The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Gentle Readers,

I have noticed over the course of posting here there is a typical Mormon "apologist modus operandi (M.O.)" when it comes to debating all things Mormon. There has developed, without a doubt, a certain kind of protocol that they, I suppose, inadvertantly follow. Here is my humble take on Mormon apologists and their M.O. when confronted with a particular problematic point:

a) Attack the critic and his/her sources in order to change the subject of discussion away from the topic and onto the critic or the critic's sources.

b) Use victimology once the attacks are returned. This is pretty clever in that the focus shifts now to the poor apologist and away from the substance of the debate. This is, without a doubt, a particular apologist's sublime ability.

c) If a point is too well documented to reject then just say, "So what. It was never a big deal to begin with." This one reminds me of a particularly inane apologist that I shall decline to name.

d) Claim victory regardless. If you tell a big enough lie often enough then your begin to convince the masses you have a point. No one has the time to perpetually poor over hundreds of pages of debate, and a believer will tend to take an apologist's word at face value rather than doing the research.

e) Run away. Once the apologist "wins" or "gets bored" he will leave for a period. I think we all know who practices this one on occasion.

f) At the end of the day bear one's testimony. This moves the discussion to an emotive based discussion and everything becomes relative. Rationality is no longer a basis upon which "truth" can be ascertained.

Feel free to add anything I may haver left out.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Actually, this sounds a lot like the critics of Mormonism as well. I think that what you are really dealing with is a certain kind of dialogue which occurs repeatedly in Internet forums and is generally symptomatic on both sides. I think we can find examples of these points from lots of non-LDS apologists right here in these forums. And these issues, I think, tend to be caused more by the medium than by anything else.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. McGuire,

Perhaps you provided another point? The "But they do it, too!" tactic? Could you provide an example of what you're saying, perhaps from this board? This would help clarify your point a bit.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Dr. Shades]

Actually, this sounds a lot like the critics of Mormonism as well.

No it doesn't, and you know it.

I think that what you are really dealing with is a certain kind of dialogue which occurs repeatedly in Internet forums and is generally symptomatic on both sides.

That is a false statement.

I think we can find examples of these points from lots of non-LDS apologists right here in these forums.

What non-LDS apologists populate these boards? Are you talking about Evangelical Christian critics of Mormonism?

[_Thama]

a) Attack the critic and his/her sources in order to change the subject of discussion away from the topic and onto the critic or the critic's sources.

Fair, but it isn't just the apologists that pull this. There is enough attacking on both sides to go around. The problem is that each side feels like the insults they direct toward the other side are simply cases of "telling it like it is", and so the other side's reactions are a matter of oversensitivity.

b) Use victimology once the attacks are returned. This is pretty clever in that the focus shifts now to the poor apologist and away from the substance of the debate. This is, without a doubt, a particular apologist's sublime ability.

Once again, there is plenty of victimology on both sides. Can't really go farther without naming names.

c) If a point is too well documented to reject then just say, "So what. It was never a big deal to begin with." This one reminds me of a particularly inane apologist that I shall decline to name.

Can't argue with this one.

d) Claim victory regardless. If you tell a big enough lie often enough then your begin to convince the masses you have a point. No one has the time to perpetually poor over hundreds of pages of debate, and a believer will tend to take an apologist's word at face value rather than doing the research.

This is an inevitable consequence of the differing standards for victory that each side takes. The critic uses probability as his victory line (as in, there was almost certainly no race with Middle Eastern genetics that migrated to the Americas in pre-Colombian times), while the apologist uses plausibility as his (as in, it is still possible under certain conditions that there was a race with Middle Eastern genetics in the pre-Columbian Americas). As Mormons frequently point out, their standard for knowledge is spiritual, and secular research only supplements this knowledge (or maintains its plausibility). Both sides claim victory because both sides have achieved victory according to their own standards.

e) Run away. Once the apologist "wins" or "gets bored" he will leave for a period. I think we all know who practices this one on occasion.

This isn't fair at all. Some of us have lives outside the internet. Some of us have periods of time in which we can post frequently, and then we get busy for other periods. This applies to critic and apologist alike.

f) At the end of the day bear one's testimony. This moves the discussion to an emotive based discussion and everything becomes relative. Rationality is no longer a basis upon which "truth" can be ascertained.

I don't think that many of those that pull this can really be called apologists. These people are usually the sort that doesn't think that Mormon claims need to be defended rationally at all, and just pop into threads of debate, leave their spiritual nuggets, and get ignored.

[_StructureCop]

That is a false statement.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen the exact same dynamic occur in non-religious discussion forums. After all, Godwin's law existed before online LDS discussion forums. I think this is more of a human nature thing than a uniquely apologist/critic thing.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

You forgot the most important one: The apologist must never cast his pearls before swine. They just aren't worth his time. He is only here as a psychological exercise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would like to offer, as spectacular illustrations of Scratch's points, two issues of the FARMS Review:


1. FARMS Review 11/2 (1999) was entirely devoted to the book How Wide the Divide?, by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson, and features essays by non-Mormons as well as by Mormons.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2

2. And FARMS Review 14/1 (2002) was devoted largely to Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=14&num=1


As you read through the essays in these two issues of the FARMS Review, keep Scratch's notions of fallacious ad hominem argument, victimology, feigned indifference, hollow claims of victory, flight, and testimony-bearing in mind. When you've finished, you will, I'm confident, find yourself reflecting upon the concept of inanity (alluded to by Scratch himself in the sock puppet post above).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Let's see .... let's go to the recent discussion of Martha's book. And using the same list (although we are going to substitute the word apologist for critic). This isn't going to be an in-depth look at lots and lots of examples. I am simply going to provide a couple. It ought to be enough to demonstrate what I am talking about.

a) Attack the apologist and his/her sources in order to change the subject of discussion away from the topic and onto the apologist or the apologist's sources.

