Eric just cannot understand why people in the Bloggernacle think he is a self-righteous jerk. Gee, maybe it is because he considers himself a nice guy in "a place like this". Or maybe it is because he considers himself and the way he does things "orthodox":

I think that what we rely on at the end of the day is important in determining how orthodox we are. If we are honestly basing our beliefs and actions on the scriptures and on modern day prophets as a whole then we can consider ourselves orthodox within the church. If we are basing our beliefs on something else and ignoring the scriptures we are not.
Nah, couldn't be that he is accusing others of being dishonest and of not following the scriptures or modern day prophets. Or, what about the way he passive-aggressively paint himself as the innocent victim when he compares the bloggernacle in general (or at the very least those who call you "self-righteous") to teenage bullies who try to get him to swear or his drunken golf buddies who try to get him to drink beer? Yeah, Eric is the hapless, innocent who is beset by angry meanies who hate him for no other reason than he is doing his best at being a nice, righteous guy.

OK, Mr. Goody Two Shoes, stop your whining. There is nothing goody-goody about going around voicing opinions in public about who is good (yourself) and who is bad (the bloggernacle). Hey, guess what, there are going to be people who disagree with you. And they are entitled to. Because you are just some opinionated blogger, just like all the other opinionated bloggers. That is what a public forum is about. And disagreeing with you doesn't make people bad.

You might be, as you say, "a schmuck", but engaging in self-deprecation like this does not change the fact that you are acting in an obnoxious and offensive manner and are getting what you asked for. Self-made martydom does not necessarily mean you are righteous. Jesus and the apostles were persecuted for their righteousness, but that doesnt mean all those persecuted are righteous. Going around slapping people in the face is going to get you slapped back, and that is what you are getting right now. What comes around, goes around.

Should the bloggernacle turn the other cheek? Yes. But, well, it looks like we are no better than you when it comes to actually doing what Jesus taught.


Eric Nielson said... @ May 24, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Thank you for the feedback and advice.

Best wishes.

Eric Nielson said... @ May 24, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Oh, and I don't think I said anyone was bad.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ May 24, 2007 at 9:48 AM

You never explicitly said anyone was bad, which is how most passive-aggressives play it.

When you go around saying you are "a nice guy" and are "orthodox" and the bloggernacle is "a place like this", then the bad is implicit. Bad is not good. You are good and nice, the bloggernacle is not you, it is "a place like this".

You say on your blog post "This term could simply be one who is nice and is also a Mormon. But more specifically I am referring to those who are active, have a testimony, and have few if any complaints about the church." You are necessarily implying that "a place like this" means the opposite, or as you put it "contrasts" the above decription of "nice Mormons".

So, by clear implication, you are saying the bloggernacle is composed of those who are less active, do not have a testimony, and have many complaints about the church.

If that is not what you meant when you said you were "nice" and the bloggernacle is in "contrast" to that, then what are we to take away from being labeled as "a place like this"? It is a compliment? Please do explain.

Eric Nielson said... @ May 24, 2007 at 10:07 AM

In the post you are referring (I think you know it better than I do) I believe I left it open by saying that perhaps the bloggernacle was exactly the place nice Mormons should be.

In some way, is not the bloggernacle an alternative voice? At least at some level? Again in the post I metioned there are plenty of other things to do and to read. Why here? I thought it might make an interesting discussion that is all.

I frequently question my own value to this community. I usually feel that value is small. Maybe even negative. I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure things out like most everyone else. Perhaps I am coming toward figuring it out from a different (not necessarily better) angle than some people.

I am part of the bloggernacle - for better or worse. If there are problems I am part of them. If I thought the bloggernacle was as bad as you are suggesting I am then I would not be here. I have hung around for a year and a half.

You question the value of the bloggernacle. So do I. You question my value and motives. So do I.

Again, thanks for you feedback. I will try to be more careful in how I express things.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ May 24, 2007 at 10:44 AM


You explicitly contrasted the "nice Mormons" with the "place like this", which you made very clear was the bloggernacle. Now you are trying to back out of the negative light you cast the "place like this". Weak, Eric. Very weak. Either stand up behind your words or clearly change your position.

