Jeopardy clue:

"Ezra Taft Benson was one of this church's group of 12 apostles while he was secretary of Agriculture"


Contestants: (crickets, Nothing)

I am surprised this got through the production process.

This question is too parochial for the intended viewing audience, whether or not any of the contestants HAD known the answer.

apparently, the LDS FIX / mole on the Jeopardy staff is still active.

What a SHAME that some lds member is gaming the show/viewers...

You don't need to be LDS to know the answer to that for those geeks on the Jeopardy show. I'm surprised none of them knew that.

The Mormon church is still an American institution despite its members bailing on it like a sinking ship.

Mormon related stuff is there at least every 3 or 4 weeks from what I've seen the last coupla years.

it was WORSE for a while, but might (?) be returning.


definitely a LDS mole writer OR the producers are aware of this phenom

Perhaps lots of Mormons are fans of Jeopardy. It maybe likes to appeal to all segments of society. By including some ?'s on the religion panders to some of its base. Whether contestants are aware or not of its existence it is still an American institution. SLC is capitol to Mormonism. It's a well established American icon.

What I'd like to know GNPE, is was it closer to the $200 question category? Or the $1000 question category?

It wasn't a tough question by my estimation. I'm guessing it was closer to the $200 mark. :D

Sorry, my attention (???) was drawn to the content so I don't recall the category or amount; I think there's a website that stores the history/ archive.

Yeah, I got distracted right then, so didn't quite register the question (thanks for that clarification) or its position on the board. My impression, though, is that it was in the middle, so not the first two (theoretically easier) positions.

I still think that being sec/ag in the '50s or an LDS bigwig aren't well known descriptors to the wider world, even Americans.

ETB is a topic here due to his high profile within Mormonism. For regular folks out there in the universe, not so much.

There have been other Mormon-related clues that nevermo contestants have answered correctly. This one was a bit on the obscure side though. A big deal maybe to Mormons but ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 02:15PM by Nightingale.

I would expect a Canadian would have trouble with the question, but I agree with Amyjo. Just the phrase 12 Apostles should have been a giveaway. What other major US denomination has 12 Apostles? And yes, Mormonism is a major US denomination, even if it is only a scant couple percent of the general population. I'm pretty sure it is in the top five. Most other groups are split into multiple denominations. Mormons are too, but all but the Utah church are really tiny.

It would help to be over 70 years old to recognize the ETB name. It was kind of big news at the time that the Ag Secretary was a Mormon mucky-muck and seriously right-wing.

Ironic that he oversaw the creation of the school lunch program back in the 1950s.

That is something I didn't know about him ie, school lunch program oversight.

Very cool. I grew up on the school hot lunch program. :)

Just as a point of data...

I work with some pretty smart and well-educated folks.
And the ages vary from 62 to 23.
None are or ever were mormons.
All but one are US-born natives.

I did an informal poll, asking them if any had every heard of Ezra Taft Benson.
Nobody had.

I asked them if they knew a church in the US that was led by 12 apostles.
Nobody knew one. Though two of my co-workers guessed JWs. Nobody guessed mormons.

Certainly a tiny sample, and not indicative of the entire US, but still...we "in the know" about mormonism sometimes don't realize how profoundly irrelevant the church is outside of Utah and/or a mormon upbringing :)

^^^ ^^^ ^^^

This is a big part of my not-very-well expressed point.

From a television business standpoint, I can easily see the LDS Church (as a handy example), if they had the entrée, seeking to use the spectrum of Jeopardy's audience base to raise their p.r. profile among both Mormons ("Yay for us! Jeopardy is spotlighting OUR church! Yipee!"), as well as the general, non-Mormon, audience ("potential converts"). This could well account for the frequency of Mormon-related questions on the show.

At the same time, however, with a program such as Jeopardy, the contestants are not, from a functional level, actually "contestants"--they are [functionally] ACTORS, who are working (essentially for free, and without Guild minimums) to sell whatever products/services are being advertised on the show. They have (unscripted) ROLES to play, and (both as individuals and as an aggregate) they are expected to play their assigned roles effectively--this is their "job" once the lights go on.

If the subjects of the questions are TOO arcane, then over the long-term, the show "loses" (in that advertising on the show is not as effective as would be the case otherwise, and/or the advertising revenues begin to be adversely affected).

