DiscussMormonism.com

- Or is the deteriorating public image of Mormonism due to an increase in public understanding of its foundational beliefs?

It appears that the light shone on Mormonism in the course of this Presidential election campaign may have the opposite effect to that hoped for by the faithful and their PR-oriented leadership.

I could not help but notice the immediate response of the audience on the Daily Show on Monday evening when Samantha Bee started an accurate recounting of Mormonism' foundational narrative.

The video clip at the link below shows that the audience started laughing as soon as the accurate narrative began. When you think about it, this laugh-inducing narrative was not unlike some that have been delivered in General Conference by General Authorities in all seriousness and solemnity in years past.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-17-2011/indecision-2012--hardcore-sects-edition---mormonism

My question for believers on the board is this: what do you make of the fact that an absolutely factual presentation of the foundation narrative of Mormonism is itself considered high comedy when delivered by a non-member in a public venue not controlled by the LDS Church?

Does this not give you pause to consider the way in which your core beliefs are viewed by the wider world?

Can you imagine yourself as a young missionary required to deliver this message to a public that is now beginning to really understand the Mormon narrative because of the Presidential campaign?

Can this really be good for the LDS Church?

DrW wrote:My question for believers on the board is this: what do you make of the fact that an absolutely factual presentation of the foundation narrative of Mormonism is itself considered high comedy when delivered by a non-member in a public venue not controlled by the LDS Church?

I don't' know if you're aware but in such a setting laughs will be given regarding any religion's "factual presentation of the foundational narrative". What's it matter to me if a small segment of the population laughs at me?

Does this not give you pause to consider the way in which your core beliefs are viewed by the wider world?

Not really. People will laugh at anything these days. Take the link you offered as a great example. It just wasn't very funny.

Can you imagine yourself as a young missionary required to deliver this message to a public that is now beginning to really understand the Mormon narrative because of the Presidential campaign?

Can this really be good for the LDS Church?

What does it matter if its good for the Church or not? That's not my concern. I'm more concerned that there is an ability to discuss openly the differing views regarding truth.

DrW wrote:- Or is the deteriorating public image of Mormonism due to an increase in public understanding of its foundational beliefs?

It appears that the light shone on Mormonism in the course of this Presidential election campaign may have the opposite effect to that hoped for by the faithful and their PR-oriented leadership.

I could not help but notice the immediate response of the audience on the Daily Show on Monday evening when Samantha Bee started an accurate recounting of Mormonism' foundational narrative.

The video clip at the link below shows that the audience started laughing as soon as the accurate narrative began. When you think about it, this laugh-inducing narrative was not unlike some that have been delivered in General Conference by General Authorities in all seriousness and solemnity in years past.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-17-2011/indecision-2012--hardcore-sects-edition---mormonism

My question for believers on the board is this: what do you make of the fact that an absolutely factual presentation of the foundation narrative of Mormonism is itself considered high comedy when delivered by a non-member in a public venue not controlled by the LDS Church?

Does this not give you pause to consider the way in which your core beliefs are viewed by the wider world?

Can you imagine yourself as a young missionary required to deliver this message to a public that is now beginning to really understand the Mormon narrative because of the Presidential campaign?

Can this really be good for the LDS Church?

First, the skit is quite funny for those with a sense of humor, as Stewart has about his own Jewish heritage. It's good comedy because it takes swipes at Mormons, Christians and Jews.

Second, the Mormon Church cannot control what is and what is not being discussed. Unlike Mormons, the American media and people are not willing to let the 'thinking be done' when the correlated manuals come out.

The information age is a direct threat to organized religion, and its control on 'the word of god'.

DrW wrote:Does this not give you pause to consider the way in which your core beliefs are viewed by the wider world?

Are you kidding? This is the best thing that could happen to the church. Members now get to re-up on their persecution claims. What could be better? It's yet another opportunity to make false statements about the supposed causal relationship between getting laughed at and their truth claims. The LDS church is the Comedy Central of religion, and somehow, that makes it even truer. Lucky for them.

