Smoot the Satirist

[_mentalgymnast]

I would like to extend a warm hand of fellowship to Stephen Smoot, who with his recent blog post, "How to Be a Successful Millennial Ex-Mormon (A Guide for Beginners)," has joined the ranks of Mormon satirists.

Thanks for that link. One of my favorite tidbits was:

Who in their right mind is going to read John Sorenson's 800-paged, heavily-footnoted opus Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book? That stuff is boring, hard to read, uses lots of scholarly jargon, and will ultimately just draw you away from precious Reddit time.

It's impossible to quantify the numbers of folks, both those skeptical of Mormonism and those that are sympathizers with Mormonism, who fall into this category that Smoot is pointing to. It doesn't have to be Sorenson's book in particular. It could be the books written by the Givens. Grant Hardy's book. James Falconer. Others linked to in Smoot's creative piece. Bushman's Rough Stone. The list goes on. And yes, that list should also include publications from Signature Books and scholarly publishing houses in that camp. There is no way of knowing for sure just how many disgruntled folks there are on this board or in the other online forums for those that are disgruntled who have paid the price of heavy research and time spent looking at everything they can realistically get their hands on. Same holds true with those that sympathize with the mission/message of the LDS Church. The temptation is, as Smoot points out, to rely on online 'experts' to give the time rather than going straight to the accurate source:

http://www.time.gov/

Or the JSP's, or Writings of Joseph Smith, or first hand accounts by those that knew him, or scholars who have thoroughly investigated various issues (from both camps...believers and not). Anyway, I thought he scored by pointing out that many folks don't spend the time/effort to look at resources available from as many places as they can. by the way, I have not read Sorenson's Codex yet. Surprise...I may not be alone. I would like to read it though. Right now I'm focused on "Writings of Joseph Smith" by Ehat and Cook.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

The Grant Hardy book is time lost to that very argument I'll never get back.

Honestly I envy the person who just saw the Egyptian translation of the facsimiles, connected the dots, and moved on with their lives. Having fought to resolve the evidence and issues with what I thought to be true made for a time consuming rollercoaster ride that ultimately paid off in an actionable level of confidence that the church isn't what it claimed to be and little else to show for it.

It's picking a fight with the tar baby to believe it really takes a lot of study to figure out it isn't whatever. True I guess. It IS interesting from a cultural perspective but not in a way that pays off at a dinner party.

[_grindael]

The temptation is, as Smoot points out, to rely on online 'experts' to give the time rather than going straight to the accurate source:

http://www.time.gov/

Or the JSP's, or Writings of Joseph Smith, or first hand accounts by those that knew him, or scholars who have thoroughly investigated various issues (from both camps...believers and not). Anyway, I thought he scored by pointing out that many folks don't spend the time/effort to look at resources available from as many places as they can. by the way, I have not read Sorenson's Codex yet. Surprise...I may not be alone. I would like to read it though. Right now I'm focused on "Writings of Joseph Smith" by Ehat and Cook.

Regards,
MG

And where at Reddit are the inaccurate quotes? Do you or Smoot have a list? Detailed examples? And most of what is put on Reddit is LINKS to material, articles, books, etc. with a lot of opinions. Smoot is just sounding paranoid alarmist bells in an effort to stop people from exploring alternative sources other than what he deems "the best books", etc. It is common sense to look up quoted sources. There is a lot of assuming going on here, which is distasteful and ignorant. How many quotes can you generate where people admit that they "default" to Reddit for all their information. This is just silly crap.

[_brotherjake]

I quite enjoyed Smoot's piece. It was sharp and punchy (although he breaks character in the introduction with the cesspools/the faith of their fathers bits--if you're gonna do a satirical character, you gotta commit) and well done overall. I've toyed with the idea of doing a "Brother Jake" or "Brother of Jake" character to satirize the tropes of online ex-Mormonism before--in fact, I did a short Infants on Thrones episode to that effect several months ago when a clip of Pres. Eyring chuckling at a conference was touted as a tacit admission of his own disbelief in Pres. Monson's prophetic mantle. I should dig Brother Jack back up sometime...

Anyway, I applaud Mr. Smoot's efforts.

[_nevazhno]

Anyway, I thought he scored by pointing out that many folks don't spend the time/effort to look at resources available from as many places as they can.

I honestly don't think he scores much by making this observation, or at least he doesn't get what he wants out of it.

I'm not sure we know the actual proportion of people who leave the Church after seeing the CES Letter (or something similar) without doing any more research. Most of the people I have interacted with were not like that, but instead invested months to years in working through it all before coming to a state of non-belief / non-desire-to-participate. So, do "many" people make the quick jump? I'm not sure. I'm sure my sample is biased, but so is everyone's without some real systematic study. So, at least for the people I know, his satire barely even rises to the level of a straw man.

