Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Gadianton]

This marks an important contribution to the literature and possibly a devastating blow to apologetics as the collective psyche of the apologists continues to be demystified. I've printed this installment out and have filed it away with my important papers. I suggest others do the same.

I think the main theories are covered very well here. I think the Perpetual Missionary Theory, or PMT, is especially promising. I think that missionaries who later become apologists learn their contempt for Chapel Mormonism in the field. While sitting in the home of an intellectual who is merely being polite by allowing the missionaries to have their say, the more combatitive types must smolder inside. They must be very upset over what seems to be so childishly put together in the discussions. It must make them very angry inside at the church to find themselves agreeing with the critical audience in many instances.

[_Scottie]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

[_Mister Scratch]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

How do you mean? I suppose I could see a critical variation on the "Righteous Warrior" within critics---i.e., those who are so pissed off at the Church that they make it a kind of "righteous" mission to criticize it. Somebody like Infymus would probably fit into that. On the other hand, how would you characterize member critics such as Rollo Tomasi or Jason Bourne or Harmony? What about Ray A? What about yourself, Scottie? While I have seen TBM apologists such as Scott Lloyd claim that all critics are alike, or that they all fit into certain categories, I'm unaware of any actual taxonomies.

[_Scottie]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

How do you mean? I suppose I could see a critical variation on the "Righteous Warrior" within critics---i.e., those who are so pissed off at the Church that they make it a kind of "righteous" mission to criticize it. Somebody like Infymus would probably fit into that. On the other hand, how would you characterize member critics such as Rollo Tomasi or Jason Bourne or Harmony? What about Ray A? What about yourself, Scottie? While I have seen TBM apologists such as Scott Lloyd claim that all critics are alike, or that they all fit into certain categories, I'm unaware of any actual taxonomies.

I would say the same thing about apologists. I find it FAR too simplistic to try and hammer any single apologist into the molds you've listed above.

Also, I find your explanation of the Debate Addict, The person enjoys the nasty, aggressive back-and-forth, and thus engages in Mopologetics, incorrect. Why do they have to be nasty and aggressive? I'd dare say ALL of us are debate addicts. Few of us are nasty and aggressive.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm assuming the Righteous Warrior stands in opposition to the Nerd. The Nerd wants to win by beating down critics with degrees while the Righteous Warrior is that meathead from high school who would have no problem seeing the streets run red with the blood of apostates.

Righteous Warrior example: Will Schryver in his "Wheat" persona

Huh. That is a very interesting way of looking at it. (And I recommend that you look at the revisions I have made to the taxonomy thus far). And, I like what you are doing here. It will definitely be useful to see just how and where individual Mopologists fit into this. Where, for example, would we put somebody like Juliann? Or Jan? Will we need to create another theory for them?

[_Mister Scratch]

I would say the same thing about apologists. I find it FAR too simplistic to try and hammer any single apologist into the molds you've listed above.

Scottie: this is good, but I would appreciate a more specific example. I.e., can you name a specific Mopologist who does not fit into one of the categories? My goal here, in any case, is not to try and "hammer" people into the categories, as you suggest, but rather to simply explore and outline some of the different reasons why people engage in Mopologetics. Further, as I'm sure you noticed in my OP, I believe that some Mopologists can fit into multiple categories. By no means did I intend for this taxonomy to be confining.

Also, I find your explanation of the Debate Addict, The person enjoys the nasty, aggressive back-and-forth, and thus engages in Mopologetics, incorrect. Why do they have to be nasty and aggressive? I'd dare say ALL of us are debate addicts. Few of us are nasty and aggressive.

I disagree. For example, I don't really consider you to be a debate addict. From my perspective, you tend to engage more in conversation rather than debate per se. And again, I think you are misunderstanding the various theories, and what they are meant to explain. The Debate Addict theory is meant to explain a Mopologist who does apologetics almost purely for the thrill of the debate. Though he is no longer a Mopologist, and though I think he obviously defies the theory/category in some intriguing ways, I would say that Kevin Graham does a pretty good job of illustrating the Debate Addict theory. Coggins sort of fits into this too, but, then again, I think he fits more readily into my newly added "Failed Mormon Theory."

[_Mister Scratch]

I think the Perpetual Missionary Theory, or PMT, is especially promising. I think that missionaries who later become apologists learn their contempt for Chapel Mormonism in the field. While sitting in the home of an intellectual who is merely being polite by allowing the missionaries to have their say, the more combatitive types must smolder inside. They must be very upset over what seems to be so childishly put together in the discussions. It must make them very angry inside at the church to find themselves agreeing with the critical audience in many instances.

Yes, of course. This would help to explain why some Mopologists have attempted to redefine certain doctrinal teachings, such as the location of the Hill Cumorah. It would also explain the unbridled contempt we've seen directed at Chapel Mormon apologists such as Rodney Meldrum.

[_The Nehor]

The question Scratch is, "What is your motivation?"

[_Mister Scratch]

The question Scratch is, "What is your motivation?"

As I stated on a different thread, I dislike Mopologetics intensely, and think that it is, as I said, "a rotten enterprise." I think it reflects very badly on the Church and think that it does far more harm than good.

[_Scottie]

Scottie: this is good, but I would appreciate a more specific example. I.e., can you name a specific Mopologist who does not fit into one of the categories? My goal here, in any case, is not to try and "hammer" people into the categories, as you suggest, but rather to simply explore and outline some of the different reasons why people engage in Mopologetics. Further, as I'm sure you noticed in my OP, I believe that some Mopologists can fit into multiple categories. By no means did I intend for this taxonomy to be confining.

How about Charity? Lets start with her. I can't put her in any of the categories above.
Steuss? I'm not quite sure if he's an apologist or not??

I disagree. For example, I don't really consider you to be a debate addict. From my perspective, you tend to engage more in conversation rather than debate per se. And again, I think you are misunderstanding the various theories, and what they are meant to explain. The Debate Addict theory is meant to explain a Mopologist who does apologetics almost purely for the thrill of the debate. Though he is no longer a Mopologist, and though I think he obviously defies the theory/category in some intriguing ways, I would say that Kevin Graham does a pretty good job of illustrating the Debate Addict theory. Coggins sort of fits into this too, but, then again, I think he fits more readily into my newly added "Failed Mormon Theory."

There is a difference between "debating" and "arguing". I think I am addicted to debate. A back and forth where points can, and often are, conceded. An argument is a dialog where you have one goal...to win at all costs.