Smoot the Satirist

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_nevazhno
_Emeritus
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:22 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _nevazhno »

Kishkumen wrote: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.


Thanks for saying this. I was trying to put my finger on why I found the piece so distasteful, and you nailed it.

Kishkumen wrote: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 suffering massively.


What's holding the Church back is its belief in continuing revelation -- specifically its belief that the current church president is a prophet who receives continuing revelation for the organization/world. While liberal Mormons love to point to this concept as hopeful for the Church making necessary changes in the future, in reality it makes the organization more conservative. I think the men in charge are generally sincere, and so they are waiting for more light and knowledge before changing course drastically (as with the 1978 revelation). As long as no revelation arrives, no real changes need to, or really can, take place.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Kishkumen »

nevazhno wrote:What's holding the Church back is its belief in continuing revelation -- specifically its belief that the current church president is a prophet who receives continuing revelation for the organization/world. While liberal Mormons love to point to this concept as hopeful for the Church making necessary changes in the future, in reality it makes the organization more conservative. I think the men in charge are generally sincere, and so they are waiting for more light and knowledge before changing course drastically (as with the 1978 revelation). As long as no revelation arrives, no real changes need to, or really can, take place.


It's interesting that you say so. I think the problem is exactly the opposite. The Church leaders do not really believe that the prophet is a prophet in the same way the Joseph Smith was, but it wants to believe that is the case, and it wants members to believe it is the case too. This is the narrative that best suits the needs of the institution, but it is one that the leaders don't have real confidence in.

They need to crap or get off the pot, because they are killing their own credibility and taking down a large number of members with them. Either get up the gumption to make continuing revelation work or systematize the leadership of the Church in such a way that there is no apparent hypocrisy about the claim to revelation. As things stand, revelatory experiences are passed off as policy adjustments, and policy adjustments are passed off as revelation because the leaders are terribly uneasy about the whole issue themselves.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Tobin »

Kishkumen wrote:
nevazhno wrote:What's holding the Church back is its belief in continuing revelation -- specifically its belief that the current church president is a prophet who receives continuing revelation for the organization/world. While liberal Mormons love to point to this concept as hopeful for the Church making necessary changes in the future, in reality it makes the organization more conservative. I think the men in charge are generally sincere, and so they are waiting for more light and knowledge before changing course drastically (as with the 1978 revelation). As long as no revelation arrives, no real changes need to, or really can, take place.


It's interesting that you say so. I think the problem is exactly the opposite. The Church leaders do not really believe that the prophet is a prophet in the same way the Joseph Smith was, but it wants to believe that is the case, and it wants members to believe it is the case too. This is the narrative that best suits the needs of the institution, but it is one that the leaders don't have real confidence in.

They need to s*** or get off the pot, because they are killing their own credibility and taking down a large number of members with them. Either get up the gumption to make continuing revelation work or systematize the leadership of the Church in such a way that there is no apparent hypocrisy about the claim to revelation. As things stand, revelatory experiences are passed off as policy adjustments, and policy adjustments are passed off as revelation because the leaders are terribly uneasy about the whole issue themselves.


Well until then, I'll continue to enjoy running into LDS members and LDS leaders that say they know there is a God and that he speaks through a prophet today. They have the funniest look on their faces after I ask them when was the last time their supposed prophet actually reported seeing and speaking with their God?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_fetchface
_Emeritus
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _fetchface »

nevazhno wrote:I think the men in charge are generally sincere, and so they are waiting for more light and knowledge before changing course drastically (as with the 1978 revelation). As long as no revelation arrives, no real changes need to, or really can, take place.

Interesting idea. So as long as things are running relatively smoothly, the prophets interpret their day to day feelings as 'no revelation'. When events trigger enough worry or a heightened emotional state (say lot of press surrounding the refusal of a sports team to play BYU or the federal government threatening to disincorporate the church) then the heightened emotions are construed as revelation.

Is that what you are saying?
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
_nevazhno
_Emeritus
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:22 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _nevazhno »

Kishkumen wrote:It's interesting that you say so. I think the problem is exactly the opposite. The Church leaders do not really believe that the prophet is a prophet in the same way the Joseph Smith was, but it wants to believe that is the case, and it wants members to believe it is the case too. This is the narrative that best suits the needs of the institution, but it is one that the leaders don't have real confidence in.

