Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Gadianton]

Apologetics is not less lazy. Perhaps more shameless. Perhaps even less factual, if that was possible. The work and expense of apologetics is going up. It takes more work and less shame to play this game today.

Definitely more shameless. More work? Depends on what you mean. If you're saying it's more work because it's more public, and it takes a real loon to go out there and swing a club at one's many attackers while cornered, that might work. What I had in mind was back in the day, Nibley, Sorenson, etc., had these big research projects. But maybe that was easy in a way because their only real interface was adoring members.

[Whiskey]

Apologetics is not less lazy. Perhaps more shameless. Perhaps even less factual, if that was possible. The work and expense of apologetics is going up. It takes more work and less shame to play this game today.

Definitely more shameless. More work? Depends on what you mean. If you're saying it's more work because it's more public, and it takes a real loon to go out there and swing a club at one's many attackers while cornered, that might work. What I had in mind was back in the day, Nibley, Sorenson, etc., had these big research projects. But maybe that was easy in a way because their only real interface was adoring members.

I think we are seeing it similarly, Gad. Being an apologist in the 24/7 social media and internet era is, to me, more work than sitting in an office with notecards and making crap up for fans with little or no challenge to one's apologist BS. Nibley wasn't working hard. He was clowning a bunch, but that took little to no work to pull that stunt. Busy work, maybe. Heavy lifting? Not even a little bit. Peterson and the old Millenial Star guys and that Fowler ding dong and lots of people did more work than Nibley. Maybe it was hobby stuff. But it took a lot more to do that than do what Nibley did.

[MG 2.0]

You see, you don't have to "be" anything here--you either participate or you don't, and if you choose to do the former, the idea is to have fun doing it (within the easy "confines" of the rules, of course).

DiscussMormonism.com's yoke is easy, and its burden is light.

Hey, slow down there partner. It's not quite THAT easy and the burden is not quite THAT light.

I would suppose we can both agree that the arbitrary rules make ALL the difference in being able to have a level playing field (I've gone into a bit of depth on that elsewhere and will not do it all over again). Many moons ago I said I will not engage in rehash after rehash.

Oh, by the way, I agree with most of the rules here. Keeps things sort of civil. Although, I must say, some folks come very close to the edge. It is those folks that I have on ignore and have found it healthier to disengage from them.

Yes, I pay a certain price for doing so.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You see, you don't have to "be" anything here--you either participate or you don't, and if you choose to do the former, the idea is to have fun doing it (within the easy "confines" of the rules, of course).

DiscussMormonism.com's yoke is easy, and its burden is light.

Hey, slow down there partner. It's not quite THAT easy and the burden is not quite THAT light.

I would suppose we can both agree that the arbitrary rules make ALL the difference in being able to have a level playing field (I've gone into a bit of depth on that elsewhere and will not do it all over again). Many moons ago I said I will not engage in rehash after rehash.

Oh, by the way, I agree with most of the rules here. Keeps things sort of civil. Although, I must say, some folks come very close to the edge. It is those folks that I have on ignore and have found it healthier to disengage from them.

Yes, I pay a certain price for doing so.

Regards,
MG

Well, you struggle, repeatedly, with the link and run rule, and the AI rule, and the whole double spacing fetish that you seem to have. I’m not aware of anyone other than you breaching rules as a sort of f-you to the board owner. Everyone else posts and behaves within the confines of board behaviour outlined within the rules. To repeat, you’re the one finding that difficult. Nobody else.

I also note you are still suffering from Martyr Syndrome.

[Marcus]

Hey, slow down there partner. It's not quite THAT easy and the burden is not quite THAT light.

I would suppose we can both agree that the arbitrary rules make ALL the difference in being able to have a level playing field (I've gone into a bit of depth on that elsewhere and will not do it all over again). Many moons ago I said I will not engage in rehash after rehash.

Oh, by the way, I agree with most of the rules here. Keeps things sort of civil. Although, I must say, some folks come very close to the edge. It is those folks that I have on ignore and have found it healthier to disengage from them.

Yes, I pay a certain price for doing so.

Regards,
MG

Well, you struggle, repeatedly, with the link and run rule, and the AI rule, and the whole double spacing fetish that you seem to have. I’m not aware of anyone other than you breaching rules as a sort of f-you to the board owner. Everyone else posts and behaves within the confines of board behaviour outlined within the rules. To repeat, you’re the one finding that difficult. Nobody else...

Too true. Anyone else remember the Ruprecht scene from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?


Ruprecht knows he is not supposed to knock the china off the mantle, but he craves attention, so what does he do? He knocks the china off the mantle, gets scolded for doing so, then knocks another piece off, gets scolded again, etc., etc., etc.

That's why Ruprecht mentalgymnast keeps breaking the same rule over and over--he is trolling for attention, and he doesn't seem to understand how badly his reputation suffers when he misbehaves in order to get this type of attention.

[I Have Questions]

Well, you struggle, repeatedly, with the link and run rule, and the AI rule, and the whole double spacing fetish that you seem to have. I’m not aware of anyone other than you breaching rules as a sort of f-you to the board owner. Everyone else posts and behaves within the confines of board behaviour outlined within the rules. To repeat, you’re the one finding that difficult. Nobody else...

Too true. Anyone else remember the Ruprecht scene from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?


Ruprecht knows he is not supposed to knock the china off the mantle, but he craves attention, so what does he do? He knocks the china off the mantle, gets scolded for doing so, then knocks another piece off, gets scolded again, etc., etc., etc.

