Plur1bus: Apple TV+'s indictment of Mormonism

[Gadianton]

(mild spoilers)

I admit I didn't see this one coming, I didn't even think I'd like the show and in fact, I only watched the first episode of Pluribus because I haven't seen anything in at least three weeks and it seems like enough effort was put into the marketing that there must be something there. It took nearly the entire first episode to get over the premise, which I didn't like, but I came away optimistic. I was happy to learn, the next morning, that a second episode was available, and I liked it much better than the first. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the whole show is apparently a stern warning against the spread of Mormonism! It's very weird because Mormonism isn't exactly catching on like a virus and the mind viruses of today don't work anything like what goes on in the show. It's pure fantasy without relevance to the times we're living in. But it absolutely is about Mormonism.

Vince Gilligan, accidently, first redeemed a deranged high school teacher, then a dirty lawyer, and now he takes a shot at a female lead who checks all the boxes of a hateful feminist. Imagine a cynical female author who despises her fans, despises her own writing, is lesbian, probably even Marxist although that hasn't been implied yet, has no social and family ties, a substance abuser, and lives in a McMansion of a cul de sac with plenty of space between neighbors. What could be the mental undoing of such a person?

A happy-go-lucky, enthusiastic, hopeful, simplistic, and attractive Mormon moving in next door! Zosia, it should be sister Zosia and all that's missing is a nametag and companion, approaches Carol, the lead, unassumingly within Carol's backyard to offer her water. Carol is every bit as thirsty as Ben Hur, but unlike the suffering and and godless Ben Hur, the godless Carol is too stubborn to take a drop from the Savior or show a hint of gratitude. She'd rather just collapse and die. But Zosia, the good Mormon neighbor that she is, won't take "no" for an answer. She respects Carol's free agency and she repays anger with kindness.

At least to the degree she can. Let's just say that the worst of Carol's anger triggers a very bad response in Zosia. It's as Mormon as it gets. Recall all the shame your primary teach threw at your feet explaining that Jesus suffered all the more with each of your sins. I know my parents didn't need to threaten or punish me, only demonstrate how terribly my unwelcome decisions hurt them personally. And the entity or church -- a church is a community of saints -- that Zosia represents is not, despite first appearances, a single entity, but "social trinitarian". Dan Peterson would recognize this immediately.

There could be objections to painting the community as the Mormon church, for instance, the community practices Ahimsa, and we'd be tempted to think it's woke, or something like that, but this is a superficial concern. For one, Mormonism has no theology, and so it's quite inconsistent. It would require 90 episodes instead of 9 to tell the story through all of Mormonism's absurdities if it went for full accuracy. Mormonism does have doctrines that are close enough regarding the treatment of animals and respect for living things, it's not all about worshiping one's stomach, as Dan seems to think. The community in the show is Mormonism at its theoretical best.

Is it a good show? I think so. I'm hooked. Carol Sturka isn't quite as good as Walter White but I'd say better than Saul. Saul was a great supporting character but I never felt stood on his own. I'd say if you're one of those Mormons who knew what your church taught and ever wanted to know what the City of Enoch would be like, then this show is for you.

[canpakes]

We watched the first two episodes this weekend. We’re really looking forward to where Gilligan takes this one as we appreciate his creative style and framing.

[Res Ipsa]

I haven’t started it yet, but your description is encouraging.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

We’re mid second episode and I think I’m having an anxiety attack, ha.

- Doc

[Rivendale]

(mild spoilers)

I admit I didn't see this one coming, I didn't even think I'd like the show and in fact, I only watched the first episode of Pluribus because I haven't seen anything in at least three weeks and it seems like enough effort was put into the marketing that there must be something there. It took nearly the entire first episode to get over the premise, which I didn't like, but I came away optimistic. I was happy to learn, the next morning, that a second episode was available, and I liked it much better than the first. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the whole show is apparently a stern warning against the spread of Mormonism! It's very weird because Mormonism isn't exactly catching on like a virus and the mind viruses of today don't work anything like what goes on in the show. It's pure fantasy without relevance to the times we're living in. But it absolutely is about Mormonism.

Vince Gilligan, accidently, first redeemed a deranged high school teacher, then a dirty lawyer, and now he takes a shot at a female lead who checks all the boxes of a hateful feminist. Imagine a cynical female author who despises her fans, despises her own writing, is lesbian, probably even Marxist although that hasn't been implied yet, has no social and family ties, a substance abuser, and lives in a McMansion of a cul de sac with plenty of space between neighbors. What could be the mental undoing of such a person?

A happy-go-lucky, enthusiastic, hopeful, simplistic, and attractive Mormon moving in next door! Zosia, it should be sister Zosia and all that's missing is a nametag and companion, approaches Carol, the lead, unassumingly within Carol's backyard to offer her water. Carol is every bit as thirsty as Ben Hur, but unlike the suffering and and godless Ben Hur, the godless Carol is too stubborn to take a drop from the Savior or show a hint of gratitude. She'd rather just collapse and die. But Zosia, the good Mormon neighbor that she is, won't take "no" for an answer. She respects Carol's free agency and she repays anger with kindness.

At least to the degree she can. Let's just say that the worst of Carol's anger triggers a very bad response in Zosia. It's as Mormon as it gets. Recall all the shame your primary teach threw at your feet explaining that Jesus suffered all the more with each of your sins. I know my parents didn't need to threaten or punish me, only demonstrate how terribly my unwelcome decisions hurt them personally. And the entity or church -- a church is a community of saints -- that Zosia represents is not, despite first appearances, a single entity, but "social trinitarian". Dan Peterson would recognize this immediately.

