You present a compelling and persuasive thesis, Dr. Robbers. I am reminded yet again why I am a mere chaired professor, and why you are The Dean. It makes a great deal of sense to interpret the Afore's "career" in this way. If we think clear back to the subject's origin story during his mission, he recounts feeling like a "hero" because his fellow missionaries were recruiting him to come and bash with hostile Christian ministers. Perhaps it was that early jolt of "notoriety" that sent him down the dark path of Mopologetics?Gadianton wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 12:05 amThis is very difficult, scholarly territory, Doctor. And I could be wrong here. I actually did consider this possibility. I admit that if there is a fourth impulse, or if other impulses are derived from this impulse of revenge, then my research would be overturned, and I would look foolish. The stakes are quite high.Doctor Scratch wrote:So, while I have no doubt that he's out dining for pleasure, I can't help but wonder if that desire sits on a more or less level playing field with the desire to exact revenge and "stick it" to critics...
I think the desire to stick it to critics is very serious, but I also think it's a secondary drive, the primary is the drive for notoriety. I think some of his underlings do in fact have revenge and nastiness as a primary drive. A first urge. And I think our subject recognizes that, and recruits based on it. However, I think his own primary urge is notoriety. I really don't think he was looking for a fight in the beginning. I think he was shocked to discover that somebody out there had a different opinion, or believed in a world where he himself wasn't at the center.
One day he thought he was calling a ward house in California, and ended up with a counter-cult ministry on the other end of the line. He didn't know that such things existed until that point, and he was well into adulthood. How dare those people look down on his beliefs? Did they not know about his Phd? Well then, they'd soon be hearing about it.
One can easily see how this grew complicated over the years: how there was perhaps a misguided sense that the coveted "notoriety" could be achieved by picking fights, mocking critics, engaging in bullying tactics, and just generally being a vituperative a-hole. To an extent: it worked! That is largely what he's known for--even the descriptor at "SeN" says that he "made his name defending the LDS Church." It explains why the "Comments" sections is mainly filled with people who clearly have an unhealthy bloodlust.
But you can also sense the subject's discomfort with this: an "inner tension," if you will. Yes, God, that craving for "notoriety" is *so* strong! But achieving it in this way? Wouldn't it be better to have notoriety due to being a world traveler? Or a great scholar? Or a gourmand? Or a filmmaker? So, it would seem that a certain level of notoriety has been achieved, but it has come at a cost.