They need to s*** or get off the pot, because they are killing their own credibility and taking down a large number of members with them. Either get up the gumption to make continuing revelation work or systematize the leadership of the Church in such a way that there is no apparent hypocrisy about the claim to revelation. As things stand, revelatory experiences are passed off as policy adjustments, and policy adjustments are passed off as revelation because the leaders are terribly uneasy about the whole issue themselves.


I don't think we're too far apart on how we see the issue. I agree that current leaders do not believe the president is a prophet like Joseph Smith, but I think they do still expect some kind of charismatic experience (as was supposedly the case when Kimball revealed his revelation on the priesthood ban to the Twelve) for changes of a certain degree. Anything less than that, then I think they believe they're supposed to just muddle along to the best of their ability, relying on small promptings. I think the average active Church member believes that at every (or at least most) Thursday meeting of the Twelve there is revelation, which, while the leaders have been content to promote such a view, does not represent how the leadership itself views things.

The issue is that, because of American and Mormon culture since the early 20th century, people (including the leaders) don't know how to have those kinds of charismatic experiences anymore. Businessmen don't have visions; mystics do. We've lost the magical worldview that made it all possible. So, I think the leaders do hope for something grand, and are worried about taking steps that stray too far from the currently established order. Without something grand, they're content to hold out hope for it, but then muddle along.

You're right that the leaders need to decide, and accept, the situation as it is. Expand what revelation is in a systematic way (similar to the Community of Christ, maybe), or make it clear that they are not those kinds of prophets.

Building on that, Mormonism may be best served by looking back to its pre-McKay self for a way forward, but without the racism. Get rid of correlation, and get rid of the idea that the president is also "the Prophet."
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Lemmie »

Kishkumen wrote:Why Smoot's attempt at satire ultimately fails is because most satire critiques the centers of power and cherished assumptions.


Here's what I think is a great example of Kish's definition of satire, excerpted from from Gina Colvin's blog entry entitled 'Three White Utah Males...':
Kiwi Mormon wrote:In an unusual move by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints three white males from Utah have been called to fill the vacancies in the highest council of the church....

Over the last generation the church has grown considerably in African nations, it maintains a significant following in South America, the Pacific and in the Philipines. This diversity has put pressure on the church to maintain its Wasatch origins and the appointment of Rasband, Renlund and Stevenson is an important signal to the world wide membership as to where its cultural roots belong.

“Sometimes it feels like the church is becoming unrecognisable. I want to be able to go to church anywhere in the world and feel as though its like its going to church in Utah – so having Utah apostles is an important step.” Remarked La Shane Peterson of Sandy.

“I think this is a good time to be reminded that the church is white.” said Barbara Allred of Murray. “Joseph Smith was white, Brigham Young was white, Jesus was white, and even God is white! If God wanted brown or black men as apostles He would have called them.” She affirmed. “So its saying something when he doesn’t – it means that God doesn’t see them as worldwide leaders .” She was quick to add, “But that won’t hold them back in their spiritual progression.”

Stevenson and Rasband come to the positions with significant business and management experience. As the LDS church expands its property and business interests this kind of acumen is central to the apostolic calling.

“Jesus has a rainy day policy,” remarked a representative from the Church Office. “That twaddle about His eye being on the sparrow was so Meridian of Time – these days God wants the church to have a decent investment portfolio and the right people to grow it.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon ... he-twelve/

(La Shane. That kills me. I have Utah/Idaho relatives named, among other things, Lamar, LaRenne, Lacey, LaMelle, LaRae, LaTrice, Shayla, and KaShae. I kid you not.)

Anyway, for an Australian (I think) she has a pretty solid handle on Wasatch front Mormonism and her satire, unlike Smooty's, is actually funny.
_nevazhno
_Emeritus
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:22 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _nevazhno »

fetchface wrote:Interesting idea. So as long as things are running relatively smoothly, the prophets interpret their day to day feelings as 'no revelation'. When events trigger enough worry or a heightened emotional state (say lot of press surrounding the refusal of a sports team to play BYU or the federal government threatening to disincorporate the church) then the heightened emotions are construed as revelation.

Is that what you are saying?


Kind of. I think they would generally think of "promptings" as being a kind of revelation, so "no revelation" is a bit strong.

