Smoot the Satirist

[_Philo Sofee]

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?

Well, lessee, that would be uh 33,456, add 17 General Authority books for balance, um, toss in a few atheist books for flavoring like you use salt on food, then don't forget the encyclopedias, and any who kept all the old FARMS materials, read that....so in total, approximately um 44,567, and if by then you stuill doubt, no worries, you'll be dead and in heaven anyways. Ain't that grand?

[_Kishkumen]

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.

That is a very astute distillation of the situation, honor.

[_RockSlider]

Very interesting thread, thanks for some fun reading.

[_Gadianton]

This is a confused effort. To begin with, it reflects the anger one might expect an apologist to hold for long-time enemies, however, it is apparently addressed to folks in a faith crisis, who have encountered information for the first time on the internet unfavorable to their faith. His points often don't connect with that group at all. He's swinging wildly at anything that moves it seems, but even correcting for audience, there is little here to salvage.

Point one: assume apologists are acting in bad faith. Is this all that relevant after a week's worth of research? Has the newly questioning member found enough footing yet to even have "ideological opponents" in the form of Royal Skousen or John Welch? His words connect better with long-time critics. But notwithstanding, his points aren't very good. For one, as a champion of nuance, portraying critical distrust as holding Royal Skousen, Stephen Ricks, and Hugh Nibley personally up as examples of "filth" and every other nasty descriptor he can think of, overreaches by about ten football fields. It's not exactly insidious on his part, but it is juvenile. He then argues academic standing as central to the question of whether or not someone is acting in good faith. That's just ridiculous. His point is that we should put greater trust in the good faith of the apologists, backed by their Phds and peer-reviewed work, than in the amateur, Jeremy Runnels. Even if the works of apologists were peer-reviewed, which they aren't, it would say nothing about who is or isn't acting in good faith.

I'll pass on the others for now.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

My beef is that the essays haven't been brought down to the ward level and used as fifth Sunday topics or integrated into the Sunday curriculum at all. Who really even knows what the exposure level is within individual wards to these essays? Not a clue. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. So I agree with you that until the church brings the essays into the ward and puts them front and center there are going to be many, including myself, that will ask..."What the heck?" "If you're going to go to all the trouble of writing these damn things, let's actually get them out in the open and have class discussions!"

I can not think of one instance in which any ONE of the 'juicy' essays have been used in ANY way for discussion/lesson material in my ward. And very few, if any, folks have brought up or even mentioned them. If they have been mentioned, it's been a passing comment and the lesson moves on.

Frustrating.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

My beef is that the essays haven't been brought down to the ward level and used as fifth Sunday topics or integrated into the Sunday curriculum at all. Who really even knows what the exposure level is within individual wards to these essays? Not a clue. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. So I agree with you that until the church brings the essays into the ward and puts them front and center there are going to be many, including myself, that will ask..."What the heck?" "If you're going to go to all the trouble of writing these damn things, let's actually get them out in the open and have class discussions!"

I can not think of one instance in which any ONE of the 'juicy' essays have been used in ANY way for discussion/lesson material in my ward. And very few, if any, folks have brought up or even mentioned them. If they have been mentioned, it's been a passing comment and the lesson moves on.

Frustrating.

Regards,
MG

That is an interesting fact. I wonder why it is the case. My guess is that they were never intended for Sunday curriculum, but always conceived as being an official response for consumption and discussion outside of Church.

[_Sammy Jankins]

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.

Well if you think it's good satire, what can I say? You're about the best satirist since Darth J stopped posting. Maybe I'm missing something.

Well the biggest mistake we could make is let someone like Smoot make it about Ex-Mormons and deflect attention away from Mormon truth claims. Ex-Mormons could overall be the scum of the earth and it still wouldn't make Mormonism true.

[_Sammy Jankins]

I do think the ex-Mormon needs to take and adjust to criticism from time to time. It doesn't need a douchebag trying to smear the community and apostates as a whole.

[_Kishkumen]

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....

I would like to see/hear such a send up of Infants on Thrones.

[_Kishkumen]

Ex-Mormons could overall be the scum of the earth and it still wouldn't make Mormonism true.

Word.