Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Morley]

the apologist who seeks the role of teacher is a type of apologist.

Sorry, you lost me.

[Morley]

the apologist who seeks the role of teacher is a type of apologist.

Sorry, you lost me.

Okay. As you can see by the timestamps, I let this percolate for a while.

I think that maybe what you're trying to say Is that even when an apologist tries to come across as a teacher, they're still inevitably just engaging in apologetics. Do have have it right?

If so, I agree--and apologize for missing your meaning.

[Whiskey]

the apologist who seeks the role of teacher is a type of apologist.

Sorry, you lost me.

Okay. As you can see by the timestamps, I let this percolate for a while.

I think that maybe what you're trying to say Is that even when an apologist tries to come across as a teacher, they're still inevitably just engaging in apologetics. Do have have it right?

If so, I agree--and apologize for missing your meaning.

I see some apologists as wanna-be teachers. They know so much they can't wait to teach you.

Some apologists see themselves as the professor. They did so much original research and are such an authority. You are so welcome if they are available to show you the fruits of their giant brains.

Some apologists see themselves as the Ray Donovan of the moment or topic. Here to fix it. You are welcome.

Some think there is a celebrity seat for the best explainer or host. Dehlin is like that for the postmos.

Some think they are the goddamn savior and general of the cause. Reiner fits that type as a liberal whackass apologist. Midgley had some of that.

[bill4long]

Okay. As you can see by the timestamps, I let this percolate for a while.

I think that maybe what you're trying to say Is that even when an apologist tries to come across as a teacher, they're still inevitably just engaging in apologetics. Do have have it right?

If so, I agree--and apologize for missing your meaning.

I see some apologists as wanna-be teachers. They know so much they can't wait to teach you.

Some apologists see themselves as the professor. They did so much original research and are such an authority. You are so welcome if they are available to show you the fruits of their giant brains.

Some apologists see themselves as the Ray Donovan of the moment or topic. Here to fix it. You are welcome.

Some think their is a celebrity seat for the best explainer or host. Dehlin is like that for the postmos.

Some think they are the goddamn savior and general of the cause. Reiner fits that type as a liberal whackass apologist. Midgley had some of that.

I have a little saying I like to say to myself from time to time, inspired by the great Chris Rock of yesteryear:

Fee Fi Foe Follagist, Gosh Darn, I hate an apologist.

[Marcus]

The constant tension between apologists/faithful and critics has a strange dynamic that appears to rise from the cultural influence to avoid the appearance of confrontation. But I have witnessed many meltdowns on social media by very prominent believing content creators and critics. The difference? The believing side will almost always go back and delete their comments and pretend it didn't happen. Some of them weaved a tapestry of obscenity that rivaled any locker room talk. I had it happen to myself from a believing co-worker that called me a lying POS...

This is what completely astonished me. I have never in my life read (and had to look up in the dictionary!!) as many sexually based slurs and insults as the ones slung around by Mormon apologists.

I don't experience, anywhere in my life, the level of straight up insults, attacks, and nasty language that I've seen from mopologists. Even in the Bronx. I get the sense that some Mormons are still incredibly immature and that writing a bad word or phrase gives them some air of danger. And I do mean "writing," not using in real life. I am quite sure that if "Bukake" Smoot was standing in front of me and was asked to explain himself, he would literally rather melt into the floor than say out loud some of the sexually based insults and innuendo he's written.

[Rivendale]

There is definitely neoteny in epidemic proportion in Mormonism. It is curated from a very young age with the purity culture. The odd thing is the retraction. I am sure it is guilt coupled with fear of professional or social repercussions. But that isn't what is interesting. It is the inefficiency of the one true church on the face of the Earth to prevent this. Bukake Smoot is only one example. I have seen it with the wives of the apologists, I have seen it with the children of the apologists.

[Physics Guy]

There is probably a range of different kinds of apologist. I think that most are probably trying to some degree, though, to be seen as teachers, just because teaching is one of the few roles in which one is allowed to say things and have them presumed true by default. The teacher is supposed to know things that the pupils don't, so if the teacher says something that doesn't seem obviously true, and doesn't support it well, still the pupils assume that it must be their fault because they are ignorant.

Actual teachers need and deserve that kind of authority, at least up to a point. Sometimes teachers rely too much on authority, and declare things that could and should instead be explained, but there's nothing worse than the kind of smart-aleck student who doesn't know anything yet constantly picks stupid fights with the teacher. Few things worth learning are so immediately obvious that you can understand them without listening for a while to the teacher. Lots of people, and not just apologists, would like to have that kind of respectful attention.

