess within the Mormon culture!

I would humbly suggest you give consideration to weigh certain kinds of behavior with more gravitas than other kinds of behavior or education with regards to “MAS”. However, social networking cannot be overestimated enough, since one can observe the familial and tribal connections Mormon networking renders to one’s benefit. So I would suggest taking into consideration one’s ability to “touch” the familial network of Mormon hierarchy through professional connection, friendships, and most importantly through marriage or bloodlines be considered within context of ranking “Mo-pologists”, as it were.

While anger and offensive behavior can indeed propel an “Internet Mormon” up to a higher ranking within the “Internet Mormon Apologist” paradigm, let’s not forget that in order to influence true doctrinal changes and tactical marketing within the Mormon church (note Professor Peterson’s forays into "Trinitarianism") one has to be connected both within “Real Life” and the Internet. I think this is an important distinction to consider… Humbly, of course.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is one of you more entertaining and thought provoking posts, Scratch. Good stuff. A couple of thoughts:

What you are lumping under the umbrella of "aggression" others might consider "assertive." I think if an apologist has a high post count (addressing your specific example) but is friendly in tone, it strikes me as more assertive than aggressive.

That's a good point, Schmo. Having a friendly tone would certainly lower the given Mopologist's number. Really, we need to look at the confluence of factors: power, education, tone, and so forth.

Also, a distinction should be made based on the kind of power the apologist is attempting to exert. From this website:

Thank you very much for posting these. These are fascinating.

1. Coercive power. This means the power to punish. It can typically be used in an online community by a moderator, who can ban an account or certain comments.

Or, it can be used by certain apologists who go storming off if they don't receive preferential treatment. Cf. Bill Hamblin's recent flight from MAD.

2. Reward power. As there are many kinds of rewards, this power can be used in a variety of ways, ranging from a positive comment to financial reward.

This is also very prevalent in the Mopologetic community.

3. Legitimate power. This is the power granted by some kind of authority. On a social networking site, it normally belongs to the organization operating the site, which can define the rules to be followed and execute them.

This one is trickier, though again I think I would tie this back to education, and to affiliation with the principal Mopologetic organizations (FARMS, FAIR, etc.)

4. Expert power. Extremely relevant in the online world, expert power comes from experience or education. If you are recognized as an expert, people will count with your opinion and are more likely to follow your leadership.

5. Referent power. This is probably the most important type of power in the online communities. Referent power comes from admiration or respect. In the online world without hierarchies and boundaries people with referent power are the most influential ones. This power comes from character, the values and integrity that a person represents.

It seems meaningful or safe to say that the MAS would go up if the mopologist is trying to exert coercive power than referent power, for instance. So in your example, I think juliann should score higher because she uses her coercive power than someone like Allen Wyatt using expert power, since that seems far more "aggresive."

These were just a couple of notions I had while reading through your very entertaining post.

Hmm. These are interesting observations. It seems to me that a good deal of "Referent Power" in Mopologetics stems from TBM perceptions of the given apologist's ability to "stick it" to critics. Character and integrity seem to count for basically zero in the Mopologetic community. Think about how many of the TBMs seem to like Pahoran. Further, a lot of the apologists have shown themselves to be bullies, bald-faced liars, and so on---and these are often the most powerful, most admired, most "liked" apologists. So the "Referent Power" doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual honesty, integrity, and character. Instead, "Referent Power" for Mopologists stems from the ability to smear critics, to successfully embarrass critics, and so on. Think, for example, how often DCP's "wit" gets praised by the apologists. Is DCP genuinely "witty"? No, I don't really think so. His humor seems derived mostly from reading a lot of "Goofus and Gallant" cartoons. A lot of his so-called "humor" is actually very cruel and derrogatory, though, so we can see how that would up his score in the "Referent Power" department.

In any event, thanks again for posting this stuff. It's very interesting.

[_The Nehor]

Doctor Scratch,

What an interesting concept piece of scientific inquiry! It never would have occurred to me to do an exhaustive analysis of Mormon apologetic behavior, and then begin to quantify their deeds, tone, content, and attitude in order to create a hierarchical order of Mormon apologists! This is fascinating and useful when taking into consideration the considerable influence, if not outright doctrinal authority Mormon apologists now possess within the Mormon culture!

