Why I Love Personal Threads

[_Analytics]

An interesting characteristic of MAD is that it is prone to generalizing, demonizing, and stereotyping critics, but it is against the rules to either prove or disprove the accusations. A fantasy world grows where people are talked about in ever more detail in elaborate, affronting models. And these models are protected from confrontation with reality because the circumstances of the specific individuals being attacked can’t be discussed.

A recent example of this David Bokovoy’s thread on Apologists Turned Critic.

(He asserts that apologists who turn into critics usually do so because they crave the public accolades that apologist-turned-critics get. It is true that in this tiny universe of people who think the truth-claims of Mormonism are worth debating, that a certain amount of fame is had by changing sides. I also concede this fame might be enjoyed by some. But I think it’s ridiculous that craving this fame motivates people to change sides. It’s obvious that people change sides because they realize the other side is right.)

On MAD, it is perfectly all right to disparage people who revise their opinions by ascribing to them low-grade motives such as “desperately craving public accolades”. It is fine to presume this silliness proven true and go into great detail about it.
These dillusions and ad hominum attacks are protected from reality, because specific case studies are considered forbidden “personal threads”.

[_beastie]

It's particularly amusing when the thread was clearly designed to attack one specific person. (well, amusing if you take it all with a grain of salt, which I would advise)

So if an LDS apologist receives plenty of accolades, even has people calling themselves his "groupie", then he is safe from apostasy.


Oh, wait, it's only the vain, personally flawed ones who do that, right?

Tell me how in the world this isn't a transparent case of ad hom against "turncoats".

And I also enjoy how it's supposedly a "positive" thread by throwing in some line about "how can we help these vain, shallow people"?

Hey, I suggest that LDS apologists only stay apologists because of the attention and fawning they receive on boards like MAD. But I want this to be a positive thread, so how can we help these vain, shallow people?

[_dartagnan]

Yea I responded to this in the CK thread where he is busy atoning for my sins:

Bokovoy has now taken his comments and started an entire thread based on them. Apparently he thinks he has been enlightened and knows the motives for those dastardly "Apologists turned critics."

I’m not going to personalize the discussion. I believe, however, that this point is not only valid

This is't personal? And why does he think his "point" is valid? He offers no proof, no evidence, nothing. It is based in a need to demonize dissidents. Their motives can never be anything other than malicious. In this case, I have fallen into the sin of vanity. Apparently Bokovoy is deluded into thinking I became of Book of Abraham critic because it makes me popular. He doesn't want to consider what I gave up on the flip side. If he did, and if he knew, he would realize that his point is pure bunk. Well, actually he probably wouldn't realize it.

He acts as if there are enough of us out there to perform some kind of study and offer an analysis. The only other apologist turned critic that I can think of is Chris Tolworthy. Aside from that, I think we're pretty much an endangered species. Yet, Bokovoy thinks I am in need for "public recognition."

I think what has made the difference between my decision to think critically and those who fixated on the path to ignorant bliss, has much to do with the weight of our anchors. I don't have an entire family anchored in the Church. That anchor is on my wife's side of the family, and only slight. I didn't have an entire childhood anchored in the Church either. I joined the Church when I was 19, and everything Juliann has been arguing about sociology makes perfect sense to me in light of my conversion. The Church provided everything I needed at the time, sociologically speaking. So when I eventually came across damning information that proved the Church was wrong on a number of issues, unlike most apologists who have virtually every aspect of their lives invested in the premise that the Church is true, I didn't have to conjure up all sorts of excuses or perform mental gymnastics to get around the problems. I decided to make the attempt to think as objectively as I possibly could, and I decided I would go where the evidence took me. Right now I still consider myself at a crossroads because I made a promise to myself three years ago that I would give the Book of Abraham issue more time. But time is running out and it seems the apologetic force is moving backwards.

I guess that is my fault too.

I would like to turn this into a positive thread.

Given the validity of my claim, to what extent can we, as an online community of LDS believers, assist those whose need for public recognition makes them susceptible to becoming a critic of Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, FAIR, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

Any thoughts?

One comes to mind. You're a jackass. You're everything I despised about myself as an apologist. You see all critics, LDS or not, as the "other" who earn your scorn while you pretend to actually care about them. DO you want to do us all a favor? Then bury your stupid condescending theory and accept the reasons and motives the "critics" offer for themselves. You'd expect nothing less from critics who psychoanalyze Joseph Smith and your host of LDS scholars who often fall under scrutiny.

[_Jersey Girl]

Analytics,

I'm afraid that, unlike others, I'm largely unfamiliar with your postings but thank goodness someone has put something on this screen that induces thought. I think that what you're pointing to is a type of self-guarded system of functioning (in this case the functioning of a message board but to a greater extent the intellectual functioning of it's participants who sanction that functioning via their participation) that perpetuates and also protects the compartmentalization of what charateristics define a subset of the greater religious culture and specifically, the subset of Mormon religious culture that are "the critics" wherein features are assigned to the category without challenge.

