Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Kishkumen]

TLDR: My thoughts after having been unfriended on Facebook by an LDS academic at BYU with whom I have had a long, positive association.

I could also call this, "Perils of Being an Influencer," but I am most concerned with the Mormon angle here. Something I have long noticed, not only in myself but in others, is that online discussion is difficult, and few people there be who are sufficiently patient, cautious, and thick-skinned to do it well. This sad truth is glaringly noticeable in the online Mormosphere, where the niceness of LDS people--notice I am not saying goodness--that is often studiously adhered to in the wardhouse (outside of basketball competitions, of course) shows its gaping cracks.

Now, I am no exception to this. I don't really do it that well. And, I have chosen this place to let it all hang out, so to speak. I have been at my worst here, and sometimes I have been at my best here (if positive reactions to what I have written on occasion can be trusted). But, dammit, I have tried to be better, and sometimes I see in my posts a better me, whom I would love to be able to be all the time. Maybe then I would be a sage.

Outside of this rough-and-tumble zone of free speech--and it really is better than most other fora in that way, regardless of the carping of people who sit here and complain about it endlessly and perfectly freely--I need to be more careful, and I would like to think I more frequently succeed. I have been more careless about political conversations, but I am really tired of the endless viciousness of partisan fighting. So, I am much more careful about what I say in the social media sphere, not least because I really could lose my job if the wrong people decided to have a beef with me over it.

But it really gets me how ugly Mormosphere Facebook often is. I have to wonder if it is even possible for it not to be ugly. There is something about the LDS community that seems to require that in-person, surface-level niceness that so many disillusioned-LDS and ex-LDS critics interpret to be hypocrisy. Absent that, you see a lot of the worst in Mormons. The tribalism, the persecution complex, the self-righteousness, the attacks on perceived critics, the narcissism, the boundary maintenance bullying--it's all there, and it feels almost unrelenting. And I am not sure that it is just a function of individual flaws.

The problem, as I see it, is that we are all keen to go after each other when we have the room to do so without risking being punched in the face. No harm, no foul, so we think. But what happens in fact is that not only do people more regularly attack and criticize others, but people are more liable to see others attacking them in comments that are made, even when no intention to attack or criticize exists. What seems to be required to avoid this is a whole bunch of rhetorical peace gesturing that very carefully lays out the intention of the comment and stipulates precisely how it is to be read. It's very much like a little ritual process that makes it possible to enter your distant neighbor's property without having the dogs called on you or getting buckshot in your rear end.

What we see, whether it is among ex-Mormons, Mormons, or Mormon-interested folk, is a lot of thin-skinned, hair-trigger posting and banning. So much drama. I am reaching the end of my desire to participate in it. My patriarchal blessing--which, yes, I still value--cautioned me to "be aware of the circumstances in which (I) live." Before now, I did not think of that as applying to my online activities, but now I think that may be the case. Should I be hanging out in places where people routinely treat each other abominably, criticize each other, attack each other, stir up drama? I am starting to think, "no."

What brought me here to make these comments today was being unfriended, maybe blocked, on Facebook by an LDS academic at BYU with whom I have had a long, positive association. From my point of view, it seemed like my comments were welcome whenever I was responding in the "attaboy" mode. If ever I disagreed with this person or made a comment that might not be viewed as unambiguously supportive, as soon as the person noticed, they hopped into Facebook messenger to ask why I was being a "prick." I found the whole thing kind of baffling. This person has recently embarked on a personal mission to take on critics and people with unorthodox religious views. The predictable results have been disappointing. This is when I started to chime in, basically to say that we should strive to listen to our better angels in these situations, and for that I was called prick and then, I am guessing, eventually unfriended or blocked.

The first time I was called a prick, the person rushed to their wall with blanket mea culpas about how big a struggle it is to carry on these online discussions, basically to say that they wished they had been a bigger person. Oh well! My last offense was basically identical to the first. In neither case did I unambiguously call out the influencer personally. Rather, I guess I caused the person to consider how my comments might apply to them, and they did not like the conclusion that they drew. What is that old Mormon saw about the wicked and the truth? I kid because I love. And, we can say that this is about the dangers of Mopologetics, but then I have seen the same problem among the ex-Mormon influencers. Something in the ideology? Something in humanity? I dunno for sure, but it is wearing thin.