I would humbly suggest you give consideration to weigh certain kinds of behavior with more gravitas than other kinds of behavior or education with regards to “MAS”. However, social networking cannot be overestimated enough, since one can observe the familial and tribal connections Mormon networking renders to one’s benefit. So I would suggest taking into consideration one’s ability to “touch” the familial network of Mormon hierarchy through professional connection, friendships, and most importantly through marriage or bloodlines be considered within context of ranking “Mo-pologists”, as it were.

While anger and offensive behavior can indeed propel an “Internet Mormon” up to a higher ranking within the “Internet Mormon Apologist” paradigm, let’s not forget that in order to influence true doctrinal changes and tactical marketing within the Mormon church (note Professor Peterson’s forays into "Trinitarianism") one has to be connected both within “Real Life” and the Internet. I think this is an important distinction to consider… Humbly, of course.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I think Doctor Camwhore has some very insightful comments here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor Scratch,

What an interesting concept piece of scientific inquiry! It never would have occurred to me to do an exhaustive analysis of Mormon apologetic behavior, and then begin to quantify their deeds, tone, content, and attitude in order to create a hierarchical order of Mormon apologists! This is fascinating and useful when taking into consideration the considerable influence, if not outright doctrinal authority Mormon apologists now possess within the Mormon culture!

Why, thank you, Doctor! I had heard that Dean Robbers was considering a new addition to our faculty.... Might that be you?

I would humbly suggest you give consideration to weigh certain kinds of behavior with more gravitas than other kinds of behavior or education with regards to “MAS”. However, social networking cannot be overestimated enough, since one can observe the familial and tribal connections Mormon networking renders to one’s benefit. So I would suggest taking into consideration one’s ability to “touch” the familial network of Mormon hierarchy through professional connection, friendships, and most importantly through marriage or bloodlines be considered within context of ranking “Mo-pologists”, as it were.

Huh. I think that this is a fascinating suggestion, Doctor. Could you elaborate a bit? Certainly, I agree 100% that bloodlines and connections are vitally important in Mormon culture. But I am a bit curious as to how you see this same sort of thing playing out in the world of Mopologetics... I.e., are you talking about name-dropping and that sort of thing? Or, could you perhaps be referring to, say, DCP's gossip about how he knew such-and-such who told him that Mike Quinn was a homosexual sinner, and that sort of thing? Or, are you talking more about those Mopologists who might have a General Authority relative?

You know, your point makes me think immediately of Scott Lloyd, who has a relatively high standing as a Mopologist partly due to the fact that he is constantly hobnobbing with higher-ups in the Church. I'm not quite sure if that's what you were referring to, but if so, then I'm definitely seeing eye-to-eye with you.

While anger and offensive behavior can indeed propel an “Internet Mormon” up to a higher ranking within the “Internet Mormon Apologist” paradigm, let’s not forget that in order to influence true doctrinal changes and tactical marketing within the Mormon church (note Professor Peterson’s forays into "Trinitarianism") one has to be connected both within “Real Life” and the Internet. I think this is an important distinction to consider… Humbly, of course.

Yes, I agree. Only the very top, most influential and powerful apologists will be able to effect actual change in the Church. The 2nd Watson Letter is a clear example of this, as well as the various changes to teaching manuals that DCP ordered up.

[_Doctor Scratch]

by the way, what constitutes a "real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc."?

Hi there, Will.

FARMS and FAIR both maintain pretty strict boundaries, "association"-wise. Sure, you might subscribe to the FROB, or whatever else, but you don't publish with them. Have you ever delivered a paper at the FAIR conference? That would certainly help your standing.

Anyways: a "real association" with FARMS (which, let's face it, is the top dog here) would mean that you were a part of the whole "cabal" that rigs the peer review process, and that gets invited to submit articles, and so forth. The more ambitious young apologists realize that they are going to need to gain entry into the cabal, so they start early with the buttkissing and the presenting of papers at conferences (usually at their own expense; the actual FARMS apologists' expenses get covered by the MI's multimillion dollar operating budget), and so on. LifeOnaPlate is the obvious example here. You can bet that one of his long-range ambitions is to one day publish a smear piece in the FROB.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the whole "cabal" that rigs the peer review process

They kidnapped Scratch once, and took him up in one of their flying saucers where they did unmentionable things to him. He's never forgiven them.