That's why Ruprecht mentalgymnast keeps breaking the same rule over and over--he is trolling for attention, and he doesn't seem to understand how badly his reputation suffers when he misbehaves in order to get this type of attention.

That’s perfect Marcus. It’s MG to a tee!

[Physics Guy]

Stephen Potter's 1952 humour classic One-Upmanship describes tactics for "winning life's little games without appearing to try". One tactic that has stuck in my head, though I don't think I've been able to apply it, is to be a member of two quite different clubs—and in each club to emphasise one's membership in the other.

The book's example (as I recall it) was a military officer in an artists' club, who among the artists would dress and behave in the most severely conservative manner, and then act as flamboyantly as possible in the Officers' Mess. That way in both places you get the status of being something that nobody else is, even if your proper credentials within each environment are mediocre or worse: the play would work just as well if you were only a wannabe artist and an incompetent soldier. Indeed, being so different can be your excuse in both places.

The humour in the book is that all its tactics are pathetic schemes that only a dimwitted narcissist would attempt, and yet you can recognise that most real people do constantly try things that are kind of like them. There's a bit of dimwitted narcissist in us all.

I've never read Nibley, but my impression of his scholarly apologetics makes me think of that one-upping Captain in the artists' club, standing so stiff in his tweed and holding his wineglass by clamping its base between forefinger and thumb. I get the idea that Nibley was a genuine scholar among Mormons, and a genuine Mormon among scholars—in the One-Upmanship way. Being that kind of scholar is indeed not a job but a game. All it needs is persistent demonstration of a few affectations that are effortless for anyone who has managed to struggle through grad school, but that appear to outsiders as impressive distinctions.

[Kishkumen]

Kish, your story overlays very cleanly onto the experience of being an officer in the military, and maybe other professions or organizations. Especially those that place a lot of value on cohesion and authority.

Your “attaboy mode” sounds like it could have been interpreted as a signal of loyalty. In the military, we learn quickly that there’s a difference between being welcomed when aligning to authority but seen as challenging that authority when even the slightest misstep happens, at least with less seasoned officers or leaders. It’s role maintenance—the leader can never be seen to be wrong or questioned in public.

So the private messages you mentioned sound a lot like an unstated rule: “Don’t undermine authority in public.” In uniform, you’ll hear things like “let’s take this offline, or “see me after” as the indicators that you’ve crossed a line. Public disagreement, no matter how mild, can be interpreted as an erosion of command authority, regardless of intent. I’d probably call those messages an attempt to exact discipline on you.

Another interesting parallel is the language of “why are you being a prick?” which redefines dissent as a character flaw. “You need an attitude adjustment” and “poor judgment or tact” are common refrains that shift what was said to defining the entire character of a person on a single line.

You said this person had “embarked on a personal mission” to take on critics. Once someone adopts a mission identity (“defender,” “counter-critic,” “lone visionary among dull literalists”), tolerance for dissent drops because now you’re interfering with the mission.

.Your “better angels” comment may have been read as leadership advice that may have sounded like a junior officer saying “Sir, the way we’re handling this engagement may be creating unnecessary friction.” A risky move.

I think your model of adulting is probably closer to relationships that hold mutual regard and earned trust as values, whereas your counterpart was seeking alignment and continued “attaboy” support.

This retired officer’s assessment is you acted like a peer offering solid feedback, but they reacted like a leader protecting authority during an ongoing campaign.

Much like in the military, once someone occupies a role that requires projecting authority and defending a mission, even well intended disagreement from trusted insiders can be reinterpreted as disloyalty.

My advice?: Seek to understand the system, chalk up the lesson learned, de-escalate, and don’t internalize as a personal failure.

I think, practically, the same mindset may apply to apologetics, at least for some.

Thank you for your insights, Limnor. You have helped me understand that the kinds of relationships I enjoy engaging in with other adults of a similar professional background are not what this person is looking for. If you are correct, then this person views the self-appointed position of apologist to be one of brittle authority that allows for no difference of opinion from others, even professional colleagues. Therefore, I have no reason to engage further with this person, as I have no intention to play by their silly rules. Interesting that you chose the military as a comparandum. Guess it is a good thing that I did not complete the process of enlistment.

[Limnor]

Thank you for your insights, Limnor. You have helped me understand that the kinds of relationships I enjoy engaging in with other adults of a similar professional background are not what this person is looking for. If you are correct, then this person views the self-appointed position of apologist to be one of brittle authority that allows for no difference of opinion from others, even professional colleagues. Therefore, I have no reason to engage further with this person, as I have no intention to play by their silly rules. Interesting that you chose the military as a comparandum. Guess it is a good thing that I did not complete the process of enlistment.

Yeah that’s the voice of over 30 years in the DoD, now DoW. Lots of tongue-biting. The model is probably very common in institutions in which authority is valued over open dialogue and consensus building.

I think your way ahead is fair—the older I get and the closer I get to second retirement, the less interested I am in conversations that require me to show deference or tapdance around immunity from critique.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah that’s the voice of over 30 years in the DoD, now DoW. Lots of tongue-biting. The model is probably very common in institutions in which authority is valued over open dialogue and consensus building.

I think your way ahead is fair—the older I get and the closer I get to second retirement, the less interested I am in conversations that require me to show deference or tapdance around immunity from critique.

Yes, a certain amount of restraint of the tongue is good policy, but I have limited use for voluntary communities that demand my unquestioning allegiance to authority. I figure there is enough I have to swallow in the less-voluntary communities.

I can't imagine what it must be like in the DoD. My father is retired CIA, but I did not hear many stories about what that was like, except for the odd boss or struggling colleague.