The LDS Church in a nutshell.

[_Gunnar]

What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

It has to do with whether your self-identification is accurate or inaccurate.

Who gets to determine wether ones self-identification (of a non-factual variety) is accurate or inaccurate?

For instance, if I self-identify as being white skinned but can be clearly seen to be black skinned then my self-identifictaion error is obvious and I am deluding myself. But that isn't (and your example isn't) akin to what is being talked about in terms of maklelan. This is about behavioural stuff. A defender is not necessarily an apologist.

Does "apologist" necessarily imply self-delusion? I don't infer that from the following published definitions.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

1. a person who offers a defence by argument
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003.)

a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[1630–40]
(Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.)

a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.
See also: Argumentation
(-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

It seems to me that the only way to deny that maklelan is an apologist is to simply reject those dictionary definitions in favor of his own, which he is clearly doing, unless he also means to imply that he is not actually defending Mormonism per se.

"Apologist" is often used as a pejorative. I can see resisting being labeled as an apologist pejoratively, but need one use that label or description only in a pejorative sense? I doubt this must necessarily be so.

I see maklelan as a vehement defender of factual, textual and documentary accuracy.

He certainly is that! That is what I most admire him for.

Well, he has said that he is not so much defending Mormonism as trying to show that sectarian critics of Mormonism really have no firmer rational or evidential basis for their own views than what they are criticizing. From that perspective, it may be reasonable to accept that he is not really an apologist.

[_malkie]

I do not self-identify as anti-mormon, yet I feel sure that many TBMs would call me one.

This is a good example of being rhetorically and unfairly pigeonholed. The posters on this forum have spent a lot of time and effort rejecting that label (here, for instance), and I have agreed with their position. I don't think it's too much to ask to have them return the favor and not label me for rhetorical effect.

Some would probably call Mak anti-mormon, and at least in their own minds could make the case, though I doubt if Mak would self-identify as such.

I've been called worse than that by other Latter-day Saints.

In cases where other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon, I hope you wear the label as a badge of honour. I'm sure you find that there are some whose enmity you would rather attract than their approval.

[_maklelan]

In cases where other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon, I hope you wear the label as a badge of honour. I'm sure you find that there are some whose enmity you would rather attract than their approval.

I have certainly not been too upset by it.

[_maklelan]

Does "apologist" necessarily imply self-delusion? I don't infer that from the following published definitions.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

1. a person who offers a defence by argument
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003.)

a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[1630–40]
(Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.)

a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.
See also: Argumentation
(-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

It seems to me that the only way to deny that maklelan is an apologist is to simply reject those dictionary definitions in favor of his own, which he is clearly doing, unless he also means to imply that he is not actually defending Mormonism per se.

I think the fundamental motivation is an important factor. Does defending the faith take priority over all else? Where is the line drawn between someone who unilaterally defends the faith and another who almost unilaterally criticizes it, but defends it once? Does "a person who defends" mean unilaterally defend, has ever defended, habitually defends, usually defends? I think of myself as defending an honest and informed assessment, whether that be in favor of or against the Church.

"Apologist" is often used as a pejorative. I can see resisting being labeled as an apologist pejoratively, but need one use that label or description only in a pejorative sense? I doubt this must necessarily be so.

Here it is virtually exclusively a pejorative label.

He certainly is that! That is what I most admire him for.

Well, he has said that he is not so much defending Mormonism as trying to show that sectarian critics of Mormonism really have no firmer rational or evidential basis for their own views than what they are criticizing. From that perspective, it may be reasonable to accept that he is not really an apologist.

I think that's a fair assessment, and I appreciate the kind words.

[_malkie]

In cases where other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon, I hope you wear the label as a badge of honour. I'm sure you find that there are some whose enmity you would rather attract than their approval.

I have certainly not been too upset by it.

Wait a minute!!!

You're not upset when other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon (and worse) but you are upset (or at least prepared to argue about it) when a critic - or, presumably anyone else, right? - calls you an LDS apologist?

Isn't there something a little perverse about this state of affairs?

[_maklelan]

Wait a minute!!!

You're not upset when other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon (and worse) but you are upset (or at least prepared to argue about it) when a critic - or, presumably anyone else, right? - calls you an LDS apologist?

Nobody gets to label me without hearing about it.

Isn't there something a little perverse about this state of affairs?[/quote]

I'm really just being funny. Of course it annoyed me, and I've defended myself each time.

[_Themis]

Lets go with some middle ground here. How about we all agree that Mak is both an LDS apologist and anti Mormon.

in my opinion LDS apologist is someone who defends the church almost always. Dan Peterson clearly does this and proudly wears the apologist title. If we go with one of our most ignorant posters whyme, he defends the church in everything.

Mak from my POV tends to go more with the facts and is willingly to be more critical of the church then any of the real apologists from fair/farms. Nevo is also another knowledgeable active LDS who I admire for be more willing to go with the facts. Both seem to enjoy correcting people who bring up incorrect facts, and I find this one of the more valuable aspects of MD.

[_maklelan]

Lets go with some middle ground here. How about we all agree that Mak is both an LDS apologist and anti Mormon.

in my opinion LDS apologist is someone who defends the church almost always. Dan Peterson clearly does this and proudly wears the apologist title. If we go with one of our most ignorant posters whyme, he defends the church in everything.

Mak from my POV tends to go more with the facts and is willingly to be more critical of the church then any of the real apologists from fair/farms. Nevo is also another knowledgeable active LDS who I admire for be more willing to go with the facts. Both seem to enjoy correcting people who bring up incorrect facts, and I find this one of the more valuable aspects of MD.

[_sock puppet]

The LDS Church is nothing more than a religious scheme that backfired when the con man couldn't sell the rights of his book in Canada. The con man then grew a religious body of zealots around him through his charisma that culminated in his attempting to set up a Kingdom with him as King to further his pursuit of sexual conquests that involved other men's wives and a run at being a pedophile.

From just these two sentences, I think you demonstrate a greater understanding of JSJr than the typical LDS, which is fed the white-washed, Correlated history.

[_Bazooka]

Wait a minute!!!

You're not upset when other Latter-day Saints insist on calling you anti-mormon (and worse) but you are upset (or at least prepared to argue about it) when a critic - or, presumably anyone else, right? - calls you an LDS apologist?

Nobody gets to label me without hearing about it.

Isn't there something a little perverse about this state of affairs?

I'm really just being funny. Of course it annoyed me, and I've defended myself each time.[/quote]

An apologist tends to defend everything.
Maklelan doesn't attempt to defend the obviously indefensible, he only seems to tackle (honestly from what I've seen) the issues of factual accuracy.