The more ambitious young apologists realize that they are going to need to gain entry into the cabal, so they start early with the buttkissing and the presenting of papers at conferences (usually at their own expense; the actual FARMS apologists' expenses get covered by the MI's multimillion dollar operating budget), and so on.

This is really good stuff. Well, anyway, it's Scratch at his most creative.

LifeOnaPlate is the obvious example here. You can bet that one of his long-range ambitions is to one day publish a smear piece in the FROB.

LOL.

Incidentally, anybody here who's brave enough to risk it is free to examine the contents of the FARMS Review. They're completely available on line at

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

[Guest]

Hello Doctor Scratch,

To be considered for a position in the prestigious Cassius University is something any self respecting scholar much less a student of Mormon apologetics might aspire to. The mere mention of it is almost an award unto itself, Sir. Thank you for the kind words.

I’m sure a Doctorate of Philosophy, (awarded May 2008) is of little consolation to someone like Dean Robbers, given my relatively nascent foray into the world of PhD acumen. Alas I’m not nearly as “battle worn” as some academics who fight the good fight on the Internet, and in such places as Las Vegas, the Hawaiian Islands, and Europe! I’m sure a little more tenure might be appropriate for someone such as this humble contributor.

Luckily my post-graduate work focused on a M.A. in Philosophy of Religion. My thesis deconstructed the “The Possibility of an Infinite Revision of Events within the Mormon Priesthood and Its Surrogate Educational Division: The Church Educational System.” This was well received within the mostly Protestant faculty of my school.

That being said, I’d like to address your multi-faceted query reference a Mormon apologist’s status and his connections if you don’t mind. As with everything within Mormon culture, social networking plays a vital role in one’s ability to advance one’s self through the vanguard of academia. Whether it’s the Church’s educational system or one of its private institutions, the key to one's status is one's ability to literally get some person-to-person time with the Mormon power structure. Developing relationships with the Church’s apostles and their extended sphere of influence can greatly increase one’s longevity in the highly nepotistic world of the Mormon Church. I might suggest that indeed, much in the same way you might lend weight to a Mormon apologist’s personality, perspicacious insight, vulgarity, or what have you, you can directly connect an apologist’s “connectivity” to the weight he carries in the world of Mormon apologetics.

If an apologist uses the stratagem of name-dropping, then one must consider its context. Is he or she name dropping from having met someone, or he or she name dropping from a mere Internet exchange? The latter pales in comparison with the former, of which, demonstrates the sphere of influence the apologist might possess. For example, if Professor Peterson mentions an apostle with whom he shared lunch, then it’s a given his ability to influence doctrine is far greater than say, Life on a Plate, who, dare I say it, will never contribute more to the apologetic cause than a fawning admiration for Professor Peterson or some benign insight given on a heavily moderated forum like the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board. I can virtually guarantee after having spent an hour or so this last weekend with two Mormon missionaries the likelihood of anyone mentioning Life on a Plate by name is virtually zero. Why I ask? It’s because he doesn’t have access to the power structure through which he can have his ideas formalized in print, and therefore secure one’s self a place in Mormon apologetic atmospherics. Connectivity is the key to influence. Whether one garners that through some sort of familial assimilation or through a tribal affiliation isn’t so important, but it’s just having obtained the accessibility to the Mormon hierarchy itself is the key.

Well, look at me. I’ve rambled on a bit too long, and for that I apologize, Doctor. I hope I’ve made myself a little clearer on the subject, and if you require a little more conjecture on my part, please do feel free to press the issue.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But I have a nifty blog, and some cool Mormon people like me at least. And my mom thinks I'm cool.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And my mom thinks I'm cool.

No she doesn't.

She told me that she tells you that because the psychiatrist urged her to.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Back to the Land of Misfit Toys for me.