Plur1bus: Apple TV+'s indictment of Mormonism

[Gadianton]

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

Yikes, that's quite the incorporation into the religion. I'm guessing my seminary teacher was unaware of this.

[MG 2.0]

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.

In the restored church of Jesus Christ we believe in what is referred to as conditional revelation.

I had to look up the word "aporia".

After doing so it became apparent that aporia itself may be the mechanism of revelation. It's more or less the way that God and humans interact. This "feedback loop" you're referring to may not be a bug in the system, which you seem to be saying. It is the system. This feedback loop results in what I've referred to as conditional revelation.

It might look like this: forbidden request>>>repeated petition>>>concession>>>failure or success>>>reinterpretation. One thing to keep in mind also is how the act of prayer may change us as we submit ourselves to God's will. It's a process.

This formula might be applied to each of the examples you've provided.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

This "feedback loop" you're referring to may not be a bug in the system, which you seem to be saying. It is the system.

Wait—you see the loop, but you don’t see why that is the issue?

Edited to add: Upon further reflection, I just realized the 1826 glass-looker testimony basically proves this model, flaws and all. Joseph promised much and produced nothing, yet people kept believing anyway—probably because they wanted to believe just as much as Joseph pretended to give them what they desired.

[Dr. Shades]

My girlfriend and I watched the first episode based purely on your recommendation, Gadianton. I've never seen Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, so this is my first exposure to this author/producer. I hope to watch another episode today.

[Gadianton]

I'm glad MG was able to skim a bit of this exchange. If he's so inclined, I'd suggest catching up with the show rather than attend church today.

While I don't think I can make the problem more clear for those who don't see it already, as Limnor's walkthrough of the historical examples was perfect, I will point out that to think about the Trinity is to think about the problem of the one and the many. The social trinity, in particular, flirts with the idea of holism, which is one possible reconciliation: each agent is a bee and the hive is the holistic mind. The hive differs from the Trinity or the unity in Pluribus in that, in the fictional versions, the hive mind speaks through individual bees. But that's not to say the fictional examples aren't grappling with something important, in fact, the fictional theology is very interesting, especially this component of it.

The problem with holism for Christianity is that holism doesn't respect lines of division between good and evil. Mr. Gilligan has made good money disrespecting the very same during his career. I honestly have no guess as to where he's taking Pluribus. I assume with an army of high IQ writers supporting him, they've thought about all the main possibilities and have done a better job at a theological framework than the business oriented apostles and prophets of the Mormon church with their own fragmented bag of doctrines.

The most stark way I can think of to highlight the problem in MG's "system" for Mormonism is the role of Satan. The whole plan of salvation hinges on Satan. Satan could bring it all down in the opposite way of Carol by just chilling out and not doing anything. If he refused to tempt people, there would be no opposition. I believe it was Brigham Young who tried to work out the one-many by suggesting Satan's intelligence would ultimately be recycled after so many eons in outer darkness. The problem is this creates a holistic system that contains God and Satan, which means God becomes one mighty being among many instead of Being itself. The whole is greater than God and God is an equal component to Satan from the standpoint of the whole. If one wishes to use the framework of holism, God must be Totality.

[malkie]

My girlfriend and I watched the first episode based purely on your recommendation, Gadianton. I've never seen Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, so this is my first exposure to this author/producer. I hope to watch another episode today.

I'd be interested in your take on this.

It seems that a lot of people like both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. I watched one episode of Breaking Bad a long time ago, and didn't much care for it, but have wondered since if I'm really missing something good. Can you help me resolve my FOMO?

[Limnor]

The social trinity, in particular, flirts with the idea of holism, which is one possible reconciliation: each agent is a bee and the hive is the holistic mind. The hive differs from the Trinity or the unity in Pluribus in that, in the fictional versions, the hive mind speaks through individual bees.

-snip-

fragmented bag of doctrines.

The most stark way I can think of to highlight the problem in MG's "system" for Mormonism is the role of Satan. The whole plan of salvation hinges on Satan.

-snip-

The problem is this creates a holistic system that contains God and Satan, which means God becomes one mighty being among many instead of Being itself. The whole is greater than God and God is an equal component to Satan from the standpoint of the whole.

I may have to start watching this series (if the Mrs. can stomach it—she’s not really in to sci-fi).

I’m with you—the LDS plan of salvation works only if every agent plays their scripted part, including Satan. When you build a system where even the devil’s job performance props up doctrine, you’re not solving the one–many problem; you’re locking yourself into a story that can’t tolerate agency.

That’s why the model can’t resolve the one–many problem: as soon as any agent deviates, the whole structure collapses, so the theology has to forbid deviation. It doesn’t describe freedom; it describes a closed system that must absorb every possible outcome into the plan to stay intact. The system survives only by refusing to let contradiction count as contradiction.

What MG has done is describe exactly that kind of system—a framework-scaffolding-template where nothing can fail because everything is reinterpreted as revelation. Contradiction, failure, and opposition don’t challenge the plan; they confirm it. It collapses the one–many problem by refusing to allow disconfirmation.

I’ve been toying with the term “democratic delusion” to describe this dynamic—not in the modern political sense, but in the metaphysical one: a system where the many shape the one until the structure collapses under incompatible demands—and I think it reflects the same one–many concept you’ve identified: “a holistic system that contains both God and Satan ultimately turns God into one mighty being among many, rather than Being itself.”

The initial indicator of this model can be seen, practically, in the 1826 glass-looker trial, and extended where Joseph kept giving every faction the revelation they wanted until their desires contradicted each other. In the end it became a democratic delusion—too many incompatible Josephs for any one section to survive.

And that’s the pattern with every early insider—Harris, Cowdery, Whitmer, the Laws, the Higbees, Marsh, the Johnsons. Joseph gave each of them a different Joseph, a different version of god tailored to what they personally desired. But those individualized versions ultimately couldn’t coexist, and once the contradictions collided, each follower felt betrayed by the Joseph he gave someone else.

I hope the series explores something like this.

[Dr. Shades]

My girlfriend and I watched the first episode based purely on your recommendation, Gadianton. I've never seen Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, so this is my first exposure to this author/producer. I hope to watch another episode today.

I'd be interested in your take on this.

I've liked it so far. The premise is, as far as I know, unique. In a world of recycled plots, I appreciate uniqueness perhaps more than I should.

It seems that a lot of people like both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. I watched one episode of Breaking Bad a long time ago, and didn't much care for it, but have wondered since if I'm really missing something good. Can you help me resolve my FOMO?

I can't, because I've never seen a single episode of either of those series.

[Res Ipsa]

My girlfriend and I watched the first episode based purely on your recommendation, Gadianton. I've never seen Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, so this is my first exposure to this author/producer. I hope to watch another episode today.

I'd be interested in your take on this.

It seems that a lot of people like both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. I watched one episode of Breaking Bad a long time ago, and didn't much care for it, but have wondered since if I'm really missing something good. Can you help me resolve my FOMO?

Was the episode you watched the first one? I loved Breaking Bad, but it took a few episodes before it hooked me. On the other hand, it’s just TV.

[malkie]

I'd be interested in your take on this.

It seems that a lot of people like both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. I watched one episode of Breaking Bad a long time ago, and didn't much care for it, but have wondered since if I'm really missing something good. Can you help me resolve my FOMO?

Was the episode you watched the first one? I loved Breaking Bad, but it took a few episodes before it hooked me. On the other hand, it’s just TV.

Yes - it was the first episode. I no longer subscribe to Netflix, so probably can't watch it any more.