Doctor Scratch wrote:But I wonder if you might draw a clearer connect with the story about crushing the would-be senior class president
As an aside on "Mopologetic uselessness", if there is any one thing that this guy can't stand, it's someone from the underclass making light of Mormonism or questioning their faith, or questioning Mormonism as an outsider. How dare they? That's why particulars are rarely defended, and the argument is generally to show evidence of leisure, and the evidence of leisure of his Mopologist friends. Once the questioner is made to understand that they are lesser as human beings, that they are the underclass and the Mopologists are the upper-class in a very 19th century way, there's nothing else left to say because if the aristocracy believes, then the matter should be settled.
Who are these commoners to discuss business and politics with us?
MST is about one aspect of leisure, the Phd. But we've seen a variety of plugs within this antiquated framework of class. Being too busy with travel to answer a question, for instance. Having an important dinner with somebody important, therefore, the Church is true. Noting years ago that Lou Midgley and his wife were, at the time, "lost in the theaters of Europe", therefore Midgley wouldn't be available to (doesn't need to because he's too important) respond to some point a critic made. Having a musicologist explain the theoretical aspects of some hymn on Christmas Eve, therefore, how dare these uncultured atheists question the risen Lord? It's even gone so far as to make out Schryver of all people, to be a soft-handed gentleman. You recall how he described Schryver frequenting a classy wood-fired pizza establishment where he spoke Italian with the staff?
I guess I'm getting carried away, but this is barely the tip of the iceberg. The Mopologist is doing something useless right now, therefore he is right and you are wrong.
Anyway, I think you pointed out the main thing with being senior-class president. In his case, it was entirely a status symbol, as he didn't care about it, and probably didn't make any effort to make the school better. It was a matter of self-importance, underscored by the absence of effort that he put into his campaign when contrasted with the great effort that his opponent put into his campaign. It's all about inherent greatness. Not greatness because you tried hard and competed well and won, greatness because you were inherently superior and didn't have to try. Remember the film
Amadeus? Antonio Salieri would be like that guy running for class president, and Amadeus would be like DCP. It can be a little confusing to think about because supposed conflicts like the one between Amadeus and Salieri don't necessarily have to reflect a person of leisure and a person of labor, obviously, commoners have been far more talented than nobility in history, but these are symbolic examples for how the aristocracy define themselves.
I'm sure such a worldview was aided substantially by a love of
Added Upon, which teaches of a premortal "master race". Certain people like himself were "those of whom I will make my leaders". The important people who don't have to try, the nobility who are envied by the commoners.