Regardless of whatever "edge" whoever wants to promote, there is a balance of interest and accessibility in the questions asked which needs to be constantly kept "in balance."

Even if a (or some) producer (or advertiser) wants to advance a particular "cause," the "balance" in the questions asked remains long-term critical to the show's continuing financial and audience-persuading success.

It could well be that "someone" in the production/ownership line wants to utilize the show to raise the profile of Mormonism among non-Mormons, but if the home audience is not able to have enough individual success in answering the questions, at home, themselves, those viewers will, over time, lose interest, which means the show will, over time, be negatively affected.

Producers are all extremely aware of this (they receive and study all of the numbers which are generated), and it appears that Jeopardy might possibly be treading every closer to the balance point.

hie: "...we "in the know" about mormonism sometimes don't realize how profoundly irrelevant the church is outside of Utah and/or a mormon upbringing."

It's an interesting peek at the question of perspective. We can sometimes walk too much inside our own bubble and take for granted that our experience is more common than it actually is.

I used to think, for example, that all Britons loved royalty. Duh. (Because it was a prominent part of our lives as expats - my parents were, loosely speaking, royalists and QEII and her family were always viewed in a most positive light).

It helps to get along in this world if you know history and current events in other countries.

A small, funny eg: I was in line behind a woman at the post office a few weeks ago. She was trying to send a parcel to Ireland. The clerk was routing it to England/UK. She couldn't understand his accent and he couldn't understand hers. He kept saying "England". "No" she said. "IRELAND". And he would say "Right, UK". Finally another clerk came and told him to look up just plain Ireland. I piped up and said, "Right, two separate countries". The customer turned around in relief and said, surprised anybody would know - I guess from long experience - "Yes, that's right!". I must say that it does confuse lots of people. We don't hear that much about the Republic of Ireland. Even though there are a lot of Irish people in this province. Which Ireland though? Always the question. (I haven't mastered recognizing the different accents).

Not knowing basic history or geography can be embarrassing or worse.

I often think too about perspective in terms of the vast difference in standard of living around the world but also right in our individual corner of it. It's all too easy to expect that "everybody" is having the same life experience as we are. For instance, I used to tout the amazing benefits of our national health care program. So easy to think that every person in the country had the same access and high level of care. Until I came face to face with the reality that it's not the same for all. If only that those plugged in get to jump queues (my absolute pet peeve of all time re health care here). But there are other vast and serious inequalities as well. You wouldn't know unless you walked in the other person's shoes when they needed help and it wasn't readily available.

So, to come full circle, yeah, most have never heard of ETB. Easy to get caught up in our own decade, zone, interests, the speck that is our life on this planet. Maybe the amazement that nevermos wouldn't know one of the Mormon prophets (never mind other lesser leaders) is akin to the relative ignorance of some of us re movies, plays, and 12th Century literature. Also popular Jeopardy categories. I can answer (some) questions about Medicine, a few about the French language, some re English usage (even though I am demonstrably not an expert). But classical music, The Bard, poetry, baseball? Not so much.


Tevai: Interesting comments. Gives us a peek into yet another exclusive world.

I definitely didn't know anything about the LDS church until after my wife told me. I remember long drive to visit with in-laws and my wife explaining church hierarchy, the significance of continuing revelation, and church history.

She told me that every president since Joseph Smith has been selected by Christ through the Quorum of the 12, and receives guidance directly from Christ himself.

Me-"Wait! Are you telling me that the head of the Mormon church has face-to-face meetings with Jesus Christ?"

Wife-"Yes, he does, regularly; and so does the rest of the Quorum when selecting a new president or receiving important changes to doctrine."

Me-"Jesus Christ is actually meeting with normal people? This is big news! Why doesn't the rest of the world know about this? It should be front page news!"

Wife-"Well, it's not really a secret, but we don't advertise it either because the world isn't ready to hear the truth yet. We would be persecuted if we revealed the news too soon and too widely, just like Joseph Smith was when he told people of the First Vision. Even clergymen persecuted him. Have you heard of the Extermination Order in Missouri? It was legal for anybody to kill any Mormon on sight because of what we knew! Missionaries have a sacred duty to seek out people who are ready to hear the truth. That's why they are so revered within the church."