In the thread, Dr. Peterson provided links to a number of reviews of Martha's book. In response, we get this comment:

Actually, the reviews themselves say more about the credibility of the review authors than they say about Martha's credibility. A review is only someone's opinion, after all. It's not like any of them actually interviewed Martha, spent any amount of time with her, or lived in her skin.

You place altogether too much emphasis on reviews, but I suppose that's only to be expected, given your hobby.

An attack on A) the apologist, and B) the apologist's sources.

One of my favorites (directed at me personally) from another thread went like this:

If you are going to deny the parallels even exist deliberately, and belittle them as you have...then there is no point in discussing this with you. And I have no interest in looking at your web site further. You come across to me as a liar. I even suspect you are getting paid to spew your nonsense because I don't get the sense you are truly illogical, only when you want to argue as a Mormon apologist. Are there any honest Mormon apologists or is that an automatic oxymoron because of what is required to argue on behalf of Mormonism?

I love it. I must be rich. I am certainly irrational according to this poster.

Next:

b) Use victimology once the attacks are returned. This is pretty clever in that the focus shifts now to the poor critic and away from the substance of the debate. This is, without a doubt, a particular critic's sublime ability.

So we find this:

Having been a childhood victim of abuse myself, of which my parents were blissfully unaware, I can sympathize. Of course Martha's family was oblivious. If the abuse really happened and they were aware of it, it would be really stupid to admit it now. So the logical response in either case would be to deny and to seek to discredit the one who aired the family's dirty laundry.

This is a clear claim to victimhood (it isn't really an issue that it may be a legitimate claim to victimhood, it simply stands as what it is). It is also used to deflect from the real topic to something else.

Next:

c) If a point is too well documented to reject then just say, "So what. It was never a big deal to begin with." This one reminds me of a particularly inane critic that I shall decline to name.

This shows up in a statement like this one:

Yup, read them all the first time you posted them. So what? They were then, and they are now, still just someone's opinion.

And there we go.

Next:

d) Claim victory regardless. If you tell a big enough lie often enough then your begin to convince the masses you have a point. No one has the time to perpetually poor over hundreds of pages of debate, and a believer will tend to take a critic's word at face value rather than doing the research.

Which comes across in remarks like this one:

This is a false statement. The "reviewers" have done no such thing.

e) Run away. Once the critic "wins" or "gets bored" he will leave for a period. I think we all know who practices this one on occasion.

This one doesn't occur in that thread. However, I do note who has the last post ... but then it's more of a description of how things go over periods of time. I did like this comment from another thread:

I guess the reason I keep returning to MAD, after vacations, is that I really do like having an opposing viewpoint expressed. I think preaching to the choir results in sloppiness and carelessness. Being surrounded by yes men does no one any favors.

That sounds like much the same thing you are describing doesn't it? It certainly didn't come from an LDS apologist.

Finally:

f) At the end of the day bear one's testimony. This moves the discussion to an emotive based discussion and everything becomes relative. Rationality is no longer a basis upon which "truth" can be ascertained.

I think that this is simply a little game here. Because I think that you will find that most apologists are more than willing to talk about things rationally. We are often told how irrational we are - as I was in a recent discussion with one forum member here. But that irrationality was more based on a disagreement than anything else. On the other hand, one of the things that does occur is that there are a great many critics who are themselves believers of something (just not necessarily Mormonism). As one of them wrote:

In other words, for example I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, however I acknowledge that such a belief is inherently irrational because normally people don't rise from the dead after being crucified and in the tomb for 3 days. Therefore if someone wanted to argue that the non-believer's p.o.v. is more rational than mine in that regard I would simply agree, but then counter with: but I have rational reasons why I believe a supernatural event occured in this very unique case....

At the same time, to deal more directly with your point, I had a poster (who I quoted earlier) say this to me:

Maybe to your fellow Mormons this works, you delude yourself and will deny the obvious and somehow think this is rational argumentation.

It was a rational argument. But, somehow, rationality is based on a different standard to this person ...

At any rate, this ought to demonstrate my point. It is the medium of these discussions, the format, and the fact that the fine line between "critic" and "apologist" is merely which side of the battlefield you happen to be standing on, that makes these kinds of suggestions problematic.

Further more, I think (and this is clear to me from the other responses), everyone likes to think that they are somehow taking the high ground, but in fact, rarely is there one in these kinds of forums. Everyone wants to think that they are above the fray, but rarely do you actually see it.

Ben McGuire

[_Doctor Scratch]

I would like to offer, as spectacular illustrations of Scratch's points, two issues of the FARMS Review:


1. FARMS Review 11/2 (1999) was entirely devoted to the book How Wide the Divide?, by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson, and features essays by non-Mormons as well as by Mormons.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2

2. And FARMS Review 14/1 (2002) was devoted largely to Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=14&num=1


As you read through the essays in these two issues of the FARMS Review, keep Scratch's notions of fallacious ad hominem argument, victimology, feigned indifference, hollow claims of victory, flight, and testimony-bearing in mind. When you've finished, you will, I'm confident, find yourself reflecting upon the concept of inanity (alluded to by Scratch himself in the sock puppet post above).

Those are pretty poor examples, Dr. Peterson. Just two issues, out of all the many years that the FARMS Review has been around? That doesn't stack up very well against the thousands of pages that *do* fit with Doctor CamNC4Me's post. Further, his points relate to "debating all things Mormon." Can it really be said that the FARMS Review, with its rigged peer review process, and its almost purely solicitation-only publication policy, is engaged in anything resembling "debate"? I don't really think so. It seems to me that it is more of a polemical echo-chamber.

And Doctor Cam is a separate poster.