Do Maklelan, BC, MG & Co Ever Have Doubts?

[_maklelan]

Not a professional one in the sense Dr. Peterson et. al. are, but you certainly engage in apologetics here in the sense of one who defends the reasonableness of a faith.

I don't defend the reasonableness of the faith, I correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of the leadership and its members. And we've had enough definitions of "apologist" provided by the ex-Mormons and non-Mormons here to know better than to think that generic sense is the one intended. Don't equivocate.

[_EAllusion]

Not a professional one in the sense Dr. Peterson et. al. are, but you certainly engage in apologetics here in the sense of one who defends the reasonableness of a faith.

I don't defend the reasonableness of the faith, I correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of the leadership and its members. And we've had enough definitions of "apologist" provided by the ex-Mormons and non-Mormons here to know better than to think that generic sense is the one intended. Don't equivocate.

I think the first half of your comment is a tomayto, tomahtoing situation. The second half doesn't mirror my experience here at all. Whenever I hear the term "apologist" here I think of someone who defends the reasonableness of faith. There is a widely used, more loaded term here - mopologist - to refer to what you are describing.

[_EAllusion]

i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's why they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.

That's certainly true of some people. We know this if only because some of those fervent defenders of the faith have apostasized and later in retrospect described what they were doing as just that.

I don't think this captures everyone though. Some people are straight up trolling. I think for some apologetics becomes more of a game they are trying to win rather than discourse aimed at cultivating truth. For others still it is just their personality to be strident in whatever they defend. Others are just incredibly confident in their own beliefs for whatever reason. They legitimately attribute disagreement to malice or willful ignorance and that annoys them. Outsiders can see the irony, but that doesn't change their own perceptions.

[_maklelan]

I think the first half of your comment is a tomayto, tomahtoing situation.

Then provide a better definition. I make a point of never pretending that religious faith is logical. It's not.

The second half doesn't mirror my experience here at all. Whenever I hear the term "apologist" here I think of someone who defends the reasonableness of faith. There is a widely used, more loaded term here - mopologist - to refer to what you are describing.

"Apologist" gets plenty of that kind of play. Moreso than the generic use. It's a label I don't think applies to me, and I consider it intentionally pejorative. That's never been a secret. I've made that known numerous times. I make an effort to use terminology other people want me to use if I have to put a label on them. I would appreciate it if people here would extend me the same courtesy and not insult everyone's intelligence by pretending they don't mean anything by it.

[_EAllusion]

Then provide a better definition. I make a point of never pretending that religious faith is logical. It's not.

I'm not sure if how you are dividing up the conceptual space here, but to the extent you don't think your belief is a problem to have you necessarily think that it is reasonable to hold the religious views you and your peers do. You make arguments aimed at advancing that position and it is reasonable to call that apologetics. I'm not sure if you are making a distinction between "logical" and "reasonable" here, but it is unnecessary in this context. If you are claim your own faith is unreasonable to hold, that's an incoherent assertion and straight blasphemy within the confines of the faith you subscribe to.

I don't think "apologist" is a pejorative on this board or in general. I think "mopologist" is. That's the other side of the coin to "anti-Mormon." People obviously express contempt for specific apologists or apologetics, but that doesn't mean the term isn't being used with its basic meaning.

As I'm sure you are aware, the term generally has a sour connotation in academia because the content of apologetics is so frequently filled with bad and mendacious argumentation. Asserting someone is doing apologetics in an academic field is instantly evocative of sketchy arguments born out of the corrupting influence of religious biases. As such, academics tend not to like to be accused of doing apologetics unless they are in the field of philosophy of religion.

[_Sanctorian]

I don't defend the reasonableness of the faith, I correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of the leadership and its members.

If that's why you're here, you're doing a horrible job. Every time you claim someone's conceptions and representations are "wrong", you fail to provide any substantial evidence to back up your claims and hide behind "I'm not at liberty to share". As far as I can tell, and we can take a poll on this, you have never once corrected any single alleged misconception or misrepresentation.

You might be good at Bible studies and languages, but when it comes to backing up your claims of insider knowledge, you fail miserably. Which is the very reason why you have failed to "correct" our "misconceptions" and "misrepresentations". Once again you make assertations that have no basis in reality.

[_Bazooka]

I have a theory about Maklelan and his postings here.

I think he comes here to quell his own faith doubts and cognitive dissonance by defending the Church on subjects he himself finds problematic.

No, I don't think I've ever come here and commented on the issues that personally challenge me.

Sort of like cauterising a wound.

When he realises the blood flow is simply too great (see the thread about a Universal Flood being Church doctrine) he disappears for a time.

It's just a theory, and I may be doing him a massive disservice.
He may simply have periods when he's too busy or on a plane etc that just happen to coincide with discussions where he has backed himself into a blatantly untenable position....

I've been in the South Pacific for a couple weeks. Please forgive me for not remaining dedicated to that riveting discussion. I promise you you've never seen me backed into a blatantly untenable position.

I Look forward to you re-engaging your position that a literal, global flood is not official doctrine...

[_Tator]

Whenever I hear the term "apologist" here I think of someone who defends the reasonableness of faith. There is a widely used, more loaded term here - mopologist - to refer to what you are describing.

+++++++ hammer meets nail head

[_maklelan]

I'm not sure if how you are dividing up the conceptual space here, but to the extent you don't think your belief is a problem to have you necessarily think that it is reasonable to hold the religious views you and your peers do.

Not necessarily.

You make arguments aimed at advancing that position and it is reasonable to call that apologetics.

I already stated my preference here. It's not unreasonable.

I'm not sure if you are making a distinction between "logical" and "reasonable" here, but it is unnecessary in this context. If you are claim your own faith is unreasonable to hold, that's an incoherent assertion and straight blasphemy within the confines of the faith you subscribe to.

I don't think "apologist" is a pejorative on this board or in general.

You are wrong. It very much is, and particularly because it's how posters here rhetorically lump me together with people like BC and others.

I think "mopologist" is. That's the other side of the coin to "anti-Mormon."

And when people started asking not to be called "critics" I was happy to try to use other terminology. It's not too much to ask that people here don't sneer "apologist" at me when they know it's a label I reject. Maybe that's not how you use it, but it's certainly how the majority of people here who use it in reference to me are using it, and that's how it comes across to me.

People obviously express contempt for specific apologists or apologetics, but that doesn't mean the term isn't being used with its basic meaning.

As I'm sure you are aware, the term generally has a sour connotation in academia because the content of apologetics is so frequently filled with bad and mendacious argumentation. Asserting someone is doing apologetics in an academic field is instantly evocative of sketchy arguments born out of the corrupting influence of religious biases. As such, academics tend not to like to be accused of doing apologetics unless they are in the field of philosophy of religion.

And my dislike of the term has never been a secret here. I don't think it's too much to ask.

[_maklelan]

I Look forward to you re-engaging your position that a literal, global flood is not official doctrine...

My position has been made and hasn't really been seriously challenged. You've just put on your rhetorical puppet show, but you've not really directly engaged my points. You've just shown over and over that you think you can reconstruct the nature of the LDS worldview from a few selective historical quotes and a lot of ignorance and antagonism.