Saturday, May 9, 2009

Intellectual? I sure hope not! War? Sounds good. Guilt? What, me worry?

I never confess anything, but I want to say:

I am completely proud of my behavior on the internet. Toward y'all, I have made the decision to snark and be mean. There is not very much of Christ in the online behavior I see in the 'Nacle; There is a lot of pride and self-justification amongst y'all, though.

Let me explain:

A couple of years ago, I suddenly found myself self-aware on the internet. After reading the various comments and posts on various 'Nacle sites, I noticed there wasn't a whole lot good going on. Most of the claims made about Gospel appeared to be based more on liberal politics than the teachings of the prophets, and they were unaware their criticisms of other Mormons applied equally well to their own beliefs, therefore everything said was both incredibly fallacious and incredibly hypocritical.

There I was, lacking a physical existence, watching people who had made the hostile attack of conservative Mormonism their online work, people who think they know more about church history than the general membership (when really, all they know are the latest trendy claims). I noticed a few people were asking exactly the sorts of questions that the 'Nacle intelligentsia couldn’t handle; but they were ridiculed and/or ignored. It was a bizarre experience. It was clearly a little too much fun for them, a little too gratifying for their egos.

I don’t really understand this, though over time I decided they enjoyed the smug self satisfaction they got from loudly and constantly proclaiming their superior nuance and understanding, as well as their constant patting of each other on the back. They're so happy to be right, to demonstrate it on a daily basis that they have made their websites a place that was hostile to the kind of faithful, well-intentioned believers that make up the vast majority of the church. I made one comment at BCC, and Steve Evans banned me. Of course, I wasn't the only one he's banned, and he wasn't the only one doing the banning. They all wanted a nice, little community where they could bask in the glow of their clever dismissals of true Mormonism without the interference of someone who actually believes what the prophets teach.

So, after a time, I decided to create this blog. The rest is history.

Lord, help thou the apostasy of the Bloggernacle.


Anonymous said...

Banned after one comment? It must have been a real winner!

Mister Correlation said...

Nope. If you read through my archives, I link to it. I chalk it up to my naivete as a newcomer. Apparently, Steve didn't care for drive by linking. I was newly formed, so I was unaware of the etiquette.

Of course, I think most of the etiquette on the 'Nacle is pointless and stupid, but I can understand the dislike of drive by linking, as it resembles spam.

Morgan Deane said...

I think your blog is awesome. Since I started my blog about 5 months ago I realized many of the things that you have: these people are liberal unorthodox mormons who like to pat themselves on the back while scorning conservative members. A turning point for me came in a post on BCC about musical experiements. (here:

After joking that he will cause a letter from the first presidency everybody patted him on the back for being so nuanced. I had the temerity to remind everybody that getting a letter from the first presidency is not a resume enhancment, and I politely explained that I was not happy with his expeirements. I was promptly denounced by everybody in rather harsh terms. So if you don't pat them on the back they have heaping amounts of scorn for you.

So in short, you are correct in your analysis of the many sad people in the LDS bloggernacle.

Anonymous said...

You see the kind of people you are encouraging?

Mister Correlation said...

No, not really.

Either comment #3 above is a parody (at which point it doesn't go quite far enough) or it's sincere. If it's sincere, so what? The main problem with the 'Nacle is that they either don't realize just how condescending and elitist they appear or they revel in their pride. If more people were willing to call them on it, perhaps they might decide to humble themselves and repent, and thus start building up the kingdom instead of their own egos.

Although, I totally think accordions are appropriate for sacrament meeting.

Anonymous said...

My favorite part about those who heap scorn on the bloggernacle is their complaint that the bloggernacle heaps scorn on them.

Morgan Deane said...

I don't agree with Mister Correlation's tone. But he (she or it) is also right. Everybody on the internet is allowed their voice. And I actually have the nuance to distinguish between somebody's persona and the meat of their argument. That is why is said that I agree with his analysis. I also think he is funny which is why I inclucded the awesome part.

I was going to keep my mouth shut untill I realized there are many people outside of BCC et al that feel the same way as I do. As I said before, they are so busy patting themselves on the back in their little clique, they don't realize how they look to and treat many faithful orthodox members. (or they do know and are so concerned with steadying the ark or thinking they know more than the prophets that they don't care, which is actually far worse)

For example, I remember a huge argument that erupted because one blogger thought that people should include more scripture in their posts. (I know, its like wanting to play an accordian in sacrament meeting or something) Many people decided to chide him on how wrong and mean he was for such a suggestion.

So to summarize: I feel his tactics border on mean sometimes, but since he is also funny and correct in his analysis, I will "encourage" him. Really, all I wanted to do was let him (she, or it) know that he is not the only one to notice.

Mister Correlation said...

My favorite part about those who heap scorn on the bloggernacle is their complaint that the bloggernacle heaps scorn on them.True dat. Except that I heap snark, not scorn. Well, maybe a little scorn mixed with the snark . . .

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Anonymous2 said...

In the beginning, there was self-righteousness. And the self-righteousness was without form, and void. And Evans looked out and said, "It is not good that self-righteousness should be alone. We will create a bloggernacle meet for it."

Anonymous said...

Actually, I think we should encourage the propogaters of the Bloggernacle. This way we know that they'll be too busy blogging to harm the membership with their idea or . . . Be called to Important Leadership positions. For example, imo, FMH is the greatest argument against giving women the priesthood. And I say that as a woman.