The Great Disconnect

[_Kishkumen]

In my years as an observer of LDS apologetics, I have been struck time and again that the problems I have seen are often ignored by the apologists and their friends. Yet I have observed some apologists engaged in behavior that veers far away from the path of polite etiquette as they have gotten their dander up in response to a representation of Mormonism or Mormon culture that they have taken exception to.

The seeming obliviousness of a few apologists (I am happy to report that this is not a universal malady) continues to astound me. I ask myself questions like the following: "How could these guys not see that the TIME Lightbox spectacle was not good for the LDS Church?" Is there some phenomenon at work here that breeds a tone deafness that actually undermines the apologetic effort?

This morning I read Maureen Dowd's piece, "Mitt's Olympic Meddle" and was struck by the similarity between Mitt's gaffes and these grand apologetic missteps. Still, I am at a loss to explain precisely what is at work here.

Reflect on this:

And it was painful for Mitt, who had to watch his father’s epic gaffe from afar, while he was over in France struggling to drum up a few Mormon converts.

In their book “The Real Romney,” Michael Kranish and Scott Helman quoted Mitt’s sister Jane as saying the episode deeply affected Mitt: “He’s not going to put himself out on a limb. He’s more cautious, more scripted.”

That’s when Mitt began to build his own sterile biosphere, shaping his temperament and political career to make sure he never stumbled into such a costly moment of candor.

Even though the Mormon doesn’t drink coffee, he has measured out his life in coffee spoons, limiting access to reporters, giving interviews mostly to Fox News, hiding personal data, resisting putting out concrete policy proposals, refusing to release tax returns, trimming his conscience to match the moment, avoiding spontaneity. But somehow he ended up making the same unforced error that his dad did.

It’s like the epigraph in John O’Hara’s “Appointment at Samarra.” You can run from fate, but fate will be waiting in the next town, at the next marketplace.

Even as he angled to appear Anglo-Saxon and obsequiously vowed to restore the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, Mitt condescended to the nation that invented condescension. The Brits swiftly boxed his ears for his insolence and foul calumny.

Conservatives in London oozed scorn. Mayor Boris Johnson mocked “a guy called Mitt Romney,” and Prime Minister David Cameron suggested it was easier to run an Olympics “in the middle of nowhere.” Fleet Street spanked “Nowhere Man” and “Mitt the Twit.”

Conservatives on Fox News were dumbfounded. “You have to shake your head,” Karl Rove said. Charles Krauthammer pronounced the faux pas “unbelievable, it’s beyond human understanding, it’s incomprehensible. I’m out of adjectives.”

The alarming thing about Romney is that he has been running for president for years, but he still doesn’t know how to read a room. He doesn’t take anything in, he just puts it out. He doesn’t hear himself the way the rest of us hear him.

It is clear to me that the apologists don't hear themselves the way I hear them. But why? It is easy to say that it is because they represent a belief and culture that I no longer share, but that is not exactly true. Does apparent certainty about doctrinal particulars account for the difference? Sure, some apologists want to pigeonhole me as an anti-Mormon, but this is, in my view, part of their tone deafness. Differ from some apologists about a religious issue, and they push you out the door before you even knew you were headed there.

So, I ask. What do you think is at work here?

[Guest]

The alarming thing about Romney is that he has been running for president for years, but he still doesn’t know how to read a room. He doesn’t take anything in, he just puts it out. He doesn’t hear himself the way the rest of us hear him.

Truer words were seldom, if ever, spoken. Ms. Dowd has captured the essential truth of Mitt Romney and the Romney campaign for President in three sentences.

And yes, it was painful to watch.

Now Romney is in Israel, looking as clueless and wooden as ever. It is just as painful to watch him in Jerusalem as it was t watch him in London.

[_Kevin Graham]

Arrogance.

It all stems from their belief that they are God's favorites, as Latter-day Saints. Their mission is to lecture, not to listen. We learned this from our missions especially. The environment must always be controlled. So, missionaries teaching a discussion while being disrupted by an anti-Mormon uncle who walks in the room, will probably shut down the discussion and return another time when this person isn't around.

Likewise, Dan Peterson must always present his various rants in forums where feedback is either forbidden, or regulated to such an extent that it might as well be. They don't like their speeches to be disrupted with critical feedback, or the facts.

So in a word, I'd say arrogance. They really do feel like they're above reproach, because in their view, God is on their side in ways only Mormons could understand. They live in a fantasy world of their own making that is designed to caters to their own egos. Thus, Dan Peterson has the audacity to make comments about how he and Bill Hamblin are the ones interested in an "open dialogue," and exchange of ideas, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I used to give them the benefit of the doubt and just say they've deluded themselves, but the thing is, they've been confronted about these things by enough people now that the only reasonable explanation, in my view, is that they know what they say isn't true, but they just don't care. They don't care about what's true. This goes for Mitt and the mopologetic enterprise just the same. They can be being intentionally dishonest, and it is their arrogance that lets them think that's OK.

