Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Charity definitely fits the "Righteous Warrior" theory. And, I would say that she is a Righteous Warrior of the Second Kind, meaning that she is either oblivious to or ignorant of any of the actual problems in Mormonism (contra, say, DCP), and that she goes after critics merely because she doesn't like them. I also believe there is an element of the Testimony Theory at work with her.

Steuss? I'm not quite sure if he's an apologist or not??

I don't consider Steuss an apologist.

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.

Fair enough. I have adjusted the taxonomy to reflect this.

[_Ray A]

Excellently done, Scratch. I might propose another, "The Meaning of Life Apologist". Having become bored out of their minds with Sunday School and Johnny Lingo films, they have found a whole new meaning of life motivation in the gospel, namely anti-anti-Mormonism. I've been there myself at times, so there's some self-reflection here too. Without critics, and without constant combat with critics, they'd probably get so bored with the Church they would walk away. After the Sunday meetings are over, they rush home, and go online for the real "meat" of excitement which gives their lives true purpose, exposing how "dumb" the critics are. This blends with the Righteous Warrior Theory, but adds an important component - that without this respite from "Molly Mormonism", the gospel would lose much meaning for them.

They are a blend of TBM, closet doubter, and possibly in reality a breath away from apostasy themselves. But it's this "meaning" which keeps them going with a purpose, or more purpose. They read the critics for reinforcement of their own beliefs while not realising they are swimming in shark-infested waters, and like so many others may eventually give way to faith-diminshing realities and succumb to reason, which in reality intensely detracts them away from Three Nephite Stories and Urban legends still considered "doctrine" by some. They are there as "saviours" to teach the "true gospel" with many insights (and "answers" to objections which could destroy faith) overlooked by the faithful. They are there to stave off apostasy, while flirting with it themselves. I think Darrick Evenson fit this mould to a tee. He could write dazzling apologetics and win the praise of the most informed in Mormonism, but when push comes to shove - at 3am he doesn't believe it himself. That's possibly what kept him in the Church for the brief time he was there.

And yes, Scottie is right, it can also apply to "professional critics". Having left Mormonism, their meaning of life is now to expose Mormonism. The big question is - who is right? Or is there some middle ground that can be achieved. But I think it's accurate to say that without apologetics, the gospel would lose its glitter for many who find greater meaning in life by doing apologetics. And I think Scratch is right, this can even get to the point where apologetics is more important to them than the gospel itself.
>
>
>
>

[_wenglund]

Sadly, the vast majority of topics engaged here, and the prevailing approach used when engaging here, are either a stupifying waste of time or delitarious to meeting the basic human need mentioned above--and at times I am as guilty as others for my counterproductive contributions.

Trying to catch flies with vinegar, I see.

You are, again, seeing things that are not there. The "catching" as it were, is not in describing "flies" as "flies" (speaking of your own dose of vinegar). Rather, it is in showing the potential for them to become eagles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

You are, again, seeing things that are not there. The "catching" as it were, is not in describing "flies" as "flies" (speaking of your own dose of vinegar). Rather, it is in showing the potential for them to become eagles.

LOL!!! And who could possibly be insulted by being described as a fly, or feel condescended to when Wade tells you that you have the potential to become an eagle? ROFLMAO!!!

[_antishock8]

Mohammed Atta thought he too was a Righteous Warrior fighting for Allah against the Great Satan. The main difference here is the level of violence the individual has been conditioned to be willing to bring to bear on their opponents. Mopologists are willing to use verbal, written violence, thank Heaven, and not guns and bombs. But the motivation is the same.

And who knows, there are always people like Gazelam who would like nothing more than to hang a few adulterers and fags in the public square just to show the Bogeyman who's really in charge.

That's the sorry thing about some of the fruits of an aggressive religion. Mo' Atta carried someone else's identity in his name, and in the purpose of his life. He's an existential tragedy in the sense that he never knew himself. Think about it. We get one shot at awareness, and his was one of someone else. He was the Other, and not the Self.

What a waste. What a shame.