Yada, yada, yada. It took me longer that I care to admit to realize that she and other Mormons actually believed this, or some personal variation of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2018 09:28AM by GregS.

The Great Hoodwink.

In actuality those "prophets/seers" know no more than any other person. When you figure in their Great Delusion, then they have been given authority to deceive ongoing in perpetuity.

It's called Groupthink when a group of people, in this case mostly senile, elderly Mormon 'penis'holders - who back each other up on making and formulating church policies by virtue of their rank and file, calling it prophecy and revelation.

There is no prophecy or revelation. It is a good old boys club with an element of Groupthink that keeps them on their pedestal. People revere them because they grant them blind authority. It is truly the blind leading the blind.

Take for example the LGBT church policy of 2015. They discussed it, taboo subject for Mormons that it is. Prayed about their newly formed policy. Then as the result of Groupthink they confirmed it was revelation they initiate the new policy discriminating gays and their children for years to come. There was zero divine authority in this. It was merely men patting each other on their backs to preserve the status quo.

I keep vacillating between whether they are maliciously deceptive or pathologically delusional.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I keep vacillating between whether they are
> maliciously deceptive or pathologically
> delusional.

Ha, Greg. You are not alone. It is a frequent question here. What did they know and when did they know it.

I joined the church and stuck it out for three years (although I had immediately regretted getting baptized there). I had NO CLUE they believed in the face-to-face with Jesus until I read it here. In fact, I was SHOCKED many times over by what I read here about true Mormon doctrine, info being in short supply in the ward I attended. They keep you so busy and their classes are so shallow that information is not easily forthcoming. There was little access to the tiny church library ("only teachers are allowed to take out books") and the nearest LDS bookstore to us here on the Canadian west coast at the time was in Seattle. In a time before the free-wheeling widely-available Internet, obviously. I did not know about the true origins or the racist doctrine or the personal meetings with JC or much of anything about the leadership model or personnel. So, yeah, in retrospect, easy to see how foolish it was to jump into the font. Since then, if friends invite me to church (which is how I got into my Mormon mess) I decline.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2018 10:51AM by Nightingale.

I don't believe any of the 'modern day' Mormon prophets have actually said they've seen and conversed personally with Jesus, or any other holy divine presence (other than through prayer.)

What passes for personal revelation is on par with other people's experiences with prayer with an exception that when the Groupthink Mormon church leaders pray, their answers are to lead millions rather than personal revelation or for a family member.

There is a distinction between having angelic visitations, and divine guidance so to speak. It may seem crystal clear to them, but then you have to wonder on what level are their beliefs ingrained, like GregS asks? Sincerely deluded, or maliciously deceptive.

There may be a combination of both. Considering the glint in Dallon Oaks eyes my hunch he falls into the latter category. But there are those who are sincerely deluded. Consider Paul H. Dunn, the pathological liar who made his way up the ladder to the Q12. Pathological liars may come to believe their own lies, but was there a time he knew better?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2018 11:11AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Great Hoodwink.
>
> In actuality those "prophets/seers" know no more
> than any other person.

Less, in fact. :)

of the church talked to God.

When I found out my boyfriend/eventual husband was gay, I just knew if I could talk to a GA, that they could just ask God. Right??? There wasn't any info I could find on the subject. Finally, a "friend" of mine told me about a talk that Boyd Packer gave and he, as a bishop, told me to write to Boyd. What a joke that was.

It was very eye-opening. In one letter he undid years and years of indoctrination, but I was still searching of course. The leaders want us to believe that they have come special connection with God, but they don't and they've never seen Jesus, like some of them pretend they have.

The one question that I needed them to answer and nothing.

But, what your wife told you, yes, I was taught that and I believed it.

I'm nevermo, but I knew the answer. I watch Jeopardy! nightly, and I personally think they have too many biblical or "religious" categories all the time. But they are usually from one of the Abrahamic religions, and from what I read here, I would not think that the Mormon religion qualifies as 'Abrahamic', does it, as do Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? Re Ezra Taft Benson, I would have known that answer even if I had never found this board to lurk (and occasionally post) on. Of course, I'm older than dirt and read a lot and keep up with news and current events, and I am smart, but I could never make it onto Jeopardy! You have to be not only smart and well read, but you have to be well read in many areas that I am not--like Shakespeare, 18th century authors, and both Greek and Roman mythology. PLUS chemistry, physics, biology, and advanced mathematics of all kinds, along with world geography and world history, and *all* of the arts, not to mention pop culture from all eras. :(

My daughter's best friend from high school (who was also one of her bridesmaids) was a one-night winner a couple of years ago, and then a year or so after that, her husband was on. He was also a one-night winner. They both graduated from some university in Oregon or Washington, the name of which I had never heard and can't now remember. Even though it wasn't BYU, and neither of them is (or ever was) Mormon, I think they both would have known the Benson answer.