But, for the argument, let's assume that lots and lots of people leave at the drop of a stone in a hat. Let's also recognize that leaving Mormonism is painful for most people -- there are family and social repercussions for leaving. Spend 5 minutes on the ex-mo subreddit and you'll see how painful it is for everyone (millenial and up). Plus, these are people raised in the church, who have served missions, and often served in leadership callings as well. Their entire lives they have been warned of the dangers of misinformation about Mormonism on the Internet, or from wherever. We can take all of this as the starting point.

How uncompelling is Mormonism, or how unsatisfying is the Mormon lifestyle, if spending an hour reading the CES Letter is enough to make people willing to pay the costs of leaving? People, whose lives have generally been very Mormon-centric from birth, see a meme about Joseph's wives and they tap out. Really? Mormonism has so horrible that that is all it takes to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and socialization?

Either Mormonism really sucks, or, we could argue, these are the people who just weren't able to develop testimonies. Okay, fine, let's go with that. From the moment you begin primary up through adulthood (and beyond?), the one message you get from going to Church is how important a testimony is. For Millenials, if they're leaving the Church now, they've been hearing this message for 2 decades. Why don't they have testimonies? They've served missions (some of them), right? What is wrong with the Mormon process that they don't have testimonies after hearing week after week, and year after year, about how important it is to get one?

So, Smoot's observation, if true, tells us more about the Church than it does about those leaving it.

[_mentalgymnast]

Anyway, I thought he scored by pointing out that many folks don't spend the time/effort to look at resources available from as many places as they can.

I honestly don't think he scores much by making this observation, or at least he doesn't get what he wants out of it.

I'm not sure we know the actual proportion of people who leave the Church after seeing the CES Letter (or something similar) without doing any more research. Most of the people I have interacted with were not like that, but instead invested months to years in working through it all before coming to a state of non-belief / non-desire-to-participate. So, do "many" people make the quick jump? I'm not sure. I'm sure my sample is biased, but so is everyone's without some real systematic study. So, at least for the people I know, his satire barely even rises to the level of a straw man.

But, for the argument, let's assume that lots and lots of people leave at the drop of a stone in a hat. Let's also recognize that leaving Mormonism is painful for most people -- there are family and social repercussions for leaving. Spend 5 minutes on the ex-mo subreddit and you'll see how painful it is for everyone (millenial and up). Plus, these are people raised in the church, who have served missions, and often served in leadership callings as well. Their entire lives they have been warned of the dangers of misinformation about Mormonism on the Internet, or from wherever. We can take all of this as the starting point.

How uncompelling is Mormonism, or how unsatisfying is the Mormon lifestyle, if spending an hour reading the CES Letter is enough to make people willing to pay the costs of leaving? People, whose lives have generally been very Mormon-centric from birth, see a meme about Joseph's wives and they tap out. Really? Mormonism has so horrible that that is all it takes to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and socialization?

Either Mormonism really sucks, or, we could argue, these are the people who just weren't able to develop testimonies. Okay, fine, let's go with that. From the moment you begin primary up through adulthood (and beyond?), the one message you get from going to Church is how important a testimony is. For Millenials, if they're leaving the Church now, they've been hearing this message for 2 decades. Why don't they have testimonies? They've served missions (some of them), right? What is wrong with the Mormon process that they don't have testimonies after hearing week after week, and year after year, about how important it is to get one?

So, Smoot's observation, if true, tells us more about the Church than it does about those leaving it.

Hi nevazhno,

You make some good points. I can see where you're coming from and I can sympathize with your POV. No one can judge whether or not someone else has paid the price for a testimony and/or hopeful belief in the narrative/truth of the restoration. Each is on a personal pathway and is only accountable for their actions to themselves and God...if they believe he gives a tinker's damn. But I think Smoot brings up a point to be considered by individuals as they are on that pathway.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi nevazhno,

You make some good points. I can see where you're coming from and I can sympathize with your POV. No one can judge whether or not someone else has paid the price for a testimony and/or hopeful belief in the narrative/truth of the restoration. Each is on a personal pathway and is only accountable for their actions to themselves and God...if they believe he gives a tinker's damn. But I think Smoot brings up a point to be considered by individuals as they are on that pathway.

Regards,
MG

So, before joining, one should read the Book of Mormon, pray, and base the decisions on feelings. But before leaving, one should read exactly how many pro-LDS books?