We at SN do question the value of the bloggernacle and values of those who participate. But, we don't sit around and say "Boo hoo, nobody likes me and it isnt my fault" like you are doing. We provide negative feedback, and get all the abuse we deserve for it. We expect it, and we stick to our guns. We do not whine when people take us to task for what we do.

If you are going to sit there and be confrontational, then you have to expect to end up in confrontations, no matter how passive-aggressive your confrontations are. This is not a case of high school bullies trying to get you to swear and co-workers trying to get you to drink. This is a case of you shooting your mouth off in public and getting told off for it by the public you are criticizing. Then you have the nerve to say "I didn't deserve that, I am just a nice harmless Mormon boy minding my own business and trying to be good!!!" Not quite, Eric.

Naiah said... @ May 24, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Um, in the the "place like this post" didn't Eric say the bloggernacle in general AND BofJ in specific? That's hardly condemnation. I really think he was just having fun with the 'pick-up line' phrase.

SP, you really are coming off like a bully here, tugging at phrases and twisting them into other meanings. It's yourself, really, that you're arguing with. I've read all those posts that you cited (one of which you attributed to Eric is actually Connor's, though...), and just like anybody else on the blogs, Mormon or otherwise, Eric's just floating his thoughts to see how the boat rocks.

I'd lay off. There's no fight to pick here.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ May 24, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Sorry, Naiah, I don't see it that way. Eric is holding himself up as a "nice Mormon" who is "orthodox" and the bloggernacle in general as something other than that. Being a generalist only means you haven't got the chutspah to stand up and name names. It doesn't mean you don't mean what you are saying, only that you are too cowardly to stand up for it.

The people there who congregate at Blogger of Jared (and we all know you like them and have guest blogged there) have repeatedly attacked what they see as the liberal element (e.g., Michelle's comments on the women laying on hands thread, Connor's posts on who is and who isn't orthodox). Throw in Jettboy, who also has guest blogged there and who has also explicitly condemned the Sunstoners, and you have a group of people who are squaring off against the bloggernacle. You yourself went off and started aPoF after you got rough treatment at FMH and were smarting from it.

Sure, none of them have had the chutspah to stand up and actually name names, so they all hide under this "we never said anyone was bad" thing, but it is pretty obvious what they are getting at.

Which comment was actually Connor? The orthodox quote was Eric, not Connor.

You are right that Eric is trying to rock the boat. As for me being a bully, well, if I am, at least I have the chutspah to stand up and confront my targets face to face and not hide behind vague innuendos and veiled references. And as for twisting things around, sorry, Naiah, I just dont see it that way. There is a large body of evidence here that your friends there at BofJ see themselves as "of the Bloggernacle, but not in the Bloggernacle".

webwombat said... @ May 24, 2007 at 11:34 AM


Way to serious bro...

The bloggernacle should turn another cheek to Nielson and BoJ

Both cheeks in fact


Eric Nielson said... @ May 24, 2007 at 12:41 PM

The 'Nice Mormon' post you site (again) had the phrase - perhaps the bloggernacle is exactly the place nice Mormons should be. I thin a fair reading shows I was trying to stir up discussion. As Naiah points out I asked about BofJ specifically. It is also obvious to the fair minded that the 'Nice Mormon' was the reader. A reader from the Bloggernacle as a whole most likely.

Anyway, you seem pretty certain that you have me all figured out. At least I have the courage to use my real name.

So, I am going to cut way back on talking about the bloggernacle at all (thank goodness you say). And I am going to try to be less offensive and obnoxious.

M&M said... @ May 24, 2007 at 1:57 PM

CHILL. Eric is so not the person you have painted.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ May 24, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Give it a rest, Eric. You and the rest of your Blogger of Jared pals sit there and smugly look down your nose at the rest of the Bloggernacle. That smug attitude is exactly why you wrote your post yesterday where you likened those in the Bloggernacle allegedly accusing you of self-righteousness to teenage bullies and drunken non-lds coworkers. If my read on you is so wrong, your analogies of the bloggernacle make absolutely no sense, and neither does the statement "And so here I am of the bloggernacle. Personally I try to be supportive of the church, it’s teachings, and it’s leaders. I would prefer if others did the same, but this may not be realistic." You are insinuating that the others in the Bloggernacle aren't like you and that they aren't orthodox like you, and that is why they are calling you self-righteous. Or is that just another possibility you want to open up for discussion? Gee, maybe, but not definitely, some of these people accusing me of being self-righteous might be, sort of, but not really, kind of not as supportive of the modern prophets and church as I am, and so, maybe, that is why they are accusing me of being self-righteous, not because I really am, but because they aren't following the prophets and scriptures like me. Give me a break, Eric.