[_Kishkumen]

Arrogance does seem to be a factor, particularly in Mitt's case. I was stunned to hear Mrs. Romney opine in the midst of the primaries that it was Mitt's "turn," as though the privilege of representing the GOP in a presidential race were some kind of coronation.

But in the case of the apologists, where it is obvious that Mormonism is a kind of underdog on the American landscape, I am struck that some of them write and speak with such apparent obliviousness. In the TIME Lightbox debacle, I felt very badly for Shumway and was amazed at the rough treatment he received for posting pictures of his relatives on a blog.

And you look at Sic et Non with wonder. You have to ask yourself how these paranoiac propaganda items from the Republican fringe can be imagined to represent Mormonism at all well. Let's face it, most of the non-LDS people who agree with Peterson's ravings about Obama the false Christ are unlikely to be wooed to respect for the LDS Church on the basis of shared lunacy about politics. And for the love of Pete, he should know better than to step anywhere near the issue of race, and yet there he is talking about Obama as the "Great Black Father" and so forth.

It is absolutely breathtaking in its clubfooted daftness. I think I have to add "wazzock" to my vocabulary just for cases such as Mitt and Dr. Peterson.

[_lulu]

A nasty circle of arrogance, inferiority complex and persecution complex.

[_zeezrom]

If religion could be grass roots and open source, things would be different.

[_Cicero]

Arrogance

I agree. I've dealt with lots of private equity executives in real life, including from Bain (after Romney's tenure), and pretty much all of them fit the stereotype of an egotistical alpha male to a tee (and yes, they are almost all male . . . although I did work with one female private equity executive who liked to brag that she had "grown a pair"). You pretty much have to be that way to succeed, as Romney most definitely did, in the cut throat world of private equity.

The apologist I knew best in real life was Bill Hamblin because I worked for the History Department at BYU. He was an arrogant jerk 15 years ago, and does not appear to have changed a bit.

There was a brief period of time in the late 80s and early 90s after ETB's pride talk where church leaders used to talk a lot about the dangers of pride and arrogance. It does come up occasionally now, but I've noticed recently that when we discuss the topics of humility and meekness in church, most people only want to talk about how being humble and meek doesn't mean being "weak" or "wimpy."

[_Cylon]

And you look at Sic et Non with wonder. You have to ask yourself how these paranoiac propaganda items from the Republican fringe can be imagined to represent Mormonism at all well. Let's face it, most of the non-LDS people who agree with Peterson's ravings about Obama the false Christ are unlikely to be wooed to respect for the LDS Church on the basis of shared lunacy about politics. And for the love of Pete, he should know better than to step anywhere near the issue of race, and yet there he is talking about Obama as the "Great Black Father" and so forth.

I agree with you about how it looks from the outside, but judging from my own Mormon friends and family, his politics don't seem all that unusual to me. Crazy, yes, unusual, no. Why would he take stock of how others would look at his words? All his friends probably agree with him, and anyone who doesn't is the enemy, so why would he listen to them?

[_malkie]

Arrogance does seem to be a factor, particularly in Mitt's case. I was stunned to hear Mrs. Romney opine in the midst of the primaries that it was Mitt's "turn," as though the privilege of representing the GOP in a presidential race were some kind of coronation.

But in the case of the apologists, where it is obvious that Mormonism is a kind of underdog on the American landscape, I am struck that some of them write and speak with such apparent obliviousness. In the TIME Lightbox debacle, I felt very badly for Shumway and was amazed at the rough treatment he received for posting pictures of his relatives on a blog.

And you look at Sic et Non with wonder. You have to ask yourself how these paranoiac propaganda items from the Republican fringe can be imagined to represent Mormonism at all well. Let's face it, most of the non-LDS people who agree with Peterson's ravings about Obama the false Christ are unlikely to be wooed to respect for the LDS Church on the basis of shared lunacy about politics. And for the love of Pete, he should know better than to step anywhere near the issue of race, and yet there he is talking about Obama as the "Great Black Father" and so forth.

It is absolutely breathtaking in its clubfooted daftness. I think I have to add "wazzock" to my vocabulary just for cases such as Mitt and Dr. Peterson.

It was reported in Toronto that, in drumming up support for his candidate, one political campaign manager was told by a big-name donor that he would receive a contribution this time, provided that the candidate recognised that the donor's friend's "turn" was coming up in a few years.

[_Kishkumen]

It was reported in Toronto that, in drumming up support for his candidate, one political campaign manager was told by a big-name donor that he would receive a contribution this time, provided that the candidate recognised that the donor's friend's "turn" was coming up in a few years.

Turn for what is my question. In any case, this communication sounds more "behind the scenes."