The Tiers of Apologetics

[_Gadianton]

I figured I should give an explanation for some of the difficult, technical jargon I throw out sometimes. I've discussed this before, but long enough ago that we're due for a refresher.

This from some old lecture notes I have from teaching Intro to Mopologetic Theory 1. A fun course I like to teach, but now pass off to other instructors.

Apologetic output works at three different levels. What we're most accustomed to dealing with is tier 3 apologetics that argue in a straightforward way for the truth of some doctrinal point. the Review is all tier 3. The problem with tier 3 apologetics though is scope of audience. As Joey points out, excepting attention from other apologists and a few critics, there is no other body of work more ignored and uncared about by the rest of the world than Mopologetics.

So there has to be some supporting output, output intended to further the work of apologetics while not exactly being apologetics. There is, in fact, tier 2 apologetics. This comes in a couple different flavors. To take a non-Mopolo example, there is ID in some circles, "flavor A" tier 2 that is very little different from tier 3 except for the fact it denies its goals, "No, this is just a, uh, an extension of information theory from statistics or electrical engineering, doesn't really have anything to do with religion per se." And then "flavor B" which goes for more nuance and may even have some real-world credibility. A hypothetical example here will do. Let's say there are two scientific theories, q and v. Irrespective of which one is more popular, if q for some reason is friendlier to apologetic beliefs than v, even if the friendliness is somewhat superficial, the apologists will be fans of q. Alternatively they will invent their own q level theories and publish them. Dots may later be connected explicitly at tier 3.

Finally, there is tier 1. Tier one may find an analogy in a "service mission". A non-Mopolo example here would be the Christian Science Monitor. Some quotes that underscore the basic idea from this article:

Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisers who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.[2]

The Monitor's inception was, in part, a response by Eddy to the journalism of her day, which relentlessly covered the sensations and scandals surrounding her new religion with varying degrees of accuracy.

The paper has been known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism".

From FARMS, METI is the ultimate tier 1. You can virtually substitute FARMS/Mormonism etc. in the above quotes.

The ultimate point of tiering ones apologetics is to maximize scope and credibility. tier 2 has a wider audience than tier 3 and tier 1 wider than tier 2. The apologetic hand is best played when the tiers run as pure and independent of each other as possible.

[_maklelan]

I figured I should give an explanation for some of the difficult, technical jargon I throw out sometimes. I've discussed this before, but long enough ago that we're due for a refresher.

This from some old lecture notes I have from teaching Intro to Mopologetic Theory 1. A fun course I like to teach, but now pass off to other instructors.

Apologetic output works at three different levels. What we're most accustomed to dealing with is tier 3 apologetics that argue in a straightforward way for the truth of some doctrinal point. the Review is all tier 3. The problem with tier 3 apologetics though is scope of audience. As Joey points out, excepting attention from other apologists and a few critics, there is no other body of work more ignored and uncared about by the rest of the world than Mopologetics.

I disagree. Anti-Mormonism is far less cared for, even by those who don't espouse Mormon ideologies.

So there has to be some supporting output, output intended to further the work of apologetics while not exactly being apologetics.

So stuff that isn't apologetic, but is apologetic. Thus all Mormons are simpletons who desire nothing more than to validate their ideologies to the world. They can think they're not, but they're too stupid to succeed. No matter what they're doing, they're trying to defend Mormonism. Bravo.

There is, in fact, tier 2 apologetics. This comes in a couple different flavors. To take a non-Mopolo example, there is ID in some circles, "flavor A" tier 2 that is very little different from tier 3 except for the fact it denies its goals, "No, this is just a, uh, an extension of information theory from statistics or electrical engineering, doesn't really have anything to do with religion per se." And then "flavor B" which goes for more nuance and may even have some real-world credibility. A hypothetical example here will do. Let's say there are two scientific theories, q and v. Irrespective of which one is more popular, if q for some reason is friendlier to apologetic beliefs than v, even if the friendliness is somewhat superficial, the apologists will be fans of q. Alternatively they will invent their own q level theories and publish them. Dots may later be connected explicitly at tier 3.

Wouldn't this just be the ruminations of Tier 3, then? You're claiming it invariably results in Tier 3 apologetics, so why differentiate?

Finally, there is tier 1. Tier one may find an analogy in a "service mission".

So all work done by Mormons has ulterior motives. I'm glad someone as transcendent as you tell us you are is around to tell us how shallow and stupid we are.

A non-Mopolo example here would be the Christian Science Monitor. Some quotes that underscore the basic idea from this article:

Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisers who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.[2]

The Monitor's inception was, in part, a response by Eddy to the journalism of her day, which relentlessly covered the sensations and scandals surrounding her new religion with varying degrees of accuracy.

The paper has been known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism".

From FARMS, METI is the ultimate tier 1. You can virtually substitute FARMS/Mormonism etc. in the above quotes.

Since you've decided to throw your apologetic blanket over anything any Mormon has ever or will ever do, since it without exception, has underhanded motivations.

The ultimate point of tiering ones apologetics is to maximize scope. tier 2 has a wider audience than tier 3 and tier 1 wider than tier 2. The apologetic hand is best played when the tiers run as pure and independent of each other as possible.

