It's a real "rah-rah" for the church.

I'd like to dice and slice it, but I haven't got the energy. What would YOU say to a good friend who sent it to you?

dimmesdale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/
> 01/the-most-american-religion/617263/

I'm a bit bored by the soft ball depiction of the Morgue in the media.
It's never substantive. It completely misses the main GD point.
I much prefer Matt Stone and Trey Parker's treatment of the Abusive CULT of Joseph's Myth of Doomsday Sycophants.

I'd be pissed if someone sent it to me. I would ignore it and also ignore the person who sent it for a while to give them negative feedback for sending it.

Pissed? Why? The Atlantic does first-rate work, and McKay Coppins is a pretty good writer. Further, I think it is entirely appropriate to consider Mormonism the most American religion, with its combination of hucksterism, American "can-do" spirit, and worship of corporate culture.

Mormonism desperately tries to keep the 1950s zeitgeist because that was when America was seen as the savior of the world and the bulwark against the Soviet threat. The American star has collected considerable tarnish in recent years, and I think international Mormonism, which has always ridden America's coattails, will suffer by proxy. But either way, Mormonism is most decidedly an American religion, right down to the bone.

I heard two interviews about the article, and am not sure I want to take the time to read 9,000 words, but I certainly would not be insulted if someone sent it to me. Friends send me articles from the Atlantic on a pretty regular basis. I probably get / read more Atlantic articles than all other magazines combined.

As Romney was trying to become the first Mormon president, The Book of Mormon musical was selling out on Broadway. Co-written by South Park’s creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the show skewered Mormonism with gleeful profanity and depicted its adherents as simpletons. My initial reaction, after listening to the soundtrack, was exasperation that this was how affluent theatergoers were being introduced to my faith. But I also felt compelled to be a good sport—and I wasn’t alone. When Romney was asked about the show, he said he’d love to see it: “It’s a Tony-award winner, big phenomenon!” And the Church itself took out ads in the playbill that read, “You’ve seen the play. Now read the book.” (The show’s creators had apparently anticipated something like this: Stone would later recount that when friends asked if he was concerned about Mormons protesting, he said, “Trust us, they’re going to be cool.”)

Read: The ignorance of mocking Mormonism

I remember being delighted by the Church’s response. Such savvy PR! Such a good-natured gesture! See, everyone? We can take a joke! But then I met a theater critic in New York who had recently seen the musical. He marveled at how the show got away with being so ruthless toward a minority religion without any meaningful backlash. I tried to cast this as a testament to Mormon niceness. But the critic was unconvinced. “No,” he replied. “It’s because your people have absolutely no cultural cachet.”

Somehow, it wasn’t until that moment that I understood the source of all our inexhaustible niceness. It was a coping mechanism, born of a pulsing, sweaty desperation to be liked that I suddenly found humiliating.

That's always been my take it. Mormons have no problem ripping into exmos, but they are endlessly patient with never-Moes.

Being a nevermo can have its perks... ;-)

But I don't think they'd stay nice for long. Alas, they are extremely rare in France, yea, even in Paris ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2020 03:21PM by Soft Machine.

That's been my take too all along too.
I appreciate living in a country where it's fine to openly mock a particular religion, but also saddened to think that if you made a play called, "The Quoran" it'd never be on Broadway and it'd probably get fire bombed on opening night and all the producers and actors would have their heads lopped off for blasphemy, even in America.
Ironically, the most successful play of the 21st Century, by far, has been a mockery of religion, Mormonism in particular. It's not just mockery, it's about as vulgar as you can possibly get, and it's blasphemous as you can get, stuff that's completely banned on RfM. And Mormons are so damned nice they take out a two page add in the middle of the playbills of the greatest most blasphemous, vulgar mockery of their God, ever. lol
I guess Catholics get their fair share of skewering, with shows like Religulous and the Root of All Evil and they don't become violent.
I guess it's primarily, if not exclusively, Muslims who become violent when you mock their religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2020 06:46PM by schrodingerscat.

BoJ asked:
>Pissed? Why? The Atlantic does first-rate work

That didn't come across the way I intended. Sorry. I've got nothing against the Atlantic or the article really. What I've had enough of is Mormons sending me things about Mormonism they think that might bring me back.

but then also a condemnation of what America has become.
Small wonder the comparative covid death stats.

Reminds me of the navy H-3 helicopter pilot who quipped:
"yeah I know, she's slow -- but she sure is ugly."