I tried out for Jeopardy! about 20 years ago. It was an in-person thing at the studio in LA.

There were about 200 of us. We sat in the studio audience chairs, with a clipboard and answer sheet. They flashed answers on the main stage screen, and we had 10 seconds to write the question for each. There were 200 answers/questions.

I got 198 right. Missed one about some obscure Italian liquor, and one about an obscure Madonna song.

They took 2 people from the 200 of us, and sent the rest of us home -- including me. The two they took got all 200 questions right.

I was crushed.
:)

Eek, hie. You were brave to try. I would know already to go in a different direction. :)

What keeps me very humble is knowing how bright a person has to be to even qualify to get on the show but seeing how some can't rack up a good showing at the time. It all depends on the categories. They may be lucky on the day, or not. Most are not. The ones who do the best, which makes sense, are those with the widest range of knowledge.

It amuses me to note how often a medicine category will arise when an MD is on. Or music if there's a conductor. Coincidence, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 07:14PM by Nightingale.

Mmm, didn't know it was as hard as that to get into the program. But then it shows what kind of talent pool Jeopardy has to choose from.

It was a humbling experience.
I've never tried again...

198/200? I'd be buying myself a celebratory drink.

And consoling myself at the thought that it's only one kind of intelligence. Not even necessarily the most valuable type. It's just the way some brains are wired. I can remember thousands of medication names, brand and generic, purpose, side effects and contraindications. And exactly what good does that do in the world? Best case for me on Jeopardy, if my specialist category came up by chance, I could answer six questions. Then what? :)

people who will be accepted into the Celestial Kingdom.

LOL.

My mom was on the show in the early '90s. She'd tried out several times, which was easy since we were in LA. She ended up in second, but to the woman who had the time had won more money than any woman had up to that point, so we were pretty happy.

They taped multiple shows per day so we'd seen the other woman wipe the floor with several other people before they called Mom up. She was very nice and no grudges held. I mean, at least Mom lost to the best!

Yes, it is Abrahamic as the Old Testament is one of their scriptures.

Heidi GWOTR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, it is Abrahamic as the Old Testament is one
> of their scriptures.


In one sense only. Because it deviates from the bible with its own version of scriptures. The bible is only partially true in Mormon understanding. Whereas BoM, PoGP, DoC, etc are more pure and unadulterated. Even the Book of Moses which has been exposed as a complete hoax decades ago.

Mormons don't fully believe in the bible except for parts that concur with their peculiar set of beliefs, including polygamy. It's been through so many translations so is not accepted as the 'spoken word' in the same category as the Mormon quad is.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heidi GWOTR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> The bible is only partially true in Mormon understanding. Whereas BoM, PoGP, DoC, etc are more pure and unadulterated.

Never heard this before. What the heck? Which part/s "true", which not?


> Mormons don't fully believe in the bible

Is this official?

I know they don't use it much (definitely the mishies didn't, in my experience and didn't seem to know much about it).


>except for parts that concur with their peculiar set of
> beliefs, including polygamy. It's been through so
> many translations so is not accepted as the
> 'spoken word' in the same category as the Mormon
> quad is.

The Bible is part of the Mormon quad: BoM, Bible, D&C and PoGP. I know they don't use it much (or didn't in my years in SM etc) and don't know that much about it.

Diversion: My Mormon friend warned me not to read the PoGP as an investigator - it's too deep or something unless you're baptized. Like an idiot I believed him. Loved it's title. Grabbed it when 'eligible'. Couldn't grasp it, never finished. Disappointing.

My wife has often told me "of course the Bible is true, to the extent it is translated correctly."

Me-"Uh, which parts are incorrectly translated?"

Wife-"The parts that disagree with the Book of Mormon."

That's consistent with what I've heard from missionaries and other Mormons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2018 11:20AM by GregS.