Anyhow, if you have reached this point, congrats for your patience and stamina.

[Dr. Shades]

I have been at my worst here, and sometimes I have been at my best here (if positive reactions to what I have written on occasion can be trusted). But, dammit, I have tried to be better, and sometimes I see in my posts a better me, whom I would love to be able to be all the time.

You already are a better you. 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.

But it really gets me how ugly Mormosphere Facebook often is. I have to wonder if it is even possible for it not to be ugly. There is something about the LDS community that seems to require that in-person, surface-level niceness that so many disillusioned-LDS and ex-LDS critics interpret to be hypocrisy. Absent that, you see a lot of the worst in Mormons. The tribalism, the persecution complex, the self-righteousness, the attacks on perceived critics, the narcissism, the boundary maintenance bullying--it's all there, and it feels almost unrelenting. And I am not sure that it is just a function of individual flaws.

Welcome to the world of Mopologetics. Nice to see you've arrived. Oh well, better late than never, right?

The problem, as I see it, is that we are all keen to go after each other when we have the room to do so without risking being punched in the face. No harm, no foul, so we think. But what happens in fact is that not only do people more regularly attack and criticize others, but people are more liable to see others attacking them in comments that are made, even when no intention to attack or criticize exists. What seems to be required to avoid this is a whole bunch of rhetorical peace gesturing that very carefully lays out the intention of the comment and stipulates precisely how it is to be read. It's very much like a little ritual process that makes it possible to enter your distant neighbor's property without having the dogs called on you or getting buckshot in your rear end.

Welcome to text-based communication. We here in 2025 are happy to have you join us.

What brought me here to make these comments today was being unfriended, maybe blocked, on Facebook by an LDS academic at BYU with whom I have had a long, positive association. From my point of view, it seemed like my comments were welcome whenever I was responding in the "attaboy" mode. If ever I disagreed with this person or made a comment that might not be viewed as unambiguously supportive, as soon as the person noticed, they hopped into Facebook messenger to ask why I was being a "prick." I found the whole thing kind of baffling. This person has recently embarked on a personal mission to take on critics and people with unorthodox religious views. The predictable results have been disappointing. This is when I started to chime in, basically to say that we should strive to listen to our better angels in these situations, and for that I was called prick and then, I am guessing, eventually unfriended or blocked.

Congratulations! You got to see the birth of a Mopologist in real-time. Now he officially joins the ranks of maybe hundreds who have gone before.

The first time I was called a prick, the person rushed to their wall with blanket mea culpas about how big a struggle it is to carry on these online discussions, basically to say that they wished they had been a bigger person. Oh well! My last offense was basically identical to the first. In neither case did I unambiguously call out the influencer personally. Rather, I guess I caused the person to consider how my comments might apply to them, and they did not like the conclusion that they drew.

Self-reflection is a trait that isn't exactly abundant among Mopologists. If it was, then they wouldn't be Mopologists, would they?

What is that old Mormon saw about the wicked and the truth?

The more time someone spends building a house of cards, the more resentful they'll be if you bump the table.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the response, Shades. It is interesting to see how this lands with you. I am eager to see how others respond, too.

[drumdude]

I have been surprised at how poorly Moron Influencers are dealing with unorthodox views from members. One of the hallmarks of a successful religion is its ability to be somewhat malleable and incorporate many different diverse views.

These influencers want Mormonism to be inflexible and rigid, and reflect their own personal opinions. It makes me wonder what will happen to their testimonies when the leaders of the church break from those views.

It’s been sad seeing so much hate when the church makes even the slightest of progressive decisions.

[Kishkumen]

I have been surprised at how poorly Moron Influencers are dealing with unorthodox views from members. One of the hallmarks of a successful religion is its ability to be somewhat malleable and incorporate many different diverse views.

These influencers want Mormonism to be inflexible and rigid, and reflect their own personal opinions. It makes me wonder what will happen to their testimonies when the leaders of the church break from those views.

It’s been sad seeing so much hate when the church makes even the slightest of progressive decisions.

The latest issue that is heating things up is polygamy denialism. You almost couldn't make this up.

[drumdude]

I have been surprised at how poorly Moron Influencers are dealing with unorthodox views from members. One of the hallmarks of a successful religion is its ability to be somewhat malleable and incorporate many different diverse views.

