Defending the Absurd takes a toll?

[Bill_Billiams]

I think you would have to get inside their head. It’s sort of difficult to play armchair analyst and discern why anyone does what they do. At least fully. There will be many factors at play. I’m sure that’s true with you even though I don’t know you at all. It’s human nature to have a rather complex series of experiences at play as we become who we are at any given time.

Folks like Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, John E. Clark, John Welch, and a whole slew of others that are and/or have been known in the world of LDS apologetics have both intellectual and spiritual reasons for believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church. Of course, you’re also going to have other folks that are easier to poke at and you might find yourself wondering whether or not they truly believe.

I think, again, as I said on another thread, that it is difficult to generalize and throw everyone into the same bucket.

Many of the folks I’ve mentioned along with other thoughtful Latter-Day Saints might find it difficult to understand how critics come to the place they’re at. It works both ways.

Regards,
MG

I haven't heard of any of those people but if they know how to behave properly while doing apologetics then that is good.

I know guessing motivation can be a hazardous endeavor but I'm truly interested as to why, in my experience, so many mopologists are willing to stoop so low. I don't see that kind of behavior nearly as much in other groups I've interacted with.

[Bill_Billiams]

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 agree that not all mopologists act terribly. But I'm wondering why it seems to be so prevalent.

That's an interesting point that many mopologists viciously attack other Mormons. If they feel like they are protecting the truth they might be emboldened to act poorly towards others. We all have done things we aren't proud of.

[Bill_Billiams]

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.

That's a good general description of many of the worst mopologists. Especially the obsession with credentials and fear of looking stupid. I think that goes along with my idea of defending the absurd taking a toll. They desperately want to be taken seriously and seen as smart while also trying to defend things like the Book of Abraham.

You bring up an interesting "chicken or egg" type of point, though. Are these people predisposed to terrible behavior no matter what belief they might be defending or does defending the belief cause the terrible behavior? Maybe a combination of both?

I also think that many of them have adopted being a Mopologist as their identity. It's the core of who they are. It seems like they begin to see any criticism of Mormonism as a deep personal attack. So in their mind, doxxing someone or trying to get them fired from their job is a reasonable response to saying Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

[Dr Moore]

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.

More than anyone else, Dr. Scratch has shown this to be a universal law. Mopologetics doesn't make one vitriolic. Vitriol makes the Mopologetics.

Evidently it has been this way since day one with Brother Joseph.

[MG 2.0]

I think you would have to get inside their head. It’s sort of difficult to play armchair analyst and discern why anyone does what they do. At least fully. There will be many factors at play. I’m sure that’s true with you even though I don’t know you at all. It’s human nature to have a rather complex series of experiences at play as we become who we are at any given time.

Folks like Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, John E. Clark, John Welch, and a whole slew of others that are and/or have been known in the world of LDS apologetics have both intellectual and spiritual reasons for believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church. Of course, you’re also going to have other folks that are easier to poke at and you might find yourself wondering whether or not they truly believe.

I think, again, as I said on another thread, that it is difficult to generalize and throw everyone into the same bucket.

Many of the folks I’ve mentioned along with other thoughtful Latter-Day Saints might find it difficult to understand how critics come to the place they’re at. It works both ways.

Regards,
MG

I haven't heard of any of those people but if they know how to behave properly while doing apologetics then that is good.

I know guessing motivation can be a hazardous endeavor but I'm truly interested as to why, in my experience, so many mopologists are willing to stoop so low. I don't see that kind of behavior nearly as much in other groups I've interacted with.

If you’ve centered your investigations of the church and the restoration narrative within the confines of certain venues (such as this one) it doesn’t surprise me that you have never heard of these people and a number of others I could mention. It’s sort of like CNN and FOX News. You’ll hear what you want to hear depending on the source.

Ideally it’s a good thing to reach out and try to gather information from many different sources. This is problematic. Many folks, apparently such as yourself, are not reaching out to look at apologetics from different angles and varied sources. As such, we are seeing a somewhat jaundiced view of Mormonism from certain quarters.

And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The age of the internet and closed loops.

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.

More than anyone else, Dr. Scratch has shown this to be a universal law. Mopologetics doesn't make one vitriolic. Vitriol makes the Mopologetics.

That isn’t true. Within some quarters, yes.

Some of the best apologetics are done by folks such as those and others I’ve mentioned…and many of the younger generation have apparently never heard of…because of closed loops of information here on the internet. Often, books and lengthy apologetics are ignored and reliance on soundbites and short essays and the like seem to be the norm for apologetic consumption.

The Twitter generation. Or X generation now that Musk is charge.

Honestly, over the years I really haven’t paid as much attention to your whipping boys (DCP, Midgely, etc.) as I have to Brant Gardner, Blake Ostler, Royal Skousen, Terryl Givens, John E. Clark, Jeff Lindsay, and many others who take a calm/polite mannered approach to their apologetics without getting wrapped up in the kind of stuff that seems to titillate a number of folks here.

Some folks seem to have a vested interest in creating vitriol for whatever reason.

Bread and butter, and all that.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] Blake Ostler [...] who take a calm/polite mannered approach to their apologetics without getting wrapped up in the kind of stuff that seems to titillate a number of folks here.

Wut? Lmao.

Fox and CNN indeed.

[MG 2.0]

[...] Blake Ostler [...] who take a calm/polite mannered approach to their apologetics without getting wrapped up in the kind of stuff that seems to titillate a number of folks here.

Wut? Lmao.

Fox and CNN indeed.

I’m referring to his writings and other material he has posted over the years.

http://blakeostler.com/

If he has gotten himself involved in vitriolic apologetics I haven’t reached out to that quarter in order to read it. If he has, that is unfortunate.

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

As it is, however, he has put out some good stuff on Mormon theology and the like.

FOX and CNN both seem to have an agenda. And if one watches one of these networks exclusively they will have ‘blind spots’.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

Wut? Lmao.

Fox and CNN indeed.

I’m referring to his writings and other material he has posted over the years.

http://blakeostler.com/

If he has gotten himself involved in vitriolic apologetics I haven’t reached out to that quarter in order to read it. If he has, that is unfortunate.

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

As it is, however, he has put out some good stuff on Mormon theology and the like.

FOX and CNN both seem to have an agenda. And if one watches one of these networks exclusively they will have ‘blind spots’.

Regards,
MG

Most of his Facebook interactions are vapid vitriolic condescending twaddle. Previously on this board (I'll see if I can find the link) someone shared where he threatened to have a non-Mormon kicked out of their graduate program for making a rather milquetoast theological criticism of Mormonism on their own blog.

He's a "smartest guy in the room, that's compensating for not being the smartest guy in the room" that tries to bully people who disagree with him, or Mormonism.

I've never seen him take the so-called "high road" when dealing with someone directly that is being critical of the Church, or any of his sacred cows.

[MsJack]

Care to post links in which he has taken the low road rather than the high road?

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.c ... mment-5289

Threatening to get somebody kicked out of their doctoral program over an online dispute seems like "low road" behavior to me.

He also threatened to cancel his SLT subscription over a dispute with Ardis Parshall (who happened to work for SLT at the time), although I can't find the link right now.

Really Karen-ish behavior.