Apologists just seem likely to want a teacher's authority even more than most people, in direct proportion to how much authority they need to bolster their defence of a doubtful position. I never paid much attention to Rush Limbaugh, but I glanced at his show a few times years ago, flipping channels, and saw his titles in bookstores when they were selling. I had the impression that he was indeed partly posing as a knowledgeable authority explaining things to the ignorant.

More than that, though, Limbaugh seemed to be making assertions that wouldn't be challenged because his audience already believed them, and those who didn't believe them weren't going to be listening, anyway. Preaching to the choir like that isn't apologetics, but it can be apologetics theatre: a performance that is supposed to look like effective apologetics, at least to people who really want to see some effective apologetics.

I reckon that in practice there's a lot of overlap between apologetics and apologetics theatre. For one thing there's a human instinct to go along with the group, and so if a big enough group is applauding the show then people are inclined to join in the approval, allowing apologetics theatre to work as apologetics after all. The emperor's clothes are magnificent.

If apologists are apt to be tense and edgy, because they're attempting a frustrating task, the performers of apologetics theatre are probably even more anxious, because somebody saying the wrong thing at just the wrong time can destroy their whole show.

[Limnor]

I’ve imagined apologists viewing themselves as being like Amulek or Alma, or even Jesus confronting Pharisees. The inner dialogue might be, “It looks so effortless, so why isn’t it? It’s supposed to be easy, and the spirit is supposed to guide you—it reads very simply and straightforward in the books, why isn’t it working for me?!”

I’ve sometimes wondered how I would go about presenting a defense of the book, Joseph, and the institution.

I think I’d offer right up front that the history is messy, but then gloss over those facts by concentrating on the message, and then dive into, and maintain, that any evaluation must include personal revelation for it to have any meaning. And then I’d leave the discussion.

Which I realize would probably leave a critic unsatisfied, since it effectively moves the discussion out of shared criteria. But that would be part of the design. “How can an otherwise reasonable person believe this?” becomes part of the pitch.

It becomes a power play around authority, and almost role-playing, because you will have shifted the ground rules. I can even see having fun doing it, but I’d feel a bit greasy afterwards.

[Markk]

I don't experience, anywhere in my life, the level of straight up insults, attacks, and nasty language that I've seen from mopologists. Even in the Bronx. I get the sense that some Mormons are still incredibly immature and that writing a bad word or phrase gives them some air of danger. And I do mean "writing," not using in real life. I am quite sure that if "Bukake" Smoot was standing in front of me and was asked to explain himself, he would literally rather melt into the floor than say out loud some of the sexually based insults and innuendo he's written.

LoL...Go read some of the stuff you have written to me. Reading through this thread I was almost genuinely laughing out loud.

Now stop, take a deep breath, hold your hands to your side so you do not type what you want to write, what is in your heart.

Kish writes as if he screws up once in a while and kind steps over the line, when he is one of the nastiest offenders of what he is whining about.

We all have tribal opinions. But most of us here also have a "divisive spirit" a contentious spirit for debate....why, I have no idea, but it is who we are and for what ever that reason is, we like to mix it up with folks that disagree with us. It is not like we aren't looking for it.

Scratch can't wait to issue a yearly summery of how Mopologists are screwed up and everybody loves it.

Many of us here have been doing it to each other on varies forums since the invention of the internet forum. In fact we are truly pioneers of being internet assholes. Some of us have perfected it more than others.

Kish has a long history of saying stupid, mean, nasty stuff, then lashes out, and then flip to the other side of his bell curve and act like he is is sorry or something, and it is not really him.

His OP deserves a huge Blah blah blah.

[Gadianton]

I think PG had some good observations in general. The inevitable counter is that anybody arguing for anything at all can be labeled an apologist. See whiskey. Even the way I teach long division could be labeled as apologetics by someone who prefers a different method. There is no absolute demarcation between apologetics and whatever else. We could ask what is meant exactly by apologetics; if it’s just bad reasoning then it’s not a very useful label. If it’s not possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then I think it’s a problematic label. However, if it is possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then the problem isn’t that it’s apologetics per se.

I think a starting point is: does the apologist consider themselves an apologist? It’s not unusual, and so how do they view what they do as qualifying the label? That way if whiskey wants to make it about anything at all any person justifies then it could be said he’s in serious disagreement with those he’s trying to defend.