I agree that The Atlantic often has good articles - but this isn't one of them. It's a well-written but dishonest promotion of mormonism. Why do I say dishonest (and I admit not to have read it all)? Because when he started talking about the history of TSCC, I did a quick search for the words "Mountain Meadows". Not found, so not honest, whatever else he says. Mormon history without the Mountain Meadows Massacre and an understanding of how it could occur is a one-dimensional picture wreathed in smiles at the "peculiarity" of the people. But it's a lie - and many of the cultural features which allowed the MMM to happen are still at the heart of mormonism (faithful (i.e. mindless) obedience, disdain for non-mormons, a conviction in their own "rightness", etc.) and are still causing (albeit lesser) harm 150 years later.

So, not one of The Atlantic's best...

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a well-written
> but dishonest promotion of mormonism.

Exactly. Clearly a pro-Mormon puff piece with absolutely no intellectual scrutiny. For example:

"Smith’s canonized account of 'the first vision' was the longest of the passages, but it was also the most important."

When I saw quotes around "the first vision," I thought, "ok, they're gonna get to the issues surrounding it," multiple versions, etc. But no, it's simply set off in quotation marks. The author points out that it's the most important quote -- in fact its a foundational tenet of the religion -- but does not question it in the least, in spite of all the scholarship that calls it into question. Not even a hint of controversy is offered.

It's all the usual nauseating stuff, including self-pity about being persecuted.

And, frankly, it's too d@mn long. At first I read, then I started skimming, and then just scrolling. It's too much baloney to read. So, I didn't read it all, but here are the two most honest comments I noted, and they bookend a short paragraph:

"All this posturing could be undignified, ... But I wouldn’t realize until later just how deeply rooted the Mormon craving for approval was."

And the motivation is in that second bit. They're not the "most American". That's just what they delude themselves into believing. And in lieu of the approval, they need the self-delusion.

one of its paragraphs begins:

"As a lifelong member of the faith..."

which is why it should be treated skeptically. While it is a nicely-written editorial on the LDS church, it is clearly not an investigative report into the truth of the church's claims (in fact, it echoes the church's claims about 700 new converts daily without challenge, among other things).

In short, Tom in Paris (see above) is quite correct: while The Atlantic has offered some good pieces of journalism, this is not one of them; view it rather as a well-written editorial promoting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and you'll be able (I think) to get through it.

Exactly my thoughts, even though I stopped reading at this:

"But as we bow our heads, I realize that I’m also here for something else.

For the past two months, I’ve been cooped up in quarantine, watching the world melt down in biblical fashion. All the death and pestilence and doomscrolling on Twitter has left me unmoored—and from somewhere deep in my spiritual subconscious, a Mormon children’s song I grew up singing has resurfaced: Follow the prophet, don’t go astray … Follow the prophet, he knows the way."

Mormonism isn't a religion, it is a cult.

My biggest problem is with the last sentence.

"If Mormonism has anything to offer that effort, it will have to come from a confident Church, one that is unafraid of owning up to its mistakes and embracing what makes it distinct."

It never ever owns up to its mistakes. And why should it? One of its biggest is The Golden Plates. It is just kept making them up even to claiming to convert people in the afterlife.

I think this friend wants some feedback. He is on the fence a bit himself, so I thought I'd try to comment.

dimmesdale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this friend wants some feedback. He is on
> the fence a bit himself, so I thought I'd try to
> comment.

Good luck dimnesdale,
You're probably gonna need it. They need not suffer, please point out (try) that it could be only a strong choice that they believe they deserve.
Ummph..

Why would the Atlantic even publish this transparent drivel? Are they doing a series on people and their faiths?

I'm guessing TSCC ponied up big money to have it done.

Have I read it? Sort of. I saw the headline, thought, "Oh, this might be interesting." Made it through a couple of paragraphs and closed the tab.

It was a slow day at the Atlantic. The editors had invested much time and money preparing an expose on Kiddo's doctorate but the WSJ beat them to that. Suddenly facing the threat of an empty magazine, the editors gave the go-ahead to the BYU kid with the broad forehead and the goofy grin.

It was that or a documentary on EOD's first flailing attempt to ride a bicycle built for two.

There's a new radio west broadcast about this article done by the University of Utah Doug Fabrizio. It's pretty good. I liked it. They just emphasize that Mormondom has been trying for 200 years to become normal, and what they achieved was Mitt Romney. But Americans didn't like the result, he was too good mannered, too polite. Too squeaky clean, too fake.

Mormondom will have to keep trying to figure out what's normal because they haven't made it yet...

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a new radio west broadcast about this
> article done by the University of Utah Doug
> Fabrizio. It's pretty good. I liked it. They just
> emphasize that Mormondom has been trying for 200
> years to become normal, and what they achieved was
> Mitt Romney. But Americans didn't like the result,
> he was too good mannered, too polite. Too squeaky
> clean, too fake.
>
> Mormondom will have to keep trying to figure out
> what's normal because they haven't made it yet...

Normal inside mormo-ism is maybe, mormal?