These influencers want Mormonism to be inflexible and rigid, and reflect their own personal opinions. It makes me wonder what will happen to their testimonies when the leaders of the church break from those views.

It’s been sad seeing so much hate when the church makes even the slightest of progressive decisions.

The latest issue that is heating things up is polygamy denialism. You almost couldn't make this up.

It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you teach people to ignore evidence and facts to believe that the Book of Mormon was historical, then you’re going to end up with people who don’t value historical evidence and facts.

They might as well believe Joseph didn’t practice polygamy too. Why stop at one false historical belief?

[Kishkumen]

It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you teach people to ignore evidence and facts to believe that the Book of Mormon was historical, then you’re going to end up with people who don’t value historical evidence and facts.

They might as well believe Joseph didn’t practice polygamy too. Why stop at one false historical belief?

At the end of the day, I think the acceptable past is the one the group sanctions. It is like this in many communities.

[Gadianton]

I've read the post, and good to see you by the way, Reverend. I lack the direct experience to respond to much of this, as I have no social media -- I think I lasted about 2 weeks on Facebook. Red flags all over the place. I'll be honest here, from what you described of this individual, if you valued the friendship, then you should have never had made the comments. And after the first comment, you had your answer about where other comments would go, which means you either secretly wanted it to go in that direction or feared the worst but thought you might get away with it. I don't think you are surprised of the outcome.

I'm not saying it's your fault, I did have a similar sort of thing a few weeks ago with that guy in my neighborhood. What you end up asking yourself is, "Am I good with a one-way friendship?" If the answer is yes, then people who lack self-awareness, rationality, and empathy will take full advantage of that so better be good with it. If the answer is no, then maybe you risk the offenses because the tradeoff is at least they know somebody disagrees with them. It sounds like this guy is a classic one-way-street like Dan. It's not possible to have a normal friendship with such a person so you have to decide if you want that person in your life for whatever reason, you have to play 100% on their terms. There is no right or wrong answer here to if you want such a person in your life, only the realization that it's their way or the highway if the answer is yes. I have family members for whom that answer is "yes" so I play by their rules.

I think all this is largely human nature in general and isn't Mormon specific. However, authoritarianism does amplify the problem. Episode Six of Pluribus explains this well. Koumba Diabaté takes on the role of the authoritarian leader (Brigham Young) everyone in the kingdom bends over backwards to please. The stunning revelation is that he's okay with it. It reveals that in the Church, this charade where everyone plays their role and is fake is a consciously accepted reality, a feature of the institution. Sure, there's something satisfying to the narcissistic mind with somebody is forced to shine their shoes when they don't want to and must pretend they enjoy it. However, the core issue is loyalty. If a friendship is real based on real sincere feelings, then what happens if the feelings change? Loyalty can take the worst case scenario, that the feelings aren't even necessarily good, and keep the situation going in a stable manner.

[Whiskey]

The first time I was called a prick...............

I have called you much worse things than that. Did that bother you? Or, is it just that there is a lack of professional allowance or etiquette in the Facebook space that bothers you?

If politics was the topic, or Trump, there is always the possibility that you were a prick. Before you jump my crap for saying so. Let me give that some definition. If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump, as if they were fact.... If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump voters, as if the conclusions were fact.... or if the conversation included any assertions about people that you have never met, no matter how well written or what your intentions... the other side of that is that you are damned prick or piece of crap.

If you were called a prick over a conversation only about the classics, we need to know more. This could make it into the screenplay.

Now, my guesses hunches and experience. People that once sat back and politely listened to some ivy tower lesson in what is correct or not, are sick of that crap. They are burned out. Some of them really want the lecturer to F off and some of them just want to tell the lecturer to F off. And the clutching over being told to F off, when it used to be just fine to whine about climate change making it hard for transexual people to get a job in the NFL is also off-putting, to say the least. You disagree, but just hear me out, the folks that thought they were just doing us all a favor by being pretentious lecturing pricks, don't like being called a prick. And the folks receiving those lecturers, are figuring out how fine and fun it is to tell the pretentious folks to eat a dick. This is not a Mormon thing, at all. It is a "we accept your conditions" thing.

[Whiskey]

I think all this is largely human nature in general and isn't Mormon specific.

Correct.