Date: January 04, 2021 03:16PM
> I've read the article and
> I feel that this author
> has glossed over a lot of
> wrongs about the cult.
> No mention of the points
> brought up in the Nauvoo
> Expositor, human trafficking,
> sexual exploitation and
> abuse, corruption...none of
> those points were > examined.
> To me this article is a
> fluff piece made to make
> mormons look more normal
> than they are. Sort of
> like a pseudo-critical
> look at the mormon cult.
I can't assert just how correct my analysis might be, but people in the know are not going to criticize, because any 'errors' would exist because the people involved deviated from 'normalcy'.
In 2010, The Atlantic posted its first yearly profit in ten years. In my casual research, I couldn't find current figures. But the odds are that profitability is one of their goals. They want to make money!
Their product is 'news & information'. So they make money providing that to those willing to pay for it. So suppose the Church of Scientology said to The Atlantic, "I'll pay you money to publish a multi-page ad, but you make it look like editorial content, so people think it's an article written by The Atlantic, backed by The Atlantic's vaunted reputation for accurate journalism! Whaddaya say?!"
Big <SIGH>. Someone with sufficient clout said, "gimme the money!" Of course, they got called on it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/15/the-atlantics-scientology-problem-start-to-finish/
My point is that money is important. And so are "good" articles.
So someone decides, 'Let's do a big story on mormons!' And she either has the clout to authorize it or gets the necessary backing. And someone says, "Hey, we gotz us a mormon writer on staff! We'll have him pretend to be in charge, and that way we'll be able to interview more people, using the right words, than a competitor using a Catholic writer!"
Everyone agrees that's a brilliant idea, and they break for a 2.75-hour lunch but log it as part of their editorial meeting. What a brutal day at the office!
Then someone broached the idea of scoring an interview with the head dude, Dr. Rusty Scalpel! High fives for thinking of that! So the first phone call is made and things work their way up the ladder.
Now remember, the church has a lot of savvy people in its organization, tasked with putting the church first. So as day follows night a certain impasse will occur: Control of how the prophet is featured. It's a power struggle because each side has power, but each side also has needs. Time to play 'see-saw'.
So, based on your observations, it is logical that The Atlantic wanted the Dr. Rusty interview included, and gave some, or total, editorial control to the church. The Atlantic ceded to the church the power to say, "take out whatever we don't like, including, "Nauvoo Expositor...human trafficking, sexual exploitation and abuse, corruption". But The Atlantic knew that the church wanted exposure, so they came back with, "We'll spike the whole story if we can't include 'this'. See-saw.
That's my opinion, and I prayed about it and took two aspirins and was fine in the morning.
Some people, including myself, will do just about anything for money. Churches and businesses? ...likely the same.
Cynicism is an ugly thing...