[_nevazhno]

Hi nevazhno,

You make some good points. I can see where you're coming from and I can sympathize with your POV. No one can judge whether or not someone else has paid the price for a testimony and/or hopeful belief in the narrative/truth of the restoration. Each is on a personal pathway and is only accountable for their actions to themselves and God...if they believe he gives a tinker's damn. But I think Smoot brings up a point to be considered by individuals as they are on that pathway.

Regards,
MG

Hey, I'm naturally inclined to agree with you, but that speaks to my personality. I think the research part is fun. So, to me, Smoot's point is trivial -- of course it makes sense to do as much research as possible, and not just accept negative information at face value. And, again, I don't know how large the population is of people who don't do that. Most of the stories I read are about people who were introduced to the issues in some way, and then went to FAIR to hear the other side. So, Smoot's point is uninteresting, because it is trivial. People generally do more research and thinking.

But what about those individuals who do fit Smoot's description? You're talking about how they would be better off doing deeper research. Why? If the Church hasn't been able to make a strong case for itself with two decades or so of influence in someone's life, and just learning the information is enough to make them jump out of the boat, then why tell them to do more research? The facts are what the facts are, and all that is left is trying to get people to accept a new framework in which to think about those facts so that they can continue to participate / believe. But if a meme is enough to push someone out, then there's exceptionally little chance telling them about some nuanced way to look at the facts will be enough to keep them in.

So, whatever the merits of Smoot's piece as satire (I'm unimpressed, but that's a personal opinion), Ii don't think there's much to be learned from it.

[Guest]

It's impossible to quantify the numbers of folks, both those skeptical of Mormonism and those that are sympathizers with Mormonism, who fall into this category that Smoot is pointing to. It doesn't have to be Sorenson's book in particular. It could be the books written by the Givens. Grant Hardy's book. James Falconer. Others linked to in Smoot's creative piece. Bushman's Rough Stone. The list goes on. And yes, that list should also include publications from Signature Books and scholarly publishing houses in that camp. There is no way of knowing for sure just how many disgruntled folks there are on this board or in the other online forums for those that are disgruntled who have paid the price of heavy research and time spent looking at everything they can realistically get their hands on. Same holds true with those that sympathize with the mission/message of the LDS Church. The temptation is, as Smoot points out, to rely on online 'experts' to give the time rather than going straight to the accurate source:

http://www.time.gov/

Or the JSP's, or Writings of Joseph Smith, or first hand accounts by those that knew him, or scholars who have thoroughly investigated various issues (from both camps...believers and not). Anyway, I thought he scored by pointing out that many folks don't spend the time/effort to look at resources available from as many places as they can. by the way, I have not read Sorenson's Codex yet. Surprise...I may not be alone. I would like to read it though. Right now I'm focused on "Writings of Joseph Smith" by Ehat and Cook.

Regards,
MG

Hey, MG. Thanks for your input. My view is that there are much bigger fish to fry than all of the finger-pointing over who has read what or has their head up their butt, etc. The big fish is what to do with the challenge of history when your theology is narratival instead of systematic, and your claims are firmly planted in a broader historical narrative. As of yet, the LDS Church has no good answers to these questions. Instead, Church leaders and apologists blame members for reading the wrong things, reading too little, etc., etc., when I think it is obvious that the Church itself is in a fix.

Why Smoot's attempt at satire ultimately fails is because most satire critiques the centers of power and cherished assumptions. Smoot is pointing at the weak and blaming them. That's why he comes off as a real prick. Moreover, what he is doing is ultimately even more counterproductive than criticism of the Church.

Criticism of the Church is useful in that it lets the Church know how members and outsiders are responding to what it does. Obviously, there are many ways to respond to criticism. Unfortunately, the Church often chooses an unproductive way. It grinds on the same old narratives and the same old blame-the-member games. If the leaders were savvy, they would realize that they need to stick a lot more time, effort, and prayer into coming up with solid approaches to the education of the membership.

So far, they look unwilling to take this need very seriously at all. The essays look like a kind of committee compromise that throws together people with opposing perspectives to stitch together a Frankenstein narrative that clumsily softens the blow of actual history and leaves room for people to hold onto the failed approaches of the past. The predictable result is that people are leaving because of the essays.

More radical measures are necessary to keep the Church viable in the U.S. But, I have no faith such measures will be taken because the problem is implicated in the leadership structure itself. The Church's narrative was constructed to support the power that is firmly ensconced at the top, and it will perpetuate itself as long as it can, even past the point that the Church suffers massively.

[_Res Ipsa]

Satire works when the author kicks up. As Kish says, Smoot is kicking down.