But if METI never engages any LDS question or promotes any LDS doctrines at all, and is written completely by non-LDS scholars, how does it "maximize scope"? You've defined Tier 1 apologetics so as to encapsulate any actions done by Mormons that don't fall into any of the other two categories, but then you claim the intention of Tier 1 apologetics is something clearly disparate to the vast majority of the actions of Latter-day Saints. How do you reconcile those two definitions, and why would anyone take seriously such an ad hoc and juvenile attempt at petty marginalization?

[_Gadianton]

You're claiming it invariably results in Tier 3 apologetics, so why differentiate?

"Flavor A" comes close. Though, sterilized enough could end up in some textbooks. "Flavor B" can be completely detached. For instance, polytheism or henotheism in the Old Testament (or whatever you guys call it) is a lucky superficial similarity to the Mormon concept of God having a father and us being his "downline", a concept that was not inspired by nor ever had anything to do with the Old Testament.

So all work done by Mormons has ulterior motives.

No. But all work by Mopologists does, especially when published by Mopologetic venues. It's kind of like, every single minute of service performed by a missionary during their "service hours" also has ulterior motives.

But if METI never engages any LDS question or promotes any LDS doctrines at all, and is written completely by non-LDS scholars, how does it "maximize scope"?

You're a natural Mak. See, you understand very well that the tiers need to be separated as much as possible in order to be effective. At this very low level, the MI is "softening 'em up". Giving them a freebee. Putting the name and reputation of the MI onto something legitimate. You did read the quote about the CS Monitor? I can't believe you don't see what I'm talking about.

Tier 1 apologetics so as to encapsulate any actions done by Mormons that don't fall into any of the other two categories

No I haven't. Certainly I've encapsulated all the work done at the MI. I'm not talking about Mormons in general, but Mopologists. I know you're a convert and an Internet Mormon, but there is another distinct sect of Mormonism with a far greater membership that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this post(though they lend their analogies such as missionary work).

[_maklelan]

You're claiming it invariably results in Tier 3 apologetics, so why differentiate?

"Flavor A" comes close. Though, sterilized enough could end up in some textbooks. "Flavor B" can be completely detached. For instance, polytheism or henotheism in the Old Testament (or whatever you guys call it) is a lucky superficial similarity to the Mormon concept of God having a father and us being his "downline", a concept that was not inspired by nor ever had anything to do with the Old Testament.

Actually Yahweh was conceived of as El's son. Traditions also exist concerning Yahweh and El as progenitors of the human race and other gods. For starters, see the original version of Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82, as well as Deut 32:6 (qoneka, by the way, means "who begot you"), Gen 4:1 (see previous note) and Norman Habel's 1972 paper "Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth," and I'll thank you to let me worry about what is and is not in the Bible. Yes, I know you need to make sure I feel marginalized by categorizing my particular brand of "apologetics," but spare me the little puppet show.

No. But all work by Mopologists does, especially when published by Mopologetic venues. It's kind of like, every single minute of service performed by a missionary during their "service hours" also has ulterior motives.

That's not true at all. I did hundreds of hours of service on my mission without ever mentioning the church. I honestly wanted to serve other people and make them happy. My mission president didn't at all disapprove. Why don't you gather facts instead of just inventing them?

You're a natural Mak. See, you understand very well that the tiers need to be separated as much as possible in order to be effective. At this very low level, the MI is "softening 'em up". Giving them a freebee. Putting the name and reputation of the MI onto something legitimate. You did read the quote about the CS Monitor? I can't believe you don't see what I'm talking about.

Not a word of this engages my question, but it does make quite a few fantastical assumptions.

No I haven't. Certainly I've encapsulated all the work done at the MI.

Untrue. Christian Heals work with Syriac manuscripts has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mormon, nor does Dan Peterson's association with the Maimonides publication. You're simply making up facts because that makes it easier for you to validate your presuppositions.

I'm not talking about Mormons in general, but Mopologists. I know you're a convert and an Internet Mormon,

I'll thank you not to tell me what kind of Mormon I am. You don't the first thing about my relationship with Christ and with his church. Mormonism is easier for you to marginalize if the membership is compartmentalized in as few neat little tidy packages as possible, but I'm surprised that you would presume to assert your transcendent opinion and at the same time aver that there are only two types of Mormons, and that you know which kind I am based on these few posts. What utterly infantile rhetoric.

but there is another distinct sect of Mormonism with a far greater membership that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this post(though they lend their analogies such as missionary work).

Again, try engaging facts instead of making up ones that support your presuppositions.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I'll thank you not to tell me what kind of Mormon I am. You don't the first thing about my relationship with Christ and with his church.

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

[_why me]

Let me make it simple: apologists seek to defend their faith and their church. End of story. Now of course, anyone who defends their faith is against the wall for the simple reason that all religion depends on faith and not evidence.

Now with the LDS church we have 11 witnesses and their wives as a testament of what they signed their name to. Plus, we have Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat to translate a book or write it. Lets see a raise of hands now: who on this forum will sign their name to a document knowing that the translator stuck his head in a hat to translate that book knowing full well it is a fraud? I thought so...no one.

[_why me]

I'll thank you not to tell me what kind of Mormon I am. You don't the first thing about my relationship with Christ and with his church.

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

Do you have proof? I don't think that you do.

[_maklelan]

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

I got no memo, but I couldn't really care less what you have to say about Christ.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

Do you have proof? I don't think that you do.

You're right. Nor do I have any proof that Peter Pan, Frankenstein, or Superman aren't real. You believe in those too, right?

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

I got no memo, but I couldn't really care less what you have to say about Christ.

Come on, man. You have to know that it's BS by now.