The attitude of apologists can be represented on a two-dimensional scale. The first dimension has to do with the tension that exists between loyalty to the truth and loyalty to the church. If an apologist is a sycophant to the general authorities and would never publically admit that the church has blemishes or that non-believers have some good reasons for not believing, then they are excessively loyal to the church. In contrast, if they freely admit it when they perceive critics having a good point, then they are loyal to the truth. Note that being loyal to the truth doesn’t mean that they are disloyal to the church, it just means that they aren’t willing to be deceptive in order to make a point, and have the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade when the church is less than perfect.

The second dimension has to do with what they love. If they love to fight, they are on the left-hand side of this scale. If they love people, they are on the right-hand side.

Putting the two dimensions together results in a graph like the following:



Some notes:
Quadrant I contains apologists who are loyal to the truth and who love people. consiglieri is the personification of this quadrant.

Quadrant II is for people who love the truth, but also love to fight. In the days when Kevin Graham was an apologist, this was his space.

Quadrant III is for people who are loyal to the church and love to fight. This quadrant is crowded.

Quadrant IV is for people who are loyal to the hierarchy, but love people. Most active Mormons are in this quadrant, but being in this space doesn’t lend itself to apologetics. They are loyal to the church, so why waste time studying Mormonism when they could be living it? They love people and don’t like fighting. Apologetics offers little to this personality type. With some irony, I put Daniel Peterson here. In his earlier years I think he was definitely in Quadrant III, and while he still has his moments, it seems he has shifted over this way.

Quadrant III apologists absolutely hate their polar opposites in Quadrant I.

Pretty good analysis.

Thank you, Analytics. That is a spot-on analysis.

When will you be plotting critics?

Pretty good. I would put Kevin farther to the left, though. He loves fighting at least as much as Will Schryver.

The problem with plotting something like this for critics is identifying some kind of hierarchy for them to be loyal to. I guess you could shift it to say there are some critics who concede well-earned points to the church, and some who are consumed by hate and won't give an inch. So the hierarchy is hate?

touché!

If I come up with a model I will. Trying to figure out critics really isn't on my mind much.

Yes.



I think that's a fair assessment of what drives critics to a greater or lesser degree.

Maybe we could make a list of which Bible stories were most influential in anyone's life.

The Good Samaritan: Enuma Elish
The Sheep and the Goats: Will Schryver
Jesus cleanses the temple: Pahoran
Kiss of Judas: Kevin Graham
Just kidding. Woes of the Pharisees: Kevin Graham
...

The problem I have with the chart is that it implies that love of the truth and loyalty to the hierarchy are diametrically opposed as are love people and love fighting. However, it could be read as the relative importance one places on each. Yet, that misses the relative importance one places on say, loyal to hierarcy vs love of fighting.

So you decided eliminate

1. A Plague upon the Nile
2. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

as possible choices for this one, eh?

And the implication is 100% correct in actual practice.

EXCELLENT CHART, Analytics! Your username is most appropriate. I too find your chart to be spot-on.

Asbestosman, I also agree that the "Love of Truth" vs. "Love of the Church" thing is a zero-sum game. A person can love the truth, a lot, and yet if they love the church more, that will rule their arguments and approach to apologetics. It's a simple vector sum of these two values on Analytics' scale.

I think Dan Peterson is one of those who by nature loves truth, but loves the church just a little bit more.

I knew this would be the biggest objection and thought a bit about whether or not this scale is appropriate, and even makes sense. In the end, I think it is. My point with this isn't that loyalty to the church and to the truth are opposites, but rather, it has to do with how you deal with the tension between the church and the truth when it arises. When somebody like Will tells somebody like Consig that they are high risks for apostasy, what he is saying is that Consig is more loyal to the truth than to the church. They see it too.

On those rare occasions when I make a good point, I can count on Type I apologists to acknowledge it if they see it, but I would never get a Type III apologist to concede anything, ever.

That parameter on one end for apologists is 'Loyalty to Truth' and on the other 'Loyalty to Hierarchy'. I think that parameter would work just fine for plotting critics. After all, Analytics found a spot for and plotted Kevin.

You're wasting your time responding to Nehor, sock puppet:



He just doesn't care. He's too weak and stupid to formulate decent responses to criticisms of the Church, so he's retreated into this endless, nebbish Bozo role.

With all organizations, there are situations where truth and loyalty are in harmony. With all organizations, there are situations where truth and loyalty must diverge. I see Analytics parameter as one differentiating apologists based on their conduct when faced with those divergences.

Thanks for the advice, Dr Scratch. Sage wisdom, as always.

You said that well--that is in fact my point.

When does it arise? In practice, this does not happen. The prophets and apostles may very well make mistakes, but they never lead us astray. Loving the truth and being loyal to the church are one and the same. Always.


No he isn't. Will does not think Consig is too loyal to the truth. I'd venture to say Will views it as quite the opposite in fact.

That aside, it does raise the point that sometimes our perception of truth is different than what the truth really is. Which are you measuring? If it's perception of the truth, then I agree that tension can and does arise.


I don't see what conceding a good point has to do with loyalty to the church. Last I checked, the church doesn't frown on admitting something that's obviously true. I can, however, see what not conceding points has to do with love of fighting.

The four horsemen of the Apocalypse is shared by Pahoran, Will, Scott, and Daniel Peterson.

A terrifying quartet indeed!

Even Nathan Bedford Forrest would turn tail and run.