It's win-win for all involved.

stemelbow wrote:I don't' know if you're aware but in such a setting laughs will be given regarding any religion's "factual presentation of the foundational narrative".

Stem,

You are right about this, and sock puppet made the same point in his response.

Sock puppet the went on to observe the following:

sock puppet wrote:The information age is a direct threat to organized religion, and its control on 'the word of god'.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, by the way.

I’m a bit surprised your expressed lack of concern as to whether some process or event (such as the public debate associated with presidential election) is good for the Church or not. Most faithful Mormons I know will obsessively defend the Church when they perceive that it is being attacked or that its reputation is in anyway being denigrated.

As to differing views on the “truth”, I trust that the Daily Show audience reaction to the Mormon narrative gives you some idea as to probability that these claims represent any kind of objective truth whatsoever.

Some Schmo wrote:

DrW wrote:Does this not give you pause to consider the way in which your core beliefs are viewed by the wider world?

Are you kidding? This is the best thing that could happen to the church. Members now get to re-up on their persecution claims. What could be better? It's yet another opportunity to make false statements about the supposed causal relationship between getting laughed at and their truth claims. The LDS church is the Comedy Central of religion, and somehow, that makes it even truer. Lucky for them.

It's win-win for all involved.

Your argument is based on the hypothesis that some humans are endowed with a very high capacity for paranoia, imagined persecution and overall self-delusion. While this capacity may indeed be high in some, I do not believe that it is unlimited.

And if these first few months are any indication, these limits are going to be sorely tested for many during this campaign.

Samantha Bee wasn't 100% spot on, but close enough. Joseph Smith didn't place the golden plates in the bottom of his hat, he placed the seerstone there. Oh well.

Our most sophisticated mopologist friends would probably argue that the difference between a laugh-inducing rendition of accurate Mormon foundational history, and testimony-inducing rendition of it is simply a matter of nuance.

You know, because the properly nuanced version of Joseph Smith translating ancient Hebrew written down using reformed Egyptian characters on golden plates by pre-Jesus era Native American Christians by looking at his magic rock in the bottom of his hat just makes so freaking much more sense...

sock puppet wrote:....The information age is a direct threat to organized religion, and its control on 'the word of god'.

Balderdash!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6lcOSFnhW0
if schoolhouse rock could not destroy it what chance does Google have?
If anything i can emphatically state that access to more information actually influenced my conversion to an "organized religion".

subgenius wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6lcOSFnhW0
if schoolhouse rock could not destroy it what chance does Google have?
If anything i can emphatically state that access to more information actually influenced my conversion to an "organized religion".

Are you sure you have the right link here? If so, then I fail to see any relevance whatsoever of the short video to the topic of the OP or this thread.

DrW wrote:Stem,

You are right about this, and sock puppet made the same point in his response.

Sock puppet the went on to observe the following:

sock puppet wrote:The information age is a direct threat to organized religion, and its control on 'the word of god'.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, by the way.

I’m a bit surprised your expressed lack of concern as to whether some process or event (such as the public debate associated with presidential election) is good for the Church or not. Most faithful Mormons I know will obsessively defend the Church when they perceive that it is being attacked or that its reputation is in anyway being denigrated.

While I see reason to defend against criticisms at times, I concurrently do not see reason, often, to defend for the sake of public image. I just like ideas and beating them around. If the Church has a nasty or poor image, no skin off my nose. Some people out there, I realize, view the Church quite negatively overall and some see the positives of it.

As to differing views on the “truth”, I trust that the Daily Show audience reaction to the Mormon narrative gives you some idea as to probability that these claims represent any kind of objective truth whatsoever.

I don't know how many tens or perhaps a couple hundred people that equates to at all. Nor do I care much. I realize there are millions of people out there who will peer down their noses at any religionist for believing, thinking, essentially, that the religionist is off his/her rocker for believing. I don't think this is anywhere near a uniquely Mormon thing.