There could be objections to painting the community as the Mormon church, for instance, the community practices Ahimsa, and we'd be tempted to think it's woke, or something like that, but this is a superficial concern. For one, Mormonism has no theology, and so it's quite inconsistent. It would require 90 episodes instead of 9 to tell the story through all of Mormonism's absurdities if it went for full accuracy. Mormonism does have doctrines that are close enough regarding the treatment of animals and respect for living things, it's not all about worshiping one's stomach, as Dan seems to think. The community in the show is Mormonism at its theoretical best.

Is it a good show? I think so. I'm hooked. Carol Sturka isn't quite as good as Walter White but I'd say better than Saul. Saul was a great supporting character but I never felt stood on his own. I'd say if you're one of those Mormons who knew what your church taught and ever wanted to know what the City of Enoch would be like, then this show is for you.

Thanks for posting this I just finished the first episode and thought it was cleverly written. It definitely stirred some memories of the wow signal back in 1977.

[Dr Moore]

Wonderful initial review, Dean Robbers. I can’t wait for episode 3.

[drumdude]

It’s a really great show so far. Hard to find good writing theee days, and this show feels like home to lovers of breaking bad and better call Saul.

[Res Ipsa]

Watched the first two episodes. I’m hooked.

[Gadianton]

(mild spoilers)

The big question I have at this point: Will the Interpreter Foundation sue Apple for stealing their ideas about the social trinity?

Many times Jesus made statements like, "the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."

When Jesus speaks like this, he's speaking in omniscient mode about Jesus himself. It should have been no surprise that during the opening scene of Episode Three, that the two pilots speak in the same omniscient mode about the collective flight experience of the two pilots! This is the first incident of this chart-busting social trinitarianism I recall in the series. I don't recall Zosia doing this, but if anybody has examples feel free to correct me.

Another truth of the social trinity we learn is that feelings of one don't transfer to the others. When Jesus suffered on the cross, the Father didn't suffer the pains of the nails, for instance.

Now, a core, deep Mormon doctrine was expounded upon in this episode. The omniscient voice of the "trinity" grants to Carol via Zosia that they will give her anything she wishes, although more impactful requests would come with additional discussion about the pros and cons of the ask. This appears to be driven by respect for Carol’s free agency and also their desire to make her happy. I recall a seminary instructor teaching this in class my junior year. If you persist in prayer with the Lord fervently enough, you'll be granted that which you ask for. Yet surely, there are limitations? Well, my seminary teacher taught it just like Zosia taught it, in its unbounded primacy. We might fill in blanks ourselves like, what if the request interferes with the agency of others, is misguided, or obviously won't make us happy? While great questions, the doctrine stands unqualified.

Two examples of this in Church history. Joseph Smith begged the Lord multiple times to lend the 116 pages to Martin Harris. The soft "no" he received at first paces the "additional discussion" of an impactful request made by Carol. But ultimately the Lord allowed the pages to be lent and a grave mistake to be made. In another instance, Spencer W. Kimball pleaded with the Lord to lift the priesthood ban. It will be interesting to see how this doctrine plays out for Carol, and if it leads to a theological aporia: a case where Carol, like SWK, improves a situation by her independent volition, thereby implying a greater oneness. In other words, by bringing about an optimal effect that otherwise wouldn't have happened, Carol would be at one with the others at a higher level of unity than if she were simply inducted into the shared mental space.

[Limnor]

I haven’t been watching the series, but your post interested me—I ended up asking myself: If you can ask anything from God as long as it is within his will what is the point of asking? If God only gives what is already His will, asking seems pointless.

Most everyday religious people believe something like a hybrid that accepts that God’s will is broadly fixed but has some flexibility, some things change only if asked but others won’t change no matter what, and the asking has value itself because it conforms the asker to God’s will.

You identified the aporia perfectly: a God that is supposedly sovereign yet can be pushed around, and applying that thought to the 116-pages story—in which Joseph asks for permission to give the manuscript to Martin only to be told no repeatedly until finally being told yes, only to blame Martin later—the construct allows for two outcomes: 1) God first willed “no,” but changed His mind due to human persistence. This makes God’s initial judgment imperfect or reversible; or 2) God always willed “yes,” and the “no” was a staged test. This makes the prayer a scripted process with a predetermined outcome.

The 116-pages story can be interpreted as: The “no” wasn’t to prevent the loss, but also the “yes” wasn’t a granting of agency. Joseph was always going to lose the manuscript. The prayer was just the formal ritual Joseph set up to justify the outcome—a mechanism of teaching or humiliation, but not real negotiation.

There are a couple of implications here. God (Joseph) gave in against his better judgment and is therefore fallible (something I doubt Joseph would ever admit to), or God (Joseph) never intended to prevent the loss and it was a disingenuous test hiding a hidden agenda.

Joseph didn’t just experience the “persistent asking / concession” aporia in the 116-pages story. He absorbed it into his theology and then reproduced it again and again as a pattern of revelation that was self-fulfilling.

Once you see the template, it shows up everywhere. The 116 pages, polygamy, Zion’s Camp, KSS are just the restaging of the same script Joseph learned as a young treasure digger.

The model is seen in: the treasure is there, unless God (or guardian spirits) forbid it. But persistent asking might move them. But not always. But sometimes.

He can’t lose. It’s a complete feedback loop. If the treasure stays hidden, just say, “The spirits were offended; someone doubted; it wasn’t the right moment.” If someone questions the failure, just blame the mark. If a client presses harder, encourage persistence. Petitions that fail become spiritual tests, those that succeed become signs. Either way the system is validated.

The 116-pages story is just an another example of that method. That story contains: 1) a forbidden request; 2) repeated petitions; 3) a reluctant concession; 4) a failed outcome; 5) a revelation that blames the petitioner; and 5) retroactive repositioning—was part of my plan; now translate the smaller plates.