GregS: Oh yes, I well remember that little phrase re the translation.

OK. That makes sense (in LDS World). I didn't "translate" that into "the Bible is only partially correct" as AmyJo phrased it. I guess Mormons wouldn't phrase it that way, knowing Christians would be less likely to join their church (no kidding).

When I heard missionaries and others say "as far as it is translated correctly" my brain would think I know it *is* translated correctly in all the major versions used by mainstream Christians but "if" someone was using an offshoot version (or to my previously more fundamentalist EV mind, the newer "modern" versions which by definition are of the devil, ha) then my mindset inside Mormonism was that I agreed with that - *if* there were a translation error then of course that part would be "wrong". (As if there are LDS Bible scholars who are also expert translators of scripture). (Are there?)

Another example of how you comprehend what you hear through the filter of your own preconceptions. So we can all take in the same sentence and come up with 10 different versions of what it means.

Hence the mess we can get into so easily in every sphere.

The mantra, dear Nightingale, is "only insofar as it has been translated correctly." That is the standard Mormons have used traditionally to discount biblical truths when they contradict the BoM and Joseph Smith prophecies.

Whenever a contradiction arises between the two standard works (Mormonism's scriptures, and biblical,) the Mormon scriptures always trump the biblical verses.

That has been taught ad nauseum for as long as I can remember growing up Mormon. It is also the "tool" that helped me start to smell a skunk, when my questions began outweighing those incredulous teachings.

Yes, I am familiar with the Mormon phrase re translation, AmyJo. I was trying to explain how that came across to me. Certainly not as a warning bell. As I said, I thought it was a statement I could agree with. Never as a Christian did I have a thought that the Bible used by mainstreamers was incorrectly rendered. I was very interested in translation and gathered a little knowledge about it, actually, due to being a JW. They too, as you know, have their own Bible translation. My EV pals were kept busy at one point, showing me why JW beliefs are wrong because their translation is inaccurate. Indeed, I can still remember those major points that Christians can triumphantly reveal - they sure worked on me.

For instance, John 1:1. JWs add one tiny little seemingly insignificant letter to the verse which changes the entire meaning. It's so obvious when you compare the orthodox translations. It's a great example of how some groups make nearly invisible changes that then seem to back up their doctrine. The JW Bible ("New World Translation") changes John 1:1 from "...the Word [Jesus] was God" to "...the Word was *a* God" to prop up their doctrinal belief that there is no Trinity. Jesus was a God but not the God. Two separate beings. It's a lynchpin doctrine of theirs.

It's more insidious than the Mormons having a separate book of scripture. Then it's obvious to outsiders that Mormons are not relying only on the Bible and could even be relegating it to a lesser place (which they do). Because hey, between friends what difference does an 'a' or a 'the' here and there make?

I recall that as an unlearned somewhat sheltered mid-teen, being shown the JWs' favourite scripture to prove their sacred private knowledge seemed like a revelation from on high, literally. What did I know about Bible translations? And with no home church anchor I had very little learning about religion, the pros, the cons and the varying and competing beliefs. I was interested to find out though. Unfortunately for me, the JWs were the first group I ran into that wanted to talk to me.

One of the most difficult exit experiences for me was connected with the JW Bible. (Difficult because what I learned came across as utter treachery as I had held the JWs in high regard and had trusted them totally at one time). I read a book by a former WatchTower Society top official (whose father or uncle or g-father - I forget now - had been their equivalent of prophet) wherein he laid out the behind the scenes story of the JW translation committee's methods. Contrary to what many think, translation is not always an exact science. There can be more than one way to understand and translate words and phrases. Professional translators don't pedantically translate word by word but also consider other information such as history at the time (what was going on), who was involved, circumstances surrounding the script they are examining, what the words meant at the time, whether the meaning has changed through time, the common understanding of a word vs secondary meanings and official or more formal ones, and many other factors to ensure they are conveying an accurate message in the way they choose to translate a document.

The JWs, according to Raymond Franz, who exposed their poor scholarship, included deliberately making translation choices to favour their doctrinal beliefs. That is the exact opposite of how real scholars work. Correct rendering is not based on preconceived notions. Obviously, you should take what the words literally mean and logically convey and extract your beliefs from that, not the other way around, imposing your beliefs onto the words.