You are trying to back out of what you said. You screwed it all up in the first place by misinterpreting what Rusty said. Rather then admit you totally flew off the handle over nothing, you let is stand. Why did you fly off the handle in the first place? Because you, like your other "orthodox" pals there have already decided what the Bloggernacle is like, and that is "not like us".

Since you have reinterpreted your "nice Mormon" post into something it isn't. Why don't you now reinterpret your "self-righteous schmuck" post into something it isn't now? Tell us all how it really is just a question posed to the Bloggernacle for discussion, and it was more about Blogger of Jared than the Bloggernacle.

And, yes, Mr. Courageous, you do use your own name, but your courage runs out there. If you cannot even stand up behind what you really thing and have written, well, what have you really got?


If he isn't, then why hasn't he retracted his rant over the alleged accusation of self-righteousness, when it was entirely over his misunderstanding of Rusty's comment?

M&M said... @ May 24, 2007 at 2:30 PM

It seems to me that you have already pre-decided what the motives are at BoJ. Until you consider that you might not be correct about that (that our whole purpose is anti-nacle) then it seems to me that nothing Eric (or anyone else) says will satisfy you. I think he's done more than enough to try to be apologetic accepting of "feedback" even when given in an unkind way.

Anyway, if you would notice, those who have taken issue with the post at BoJ actually clarified that HE's not the one they are taking issue with. So, like I said, I think you should chill on attacking Eric. No one deserves this kind of unkindness you have shown here. And maybe give folks the benefit of the doubt.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ May 24, 2007 at 2:39 PM

OK, M&M, I am going to give you and your pals at BofJ the benefit of the doubt. If nobody is accusing Eric of being self-righteous, then his entire post is nothing but a big misunderstanding, right? Yeah, sure. Then Eric should delete it or post a retraction or apology, along the lines, of "Sorry, I misread what you wrote and jumped the gun".

If he does that, I will admit I am wrong and the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and delete this post as well.

Fair? I think so. Because if Eric really isn't saying what he says I am saying, and nobody really is accusing him of being self-righteous, then his post makes no sense. Right? OK, then delete it.

There we go, problem solved.

C Jones said... @ May 24, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Sweet! The Snarker is channeling Fawn Brodie!

Eric Nielson said... @ May 24, 2007 at 3:12 PM


After thinking about this some more, I think I am beginning to see that I am guilty of a type of misbehavior that I was not aware of. I have made a couple of posts like this:

Some may think the bloggernacle is bad, others may think it is good. What do you think? I then step out of the ring of controversy, which I created, and let others enter the ring and duke it out. I really do not step into the ring much. I might moderate a little. But not much else.

In doing this I may be setting up my friends at BofJ to take a stand that I am not ready to take myself. When the post gets criticized for being self-righteous I take a little offense and bemoan accusations of sef-righteousness in general.

I'm not sure how to handle this on future posts. There are times I want to bring up a controversial topic that I do not know which side to take, and see what happens. But perhaps I shouldn't do this.

You are right about me being wishy washy on certain topics. I have not got everything figured out yet. Probably never will.

Anyway, I sincerely thank you for poiting out my misbehavior, and I will consider how best to reform.

I will consider deleting my self-righteous post. I think you could see how I might take Rusty's comment as a slap against BofJ. Also HP's intro (which he admitted later was a cheap shot). All in all BCC did not dog-pile on me too bad.

Anyway, keep up the good work. This was a pretty good snark. Adam Ant, lots of links, and I did think I learned something about myself and my behavior that can lead to improvement.

Keep up the good work.

Now if you will excuse me, I have an apology email to send.

Anonymous said... @ May 25, 2007 at 12:30 AM

See -- Snarkernacle is serving a useful purpose.

Eric: Very nicely handled here in this thread. I'm impressed.

Anonymous said... @ May 25, 2007 at 10:04 AM

SnarkerNacle defending the Bloggernacle? I'm confused.

Goofus said... @ May 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Goofus says
please do it

Post a Comment