I wonder how many of these Mopologists are the same... Burning away the years in a dogged pursuit of an illusion; never truly knowing themselves. Wow. Just wow...

[_Gadianton]

You are, again, seeing things that are not there. The "catching" as it were, is not in describing "flies" as "flies" (speaking of your own dose of vinegar). Rather, it is in showing the potential for them to become eagles.

LOL!!! And who could possibly be insulted by being described as a fly, or feel condescended to when Wade tells you that you have the potential to become an eagle? ROFLMAO!!!

It's a good point you make Trevor. Wade's ministry of Love and human potential over the last few years has been something to behold. I wonder if he could provide a single name of a critic that has admitted to being greatly inspired and motivated by Wade's outreach?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mohammed Atta thought he too was a Righteous Warrior fighting for Allah against the Great Satan. The main difference here is the level of violence the individual has been conditioned to be willing to bring to bear on their opponents. Mopologists are willing to use verbal, written violence, thank Heaven, and not guns and bombs. But the motivation is the same.

Sorry, Sethbag. You seem like a nice guy, but the statement above is, on the whole, simply ridiculous.

[_wenglund]

Thanks for your honest reply, Wade. I think that you often tend to operate outside the typical "Mopologetic" paradigm. Still, wouldn't it be fair to say that your attempts to refocus attention stems from a sense that the Church is threatened somehow?

No. Not in the least. Sorry.

Suppose that criticism of the Church brings joy and progress to people? I'm sure you know that many of the posters on RfM view what they are doing as "recovery," which (one would think) is a kind of progress, right?

I have no doubt for some it brings some form of retributional or sadistic pleasure. But, as I understand things, that form of pleasure is worlds apart from joy--which is intimately tied into love and progressing to become the best people possible.

Well, thank you again for replying, Wade. I would say that you fit into the Righteous Warrior theory, but you have some quirks that set you apart from it somewhat. I also wonder if there is a bit of the so-called "Chagrin Theory" in you, since I know it pains you on a rather personal level to hear criticism of the Church.

As the ultimate expert of who and what I am, I think you, like others here, are mistaking me for the straw man that you have self-servingly constructed of me in your imaginations.

But, if it helps you to feel better about yourselves to think this, then I am fine with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You are, again, seeing things that are not there. The "catching" as it were, is not in describing "flies" as "flies" (speaking of your own dose of vinegar). Rather, it is in showing the potential for them to become eagles.

LOL!!! And who could possibly be insulted by being described as a fly...

Yes.. that is quite funny, particularly when one realizes (a you apparently did not) that it was actually you who first characterized the good folks here as "flies". I intentionally put the words in quotes so as distinguish your perception of the people here from mine. I don't think of the people here as "flies".

...or feel condescended to when Wade tells you that you have the potential to become an eagle? ROFLMAO!!

Even more hilarious is someone misthinking it condescending to view people as having great potential.

Better yet, one may be brought to convulsive chortles when recognizing (as you apparently have not) the irony of you thinking I was condescending, and this right on the heals of you calling the good folks here 'flies".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It's a good point you make Trevor. Wade's ministry of Love and human potential over the last few years has been something to behold. I wonder if he could provide a single name of a critic that has admitted to being greatly inspired and motivated by Wade's outreach?

If there has been a lack of success, one might look at the eagerness with which some critics are want to explore the motives and character of so-called "mopologists" (as evinced in this thread), while resisting with a amazing passion any efforts on my part to peer into their hearts and minds. From considerable experience, I have found that all that is needed to envoke uncommon silence with critics, or ignite them into a flury of deflective dismissals or straw man constructions, is for me to ask them for a specific example of things the Church has done that has caused them emotional distress or some such thing.

In short, the critics are eager to shine the spot-light of criticism on the Church and its believing members, but hate it when the same light is shown on them. As such, there is little hope for success under such self-protective conditions of denial. But, there is still a little hope, and I think them worthy of at least a try. [Thumbs Up]

[Bracing myself for more ironic accusations of arrogance and condescension]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-