So yeah. Who can you trust eh?

There's a lot more to communication than just everybody hearing the same words. As we can see with just this one Mormon phrase about the Bible being translated correctly. I don't recall any Mormon (especially not the missionaries) ever bad-mouthing the Bible to me. They never said it's NOT translated correctly. In fact, the ZL, whose father had been an EV pastor before the entire family converted to Mormonism (I'd LOVE to run into this RM one day here at RfM) said the one thing guaranteed to get me over any qualms I had about Mormons not using the Bible exclusively. Something like the Bible is great, the BoM is an added witness or testimony or words to that effect. Finally, I'm forgetting some of my Mormon interlude's most prevailing memories. Excellent! (I used to recall everything word for word. That makes it harder to get over things I find).

Anyway, yeah. Who ever said that communication was as easy as just spouting words?

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The JWs, according to Raymond Franz, who exposed
> their poor scholarship, included deliberately
> making translation choices to favour their
> doctrinal beliefs. That is the exact opposite of
> how real scholars work.

> So yeah. Who can you trust eh?

The same thing occurred with the KJV bible, you know.
And nearly every other "translation"/compilation of the bible.

For the KJV:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England."

Which is why quite a few verses that are used to back up doctrine/belief are different between Catholic "translations" and the KJV/other "protestant" translations.
Because everybody does it. Not just JWs and mormons :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

The takeaway for Mormon schooling is that the bible is/was translated incorrectly. So who are you going to believe? Lying translators, or Joseph Smith?

The bible was used to make Mormonism appear more acceptable than were it thrown out completely. And to give them the persona of Judeo Christianity. But it isn't.

The Mormon scriptures depart drastically from biblical teachings, whether the OT or the NT.

Mormonism is a works oriented church. You aren't saved unless you work for it. Whereas Christianity is grace oriented. Those scriptures are relegated as translated incorrectly in Mormonism because they aren't Joseph Smith's teachings. So they're not utilized the same way.

The bible is a farce, in other words, to Mormon theology. Only the BoM is the ultimate truth, The bible is a fiction. Which is a complete reversal of reality. And in keeping with biblical warning to beware false prophets who come in sheep's clothing but are ravenous wolves in disguise. Also the scripture of in the last days there will be false teachers rewriting scripture to take away from what the bible teaches. That is Mormonism in a nutshell.

You get the blue ribbon award for RfM, boilerluv, for knowing the answer and as a never Mo. :)

I caught that show last night, too. It was funny to me because Mormons think of their prophets as rock stars, and as prophets of the whole world. But truth be told, you could poll a thousand people and big chance not one of them knows who the Mormon prophet is. It's a rare person outside of Mormondom who would know, let alone care. It doesn't even register as a blip on the average Joe's radar.

Let this stand as a testament to how well the "Mormon Moment" went over. And they were all so excited about it. They thought droves would want to find out more and get baptized. Instead, droves left and didn't look back. Such sweet,sweet schadenfreude.

The Mormon prophet comes nowhere close to the pope/pontiff.

Identifying the pope to Catholicism wouldn't even make Jeopardy (I doubt very much.) It would be too easy.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Identifying the pope to Catholicism wouldn't even
> make Jeopardy (I doubt very much.) It would be too
> easy.

True, in general. But they do ask plenty of questions about specific popes and often stump the contestants about which pope did or said a specific thing. The host, Alex Trebek, always looks shocked as if he can't believe they wouldn't know what Pius the Nineteenth had to say for himself. (Kidding - don't even know how many Piuses there were; too lazy to look at the moment. Yet another Jeopardy answer I wouldn't know).

BTW, Trebek is another Canuck. I notice every single time he says "zee" instead of "zed". What's crazy is that the onslaught of US-dominated TV makes zee sound correct to my ears now while zed sounds weird. I even say zee at times without intending to. First, they conquer your language. Then... :P

I think that to be "An American Institution", the subject in question, if suddenly removed, would fundamentally change the American Experience.

If the winter sport, Curling, was banned in America, the fall-out would be negligible, compared to banning football or baseball.

Banning the Catholic church would make a big impact; banning mormonism, not so much.

The church is listed as being worth 40 billion dollars, but if that money disappeared overnight, who would miss it?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the winter sport, Curling, was banned in
> America, the fall-out would be negligible,
> compared to banning football or baseball.

