Defending the Absurd takes a toll?

[Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Robbers is correct. It’s not defending the LDS Church per se that makes the Mopologists into horrible, combative people, but they do seem to be drawn to it based on aggressive aspects of their personalities. And I get that there is a temptation to make generalizations about them, and we can certainly do that: almost all of them are male, for example. They tend to have a “nerd” aspect to their demeanor and a weird obsession with academic credentials—so much so that it comes across as an insecurity. Like they fear that people will believe that they are “morons” for believing in Mormonism, and so this is a form of compensation. They pretty much universally seem to enjoy being cruel to others and seem to get some kind of warped validation from hurting other people via putting them down or making them look dumb or other demeaning things.

[malkie]

I don't think it's defending the Church that makes Mopologists act the way they do. There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect, grace, and a genuine goal of kindness (we all fall short at times). For example; I think anyone here who has had the pleasure of dialoging with Kevin Barney would be hard pressed to think of an instance where he was aggressive or harassing.

I don't believe it's so much that defending the Church makes them act the way they do; I think it's more-so that they feel it gives them license to do so. It's why they eagerly attack even fellow members with the same mordant disregard for civility. This is speaking partially from my own personal experience defending the Church, and the infinite echos of shame when I think of my own unkindness towards some -- I felt justified in my dismissive and rude attacks on some critics.

I can see that.

Not that I have any room to judge, but one practice that caused me some distress was that of attacking someone, and then when called on it justifying the attack because "they deserved it". And doubling down when it was suggested that attacking someone because "they deserved it" was not a very Christian thing to do.

If someone is going to quote me, I would hope that they would include and comment on what I wrote, and not include only my quoting someone else.

But, hey - whatever, right?

[MG 2.0]

If someone is going to quote me, I would hope that they would include and comment on what I wrote, and not include only my quoting someone else.

Apologies.

Hope all is well with you.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Dr. Robbers is correct. It’s not defending the LDS Church per se that makes the Mopologists into horrible, combative people, but they do seem to be drawn to it based on aggressive aspects of their personalities. And I get that there is a temptation to make generalizations about them, and we can certainly do that: almost all of them are male, for example. They tend to have a “nerd” aspect to their demeanor and a weird obsession with academic credentials—so much so that it comes across as an insecurity. Like they fear that people will believe that they are “morons” for believing in Mormonism, and so this is a form of compensation. They pretty much universally seem to enjoy being cruel to others and seem to get some kind of warped validation from hurting other people via putting them down or making them look dumb or other demeaning things.

Yes, those are gross generalizations. Unfortunately there is a bit more of that going on around here than I think is healthy.

Hasn’t there been a fairly recent uptick in female apologists over the last few years?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't think it's defending the Church that makes Mopologists act the way they do. There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect

While that's true, those who aren't combative fade out from critic interaction pretty fast. Critics can be combative, but at a certain point, there just aren't any great defenses and so even if the critic is patient, nice apologists tend to fall off the edge of the earth.

In recent years there has been a move towards supportive ‘in house’ organizational structures, such as the one linked to below, to give an outlet and/or meaning for those that have impulses to reach a bit beyond the normal confines of the organizational church. There is support for those who may struggle with their faith or other issues.

I think the days of hard nose apologetics are going to be viewed through the rearview mirror. Except in certain isolated circles such as this one.

The world of Mormonism has been changing and leaving some of the hardcore mean folks behind to fight it out in the back room. Most folks are either hanging out at church or are finding venues such as this:

https://faithmatters.org/

to reach out and hang with other supportive saints.

By the way, someone brought up female voices. If you scroll through the list of folks in the link you will see that more and more voices are women’s voices.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I think the days of hard nose apologetics are going to be viewed through the rearview mirror. Except in certain isolated circles such as this one.

Mopologetics was like mile post "274" flying by at 90 mph. Most didn't even see it, and certainly, "isolated circles like this one" were the only venues to engage at all.

From the family reunions and occasional visits with friends in Utah, I only got puzzled looks from cautious queries about FARMS. Sure, everyone knew who Hugh Nibley was, but nobody seemed to know what FARMS was. And everyone knew who Rodney Meldrum is, though I never even brought him up. In fact, some of my relatives are highly involved with him.

In the grand scheme of things, Mopologetics was DOA.

But we must credit the Mopologists for trying. Though they might have failed and embarrassed themselves, like the kid who trips in the hall and his Star Wars lunch box bursts open and a half-rotten banana and peanut butter sandwich become soccer practice for the big kids, giving rise to merciless finger-pointing and laughter for the rest of the school year; they still tried. Few people have ever burned their legit academic credentials to pursue such a load of disgraceful pseudoscience. But you know what? they can be proud of themselves for bringing the best evidential defense for Mormonism that it's ever going to get.

The nonsense fluff you're linking to is absolutely the superior strategy for an authoritarian institution to keep its members under wraps. Meldrum's stuff may be even more effective by reducing to nationalism and identity politics. But the old-guard apologists produced actual real arguments, something nobody else has done and may never do again.

If the course continues as you suggest, there will be no list of names comparable to the list you rattled off for your grandkids to recite. They aren't going to remember the name of faceless correlation hires who produce propaganda designed by outside consultants who are essentially experts at lying to stupid people. But they may be faithful and sheered alive for every last tithe dollar for all of their days until the end. Won't that be exciting.

Nonsense that it may have been shown to be, the works of the Mopologists might be the only material the Mormon Church ever produced that deserved a first glance at all.

[Moksha]

Critics can be combative, but at a certain point, there just aren't any great defenses and so even if the critic is patient, nice apologists tend to fall off the edge of the earth.

That only shows the critic's force of gravity is impaired when it comes to nice apologists, but have you tried running them through a magnetometer? Also, there is the question of Ph. Interpreter level apologists seem to be more acidic.

[bill4long]

Humans tend to defend whatever they are committed and/or bonded to for a lot of reasons. Religion is only one reason.

Surely you're noticed this before.

Peace

[MG 2.0]

The nonsense fluff you're linking to is absolutely the superior strategy for an authoritarian institution to keep its members under wraps.

Reductionist strategy.

The ‘fluff’ is not connected with the church. It’s an independent group of like minded people. A support group of sorts.

Faith Matters is not an authoritarian structure. You’re blowing smoke/BS.

[Future generations] aren't going to remember the name of faceless correlation hires who produce propaganda designed by outside consultants who are essentially experts at lying to stupid people.

Wow. Here come the deplorables.

But they may be faithful and sheered alive for every last tithe dollar for all of their days until the end. Won't that be exciting.

Silly sheep, right?

Your arrogance is showing.

I don’t think you read my post except to use it as a jumping off point for pointless preaching.

If anything, in regards to Faith Matters, it’s a place of inoculation. A place to learn how to deal with issues through the lens of faith.

https://faithmatters.org/

You don’t have to scroll farther than three headers down to find a discussion on Fowler’s Stages of Faith (Jana Spangler). Very worthwhile discussion for those hanging out in stage three and feeling overwhelmed. That you see this kind of ‘apologetics’ as being fluff and designed for ‘stupid people’ says more about you than those that look forward in faith rather than doubt.

Folks are in many cases already aware of issues that can create doubt. Learning strategies that can help alleviate and/or buffer against doubt is preferable to those that wish to maintain their faith in God and the church restoration narrative rather than taking a route that ends up in a place of nihilism or lack of belief in a creator.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

@ the Mormon apoLOLgists


- Doc