Part of it also depends on how sincere you think they are. For example, it's pretty easy for us to look back at the 1978 revelation as being caused by external forces. If you read about [html=https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/7325/6974]Kimball's process[/html], and accept it to be at all reliable, you can see that, unlike the other leaders, Kimball was concerned about the situation. He worked hard to get the answer. I think most of the other leaders at that time would have fought on despite the pressure (Benson and Peterson were not about to give in). My reading of the situation is that Kimball worked to the point of feeling he had some kind of charismatic experience, or at least enough of one that he could convince the others of it. Was it influenced by external factors? Probably to some degree, but less than a lot of people assume (in my mind).

Despite Woodruff's claim about having a dream of the temples being taken away, I don't think any of the leadership in that day believed it was a revelation at all. They were doing what had been done before, going underground.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _honorentheos »

My honest take is that Smoot's piece is just a restatement of Dr. Peterson's very old lines. And why it should matter to the questioning Mormon that a PhD or two know all these things and remain members so clearly it's the membership's fault. My first interaction with Dr. Peterson had a "welcome to the club" vibe to it, with the complaint that it wasn't the institution's fault if others didn't know about the issues but since I was no longer a Type A Mormon of the White Hats, the world was wide open to me now so long as I avoided become a Type B Ex-Mormon of the Black Hats. Contempt for both Type A and Type B Mormons was evident and it was clear to avoid being contemptible, pushing through to the Type C Higher Mormonism of the Gray Hats was the only way.

So yeah, contempt.

If Smoot's piece has appeal, I suspect it's to those who have a generally negative view of the public broadly, and share a certain measure of the broad contempt that is at the core of the Petersonian view.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _honorentheos »

nevazhno wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:It's interesting that you say so. I think the problem is exactly the opposite. The Church leaders do not really believe that the prophet is a prophet in the same way the Joseph Smith was, but it wants to believe that is the case, and it wants members to believe it is the case too. This is the narrative that best suits the needs of the institution, but it is one that the leaders don't have real confidence in.

They need to s*** or get off the pot, because they are killing their own credibility and taking down a large number of members with them. Either get up the gumption to make continuing revelation work or systematize the leadership of the Church in such a way that there is no apparent hypocrisy about the claim to revelation. As things stand, revelatory experiences are passed off as policy adjustments, and policy adjustments are passed off as revelation because the leaders are terribly uneasy about the whole issue themselves.


I don't think we're too far apart on how we see the issue. I agree that current leaders do not believe the president is a prophet like Joseph Smith, but I think they do still expect some kind of charismatic experience (as was supposedly the case when Kimball revealed his revelation on the priesthood ban to the Twelve) for changes of a certain degree. Anything less than that, then I think they believe they're supposed to just muddle along to the best of their ability, relying on small promptings. I think the average active Church member believes that at every (or at least most) Thursday meeting of the Twelve there is revelation, which, while the leaders have been content to promote such a view, does not represent how the leadership itself views things.

The issue is that, because of American and Mormon culture since the early 20th century, people (including the leaders) don't know how to have those kinds of charismatic experiences anymore. Businessmen don't have visions; mystics do. We've lost the magical worldview that made it all possible. So, I think the leaders do hope for something grand, and are worried about taking steps that stray too far from the currently established order. Without something grand, they're content to hold out hope for it, but then muddle along.

You're right that the leaders need to decide, and accept, the situation as it is. Expand what revelation is in a systematic way (similar to the Community of Christ, maybe), or make it clear that they are not those kinds of prophets.

Building on that, Mormonism may be best served by looking back to its pre-McKay self for a way forward, but without the racism. Get rid of correlation, and get rid of the idea that the president is also "the Prophet."

Joseph had the fortunate perspective of knowing how his revelations worked. Being somewhat cynical of the process, I take that to mean he knew they were responses to whatever was going on without any supernatural influence which afforded him the luxury of flexibility...at the cost of being potentially wrong, of course. The current leadership lacks access to this knowledge, probably is sincere in belief in some form of supernatural influence, and is deathly afraid of being wrong.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _grindael »

honorentheos wrote:Joseph had the fortunate perspective of knowing how his revelations worked. Being somewhat cynical of the process, I take that to mean he knew they were responses to whatever was going on without any supernatural influence which afforded him the luxury of flexibility...at the cost of being potentially wrong, of course. The current leadership lacks access to this knowledge, probably is sincere in belief in some form of supernatural influence, and is deathly afraid of being wrong.


Excellent observations. At least Joseph tried to be innovative and took chances. He was more than a cardboard cut out figurehead. Joseph's appeal was that he (as was once expressed) took heaven and brought it down to earth.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Post Reply