Whereas in Canada there'd be national mourning.

See what I'm saying about perspective? :)


> Banning the Catholic church would make a big
> impact

I'm reading about the Catholic Church in Ireland. Need I say more about egregious historical wrongdoing and drastic effects on millions of lives?

"Big impact" can be positive as well as negative. Not that we'd all agree on those parameters either. I guess it keeps life interesting to mull these things over and often not reach consensus - not necessarily the end of the world but it can feel that way sometimes.

Sorry gnpe 1 for being all over your thread. I know it's considered not too polite to do that. Fortunately though the allowed thread length has doubled so I'm thinking it's not such a transgression as it used to be. I hope.

Just that I found this topic and its diversions so interesting. Didn't intend to monopolize. I will go now.

I had to look up the exact years that Benson was Sec of Agriculture -- it was 1952 t 1961.
That alone, puts this info out of the normal range of the younger contestants. IN addition, few know anything about Mormonism or who the Sec. of Agriculture is at any time.

What was the category?

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Ezra Taft Benson was well known to people who are well read.

> The clue itself was a dead giveaway!

Not really. You can be widely read but know little or nothing of the Mormon Church. It depends on your reading matter. And your interests.

The clue couldn't be a dead giveaway if not even one out of three well read and bright people had any idea at all of the right answer. You could perhaps puzzle it out if you were thinking only of US-born churches. Or if you knew the religion of a secretary of agriculture from back in the day. But, as said above, these contestants were on the younger side so may not know that level of detail re govt officials from the '50s. Too, one was a Canadian, quite a handicap on a US-centric quiz show.

I only knew the answer because of the RfM connection and also the Jeopardy clue giving ETB's name. If the emphasis had been on his position as sec/ag I would have missed it. Instead the LDS(?) writer made sure the answer was the name of the church. (And I note the response was "the Mormon Church", not COJCoLDS. So much for that name preference by the church).

Nevermos are not as likely either to know about the church's hierarchical set-up with the 12 apostles. So that part of the clue was useless.

I wouldn't say the answer was obvious or that nevermos should have known it. As they well demonstrated that they did not by their total silence after the clue was read. Nobody even attempted a guess. Obviously not worth it to them to risk losing money by getting it wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 12:27AM by Nightingale.

my point in posting was that either/both the Clue and-or the suggested Question bring up the name of the church to public view.


Upon reflection, whether or not the Clue was obvious is / was a secondary matter;


'The only Bad Publicity is NO PUBLICITY', ha ha

Hi GNPE1. Yes, sorry, I went on a tangent there. I get your point. I was responding to AJ's surprise that educated people wouldn't know about ETB.

I'm sure many exmos through the years have wished they didn't recognize the name either!

Maybe because it was so obvious to me it seemed like a no brainer.

Mormonism is an American institution. It is the richest and most powerful church born on US soil. The contestants on Jeopardy are above average IQ and seem to know a lot more useless or useful information than the average person does. They're well endowed and equipped beyond ordinary people or they wouldn't get past the screening to be on the show.

So yes, it still stumpefies me how not one of them knew the answer. Salt Lake City is a Mormon historical landmark. Anyone who knows geography and history of the US would have a better than average shot at knowing the answer. I will say going forward the answer will be seared into their collective memory as the one they missed.

But then even Einstein didn't know everything lol.

One of the contestants was Canadian. The other challenger didn't get too many categories favourable to her and only ended up with about $200.00 for the whole game. Even the champion, who has already made a significant sum in just three games so knows a bit, didn't even try to guess.

Mormonism is a blip here in Canada and even then in only a few areas. I'd be shocked if a nevermo Canuck *did* know the answer. We may be schooled in US history but don't necessarily know the names of officials in each administration through the ages. As I said, I only knew it because of this board. ETB wasn't prophet when I was in. Everything I know about him (not much) I've read here. If they had not mentioned the church at all ("US church with 12 apostles") and the clue had centred on him as sec/ag, I would have not even tried to think about it, just wouldn't know.

Maybe many other contestants and viewers would know. These three, no. As far as clues re Mormonism on Jeopardy go, as I said, it was the most obscure one I've seen. They're usually more of the "Tab Choir" variety. When yeah. Even a nevermo would likely know that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 03:12PM by Nightingale.