There's a piece in The Atlantic about returning to the piano. Not too far in the author mentions the Mormon Church, and practicing at the ward house, and that his mom was ward organist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/10/rediscovering-the-piano-childhood-memories-adulthood/671706/

I love the piano, but when I got to the Mormon reference, I mentally grimaced, recalling a couple other Mormon friendly pieces in recent history, and thought that adding "Mormon" to church doesn't really add anything to the story, and could have just been "church" in a general sense, but, you know, Mormons have to get TCOJCOLDS into everything.

But I was surprised as the narrative progressed.

I'm curious what other folks think of this piece. Especially relative to "The Most American Religion" piece they published a couple years ago (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/)

It's not just the mention of the word mormon, the whole Puff Piece is just an "aren't I cute" moment for the writer as he uses every cute trick he knows to bask in his own pretentiousness.


Out of all of it, this was just too much:

"A little later, I sat there when I wasn’t sure how to pick up steam writing a novel about the origins of my childhood faith. I played a few notes and sang along from the 38th chapter of Job, making up music to go with the words—a legend of creation—that have chased after me since the moment I first read them: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”

Gag me with a spoon. Why is The Atlantic doing this? Did Russ buy it?

> the
> whole Puff Piece is just an "aren't I cute"
> moment for the writer as he uses every cute trick
> he knows to bask in his own pretentiousness.


I can understand that critique of the style, but it's generally the nature of the culture and arts component of magazines like this (IMO). Writers tend to squeeze as much as they can out of as few words as possible, but if it's meant to be light reading, or entertaining, they'll inject more evocative details.

Anyway, that's not what struck me.


> Gag me with a spoon. Why is The Atlantic doing
> this? Did Russ buy it?


This is in line with my first thoughts, when I got to the chapter about SLC and the TSCC.

But I also realized that he was using "mormon" as opposed to the officially sanctioned mouthful, and wondered why. And then I read this:

"After college in California—a place where, at the cost of many years of peace, I revealed myself to be gay and cut ties with Mormonism—I moved to Los Angeles to begin adulthood."


So I thought maybe he's naming the church in order to take a subtle swipe at it. He doesn't elaborate, but coming out was apparently problematic for him, and seemingly due to mormonism.

Also, he ties leaving the church to becoming an adult.


> Out of all of it, this was just too much:
>
> "A little later, I sat there when I wasn’t sure
> how to pick up steam writing a novel about the
> origins of my childhood faith. I played a few
> notes and sang along from the 38th chapter of Job,
> making up music to go with the words—a legend of
> creation—that have chased after me since the
> moment I first read them: “When the morning
> stars sang together, and all the sons of God
> shouted for joy.”


I actually saw the above as the author claiming what's his. That if he wanted to hold on to some elements of his faith, or his memories, that TSCC can't stop him.

Most people equate the Book of Job to suffering, and he's linking it to thoughts about his childhood faith.


Maybe I'm overanalyzing it, but I'll be interested in the book he's writing about mormonism's origins.

Not over-analyzing. Just thoughtful.

I had an immediate aversion to the article because of who I am. What I wrote was a very fast gut reaction and for sure judgmental-- not that I'm taking it back but am rethinking. I like that you looked a bit deeper and I wouldn't disagree with your considerations. More people need to do that.

Thanks

It's an interesting point, even though the author's (glorious) quote from Job is very upbeat, but you may be right and it's a subtle way of conveying his complex relationship with childhood relationship.

Mainly the author isn't shilling for TSCC, like those other pieces.

If he writer had been Pentecostal or Baptist they most likely would has said so. Mentioning the particular brand name is normal.

Perhaps, but then his fight--if there was one--would be with that particular church.


But I think "...played the piano at church..." is just as meaningful to most people as "...played the piano at the Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist church...", and uses fewer words. I think there needs to be a reason to be that specific. And I think there was (he's subtly criticizing it). In fact, since most people equate "mormon" to "weird" or "cult," there's a compelling reason to leave it out of a feel-good puff piece, unless it needs to be made clear.

Anyway, just my perspective.

in 4 pics ~



thx ~

I believe MacKay Coppins (named for David O MacKay) who wrote the linked piece is a staff writer at the Atlantic, and is TBM. That may explain the magazine giving the Mormons more favorable ink than they might merit.

BTW, the link doesn't work because of the parentheses around it. If you feel like you need parens, or any other punctuation, separate them from the link:
( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/ )

Thanks for the tip.

MacKay is definitely the author I was thinking of. Here's a link to all his stuff at The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/author/mckay-coppins/

The first is the other one I had in mind but couldn't remember: a way-biased review of Under the Banner of Heaven

There's another about Mittens being right

And, ironically, there's another piece about a "secretive hedge fund"