Having said that, I do think that most of us who are critics or supporters are also prone to the same type of intellectual functioning in order to protect our notions about what others are like and what we are like.

Are all critics:

Acclaim seeking?
Objective?
Truth focused?
Accurate?
Above assigning characteristics to the opposing side?

I suppose it depends who you ask.

Years ago, when someone told me to try engaging the apologists on ZLMB, I scarcely knew of the apologists or their work. One of the great benefits to me in participating on that board was coming to know at least one apologist as a human being before I knew of their apologetic work and another apologists through private correspondence. I consider that a gift to this previously quite inflammatory critic of Mormonism.

And if I am reading your intent accurately, you are exactly right that you cannot begin to know the "other side" until you allow yourself to know them as human beings. On what is their faith based? Their interests? Their goals in engaging in apologetics? What life circumstances led to their faith and led them to begin their course of apologetics? Do they engage in self challenge? Are they willing to reassess? Re-evaluate? Are they willing to consider alternative explanations?

Some are.

Prior to that experience I would have told you that Mormons were a closed minded people, unwilling to think beyond what they were taught, resorting to claims of persecution as a form of defense in the face of challenge, not well educated, not critical thinkers and unwilling to allow this, now former, SB to engage them.

I don't think that any more.

So, you are right if your intention is to bring out the issue a system of functioning that not only allows for compartmentalization but protects and forwards it as a mindset.

You are wrong, however, in thinking that critics don't engage in the same lumping of individuals into a pile, assigning characteristics to the category and failing to take into consideration individualization.

While MAD might have a formal system in place that prevents individualization in the form of personal threads, there is an informal system in place on this board and others like it that essentially shouts down and disparages the opposite side to the point where the entire experience becomes less than fruitful.

Jersey Girl

[_CaliforniaKid]

Indeed. I posted my thoughts on the "model" and then tacked on a brief comment expressing my doubt that the model applies to KG. The moderators deleted the last bit because it was "personal". I found that amusing, given that the whole thread is really quite overtly personal.

[mentalgymnast]

I'm always wary of posts like the one you cited because they involve over-generalizations, which I'm afraid both Mormons and critics are good at doing. And I don't think they help us understand the other side any better. I think they just cause defensiveness and hurt feelings.

Edited to add; I haven't looked much at the thread in question, but if it is discussing Kevin Graham, I don't think the MADB board should allow it--unless they are going to let Kevin participate and defend himself, I think it's wrong to encourage participants to discuss him. That's just my opinion and I don't expect it counts for much.

Though MADB has a policy against personal threads, I've never been able to figure out exactly what is and is not considered a personal thread there. It seems to be at the moderators' discretion.

That's right and if you don't like it, go find yourself another board. The mods.

(I'm sure that's what they'd tell me if they read this thread, so I'll add it for them (insert helpful smiley face here))

[_beastie]

You are wrong, however, in thinking that critics don't engage in the same lumping of individuals into a pile, assigning characteristics to the category and failing to take into consideration individualization.

Analytics said nothing of the sort in his thread, nor did he insinuate these were his thoughts. I've known him a long time, but still can't speak for him, but I'm quite positive you misattributed thoughts to him in this statement.

[_Jersey Girl]

You are wrong, however, in thinking that critics don't engage in the same lumping of individuals into a pile, assigning characteristics to the category and failing to take into consideration individualization.

Analytics said nothing of the sort in his thread, nor did he insinuate these were his thoughts. I've known him a long time, but still can't speak for him, but I'm quite positive you misattributed thoughts to him in this statement.

I made a comparision between the formal and informal systems on both boards. You're right, he didn't say it...I did, based on a reading of his post that appeared to focus only on the "no personal threads" rule on MAD.

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

I made a comparision between the formal and informal systems on both boards. You're right, he didn't say it...I did, based on a reading of his post that appeared to focus only on the "no personal threads" rule on MAD.

Although Analytics can speak for himself, I'll offer my interpretation of why he focused on the no personal threads rule on MAD.

The point isn't that critics don't also engage in unjustified generalizations at times - of course they do. The point is that by disallowing "personal threads" ensures that the generalization will never be adequately challenged or analyzed. This board, or RFM or ZLMB (in the past) did not set such restrictions, so the generalization could possibly be "put to the test" and either shown to fail or succeed. MAD has set it up so that the generalization can't be tested in such a manner.

[_Jersey Girl]

I made a comparision between the formal and informal systems on both boards. You're right, he didn't say it...I did, based on a reading of his post that appeared to focus only on the "no personal threads" rule on MAD.

Although Analytics can speak for himself, I'll offer my interpretation of why he focused on the no personal threads rule on MAD.

The point isn't that critics don't also engage in unjustified generalizations at times - of course they do. The point is that by disallowing "personal threads" ensures that the generalization will never be adequately challenged or analyzed. This board, or RFM or ZLMB (in the past) did not set such restrictions, so the generalization could possibly be "put to the test" and either shown to fail or succeed. MAD has set it up so that the generalization can't be tested in such a manner.

Yes, I know, beastie.