A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

[Guest]

For the uninitiated, here's a helpful guide for you when trying to engage a Mopologist on the Internet:

Flushing a topic:

Mopologists use a technique called "flushing". Essentially, if there's a post or topic that's particularly damaging to a truth claim one of two things happen. First, a Mopologist will use multiple sock puppet accounts to make inane comments on a thread to push the relevant post out of view. Secondly, their followers will log-in and make unrelated or silly comments to "flush" the post off the main page. The same thing can happen to a particular topic in which multiple threads will be started with the intent to flush the thread off the main page. On a heavily moderated forum like the MD&DB locking the thread accomplishes the same thing. If you don't see the thread, it is soon forgotten.

Derailing:

Mopologists will continually insert unrelated posts on a particularly damaging thread with the intent to make the thread about personality traits rather than the content being discussed. It's pretty easy to derail a thread when you simply insult the OP or other posters who're contributing to a substantive discussion. The goal is to be able to give a misinformed opinion, and then devolve the conversation into an unrelated personality driven argument.

Gathering in real life information to be used against you:

This is pretty self-explanatory. One can see how Mopologists react toward perceived enemies of the Church by simply Internet Stalking said enemies, and then using that information to go after them in real life. From families being contacted to ecclesiastical leaders being given a head's up Mopologists just aren't debating you on an Internet forum, but are actively gleaning information from you posts to use against you with real life consequences. A good example on this forum is how badly Mopologists want to know Doctor Scratch's in real life identity. It's been said over and over again that they'd go after him in real life.

Trolling:

Essentially the Mopologist, to ensure constructive Mormon dialogue is ignored will deliberately antagonize people through various techniques, but with the end game of amusing himself to no end without ever having addressed a topic on a substantive level. Mr. Daniel Peterson was probably one of the better Mopologists at this. He would claim an interest on a topic, but spend thousands of posts trolling a forum while clearly enjoying the attention. Another technique for "Trollpologists" is to use multiple sock puppet accounts thus extending their lifetime on a forum when their usernames have been placed on ignore, or have been identified as trolls. You'll see most Mopologists go through many, many usernames because of this.

Getting a Moderator position:

Many a Mopologist has attempted to get a Moderator position, so he or she can simply edit, delete, or move posts that are damaging to Mormonism. The end game usually is one of two things. It's either to make the forum irrelevant, and cause people to lose interest in it, or to create an echo chamber in which perceived derogatory information simply isn't allowed to exist. Censorship is the key for the Mopolomoderator which is why forums with limited moderation tend to have the most participation, and most useful dialogue vis a vis things Mormon.

-------------

Unfortunately for the Mopologists, they're in a bind. They're charged with, or they're self-appointed defenders of the indefensible. It's because they're on such shaky ground they're left with the above noted techniques to defend their nonsense. The best thing to do when engaging a Mopologist is to do nothing. They will generally avoid any discussion of historical value, or contemporary relevance. Their only goal is to get you to stop discussing Mormonism on your terms. They want you to rely on their Church's public affairs arm and "educational system" (wow, that has an Orwellian feel to it) for information related to Mormonism.

Please note a Mopologist is not a Mormon. Mopologists are, oddly enough, heretics or apostates... They just don't know it for the most part. The most important thing to a Mopologist is that the Church is True. Historical facts, doctrines, policies, and even the plain meaning of words have no bearing on the reality for a Mopologist which is this:

The Church is True.

A good example to the uninitiated is the Mopologist Apple Analogy. Let's say an apple represents Mormonism. When a Mopologist offers you an apple, it's an apple. Easy enough, no? Well, not so fast. When a critic offers you an apple, the Mopologist will tell you it's not an apple. It never was an apple. It's not the right color, shape, size, taste, and lacks the texture of an apple. In fact, what is an apple? Do apples even exist? Who is offering you this purported fruit (or is a vegetable?)? What is his motivation? He must be anti-apples. That man is a complete, uninformed idiot. Don't listen to him, and don't take that, whatever it is, from him. In fact, we must stop that man from offering this stuff to unsuspecting people, so let's censor him, and additionally, let's contact friends, family, employers, and church leaders reference his nefarious activities.

If you look at FAIR or Mopologetic blogs you'll see the ultimate form on the above-written behavior. They have complete control over their content, as they should, and they're free to do what they ultimately set out to do which is shooting the messenger, or publishing misinformation about their ideology (I won't call it Mormonism because it's so warped that it's can't begin to compare to it).

My take is simply this: Most Mopologists, who aren't mentally ill, don't believe in Mormonism the way other people who are faithful do. I think, for whatever reason, they're obligated to remain in Mormonism, and they start out with good intentions to defend their faith. When confronted with historical and contemporary facts, they begin to twist Mormonism to fit "The Church is True" imperative. At some point, they abandon their faith in historical and contemporary Mormonism, and create a Mormonism that fits such a twisted, or nuanced niche that they themselves would be labeled heretics if they were to espouse their Mormonism in Sunday School or during a Fast and Testimony meeting.

I've gotten to the point where I don't feel anything but sympathy for these men. It's a shame. They're prisoners to something that holds them in this church. They're not free. Hopefully, future defenders of Mormonism will calm down, accept facts for what they are, and then work within their own organization to transform it to a more honest, transparent, and empathetic church. Because right now, Mormon apologetics is a bitter fruit, and it does more harm than good.

- VRDRC

* Any edits are for grammar or spelling.

[_Dr. Shades]

My take is simply this: Most Mopologists, who aren't mentally ill, don't believe in Mormonism the way other people who are faithful do. I think, for whatever reason, they're obligated to remain in Mormonism, and they start out with good intentions to defend their faith. When confronted with historical and contemporary facts, they begin to twist Mormonism to fit "The Church is True" imperative. At some point, they abandon their faith in historical and contemporary Mormonism, and create a Mormonism that fits such a twisted, or nuanced niche that they themselves would be labeled heretics if they were to espouse their Mormonism in Sunday School or during a Fast and Testimony meeting.

That type of Mormonism is what we call "Internet Mormonism."

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

That's right! I forgot about how Mopologists reacted to the term Internet Mormon. They'd love to mainstream their brand of Internet Mormonism.

As Internet Mormonism progressively claims a greater and greater percentage of Mormonism as a whole, it will be interesting to see how Mormon culture changes--and how the LDS hierarchy reacts thereto.

Well, we've certainly seen the first salvo from Big Mormonism vis a vis Mr. Peterson's reassignment, or whatever they're calling it these days. Makes you wonder who the next one on the chopping block is...

- VRDRC

[_Kishkumen]

Cam,

You have done a decent job here of outlining some of the online strategies employed by LDS apologists. Stopping the conversation is perhaps the key strategy. Whatever it takes, stop the conversation. Second, discredit the person who says something inconsistent with the prevailing apologetic view of the question. Those two tools account for the bulk of online LDS apologetics.

On the other hand, there are a few good people out there who give me an entirely different, and largely positive view of Mormonism. If more apologists were like these good people, then it would blunt a great deal of the criticism dealt to the Church and its members. Not all, but much of it.

As for the Internet/Chapel divide, I still think there is something to this as a rough interpretive tool. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that many, many American and European Mormons have access to the Internet. Maybe it is easier to see Mormon diversity in a place where they are not under the gaze of their chapel peers and local leaders. If you saw them in the chapel, they would look like "Chapel Mormons," when in fact they believe and think all kinds of things that might surprise you.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The mopologists know they are playing with a losing hand and a lot of what they do is distraction and bluffing. It might be excusable if they were doing all this for something worthwhile and important but it's not so it's just sad.

[_SteelHead]

You forgot the:
Speaking as a Man or that's not official doctrine gambit.

[_bcspace]

For the uninitiated, here's a helpful guide for you when trying to engage a Mopologist on the Internet:

The guide to anti Mormon behavior is quite simple: paranoia to the extent they have to make up guides

Why don't you just address the issues and admit you're wrong when we call you on it? Why don't you present something that has actual meat instead of something that's too easily identified as a straw man, third hand account, ad hominem, or yellow journalism? Why just yesterday I encountered a post here that claimed Joseph Smith had "his hands down a 14 year old girl's pants".

[_Stormy Waters]

For the uninitiated, here's a helpful guide for you when trying to engage a Mopologist on the Internet:

The guide to anti Mormon behavior is quite simple: paranoia to the extent they have to make up guides

Why don't you just address the issues and admit you're wrong when we call you on it?

By 'admit your wrong', do you mean run away from the thread?

[_Bob Loblaw]

The guide to anti Mormon behavior is quite simple: paranoia to the extent they have to make up guides

Why don't you just address the issues and admit you're wrong when we call you on it? Why don't you present something that has actual meat instead of something that's too easily identified as a straw man, third hand account, ad hominem, or yellow journalism? Why just yesterday I encountered a post here that claimed Joseph Smith had "his hands down a 14 year old girl's pants".

Joseph Smith spent his youth looking for treasure by the use of a seer stone.
Joseph Smith used the same stone to "translate" a record full of anachronisms.
Joseph Smith falsely claimed to translate the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham.
Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women--some married--who were not his legal wife.
Joseph Smith concealed these relations from his wife, the husbands of the married women and the public.

Who needs "yellow journalism" (perhaps we should call you William Randolph Bcspace)?

[_Bob Loblaw]

By 'admit your wrong', do you mean run away from the thread?

That's funny. He claims there's no official doctrine but then disappears when he's shown to be wrong. As Rick Perry might say "Oops."