The Berry-Picker's "Laughter"

[_Mister Scratch]

" Some days the tears leave you a helpless mass of laughter on the floor. "---Gary Novak
"Why so serious?"---The Joker


A number of very important facts have come to light in recent weeks. Though I have been very busy lately, examining codices, indices, and microfiche, believe me when I say that the revelations of this MB have not been far from my mind. Above all, I have been ruminating at length on the very revealing attitude of Bro. Gary Novak--an individual who once seemed just on the cusp of breaking into the ranks of amateur Mopologists. Novak, whose l-skinny code name is "The Berry Picker," had his confidence demolished after some of his Mopologetic writings were turned down for publication. Indeed, his bitterness--so I'm told---cankers his soul to this day.

But that is not what this thread is meant to be about. During my archival work, I found that my mind kept drifting again and again to Dr. Robbers's unearthing of the rather mean-spirited, albeit revealing, "Novak's Rule." Devoted readers of this board will recall that "Novak's Rule" states that anyone who dares to criticize the Church will lose something like 80 points off of their IQ, or something like that.

How are we to take this, though? Obviously, "Novak's Rule" is very childish, just like the man who helped coin it. But, I think that this reveals something even deeper about the Mopologetic mindset. By way of evidence, look at this webpage:

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/Novak.html

If you are humor-impaired, leave immediately. This is not for the faint-of-heart, the thin-skinned, or especially humorless anti-Mormons. If you are a humorless anti-Mormon, this site is intended to mock you—I am laughing at you.

Did Mr. Novak really create a website devoted solely and exclusive to the mockery of Church critics? Is his laughter "all in good fun," as the old saying goes? After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Read on:

Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web appears occasionally—that is, whenever I feel like it. Anything regular was just a bit too much work and hence simply does not agree with my fundamental constitution.

It is intriguing that "The Berry Picker" is admitting to his laziness here. One has to wonder: did his "fundamental constitution" play any role in the rejection of his Mopologetic writings? Furthermore, how "lazy" is he really if he took the time to create "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" page?

I have not yet arrived at my thesis, however. Take a gander at this:

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/ifaq.html

I believe that this page reveals the duality of Bro. Novak's character, and it tells us something about a very deeply-seated insecurity at the heart of every Mopologist. Let's take a closer look at Novak's writings:

if you somehow noticed the word "anti-Mormon" prominently displayed and were hoping for another site that would help you fashion a stick with which to beat the Church, you came to the wrong place. The Worst is intended to mock the worst of the anti-Mormon sites.

It seems obvious from this that Novak's site isn't merely just about "laughing" and "mockery." Instead, in true Mopologetic fashion, he aims to use the site (to borrow his language) to "fashion a stick with which to beat" Church critics. Indeed, one can sense a roiling, highly self-conscious anger beneath "The Berry Picker"'s prose. A bit further along on the page, Novak carries on with his harangue:

I am sorry that you have got yourself out of the Church. I am just a little curious about why you are surfing Mormon and/or anti-Mormon sites? In any case, I hope you realize that the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic claims do not depend on some Church member being nice to you or giving you all the credit you think deserve or even helping you in your time of need.

[SNIP!]

And if you have latched onto some anti-Mormon argument as a form of self-justification so that you can enjoy the California Fun Culture or worse, it is still not too late to repent and rejoin the fold—if you can be honest with yourself about the matter for a few minutes. It is, after all, always a choice between Jerusalem and Athens, Zion and Babylon.

Notice the threatening tone, here. If Novak is confident in his position, why would he feel the need to employ this kind of rhetoric? The answer is obvious: Novak is not confident in his position at all. Prof. Daniel C. Peterson is fond of repeating a French quotation which translates to something along the lines of, "This animal is very wicked; it bites back when you attack it." It seems clear that Novak feels very much like a cornered animal, and to no small extent, I believe this applies to most Mopologists.

So, as per the title of this thread, what is the significance of "The Berry Picker"'s laughter? This final exchange on the "FAQ" is quite telling:

Q: Boy you are mean. How can you be so mean? You think you are clever but it comes off as really mean-spirited.

A: First, lighten up.

What would Novak & et al. do if they were advised to "lighten up"? This is what he would do:

The Worst is intended to poke fun at anti-Mormon sites. If you are not one of the cognoscenti of the dark world (and, I might add, soft underbelly) of anti-Mormonism, this site may come as something of a shock. Rest assured folks like Ed Decker, John L. Smith, Ankerberg and Weldon among a host of others, make their living persecuting the Saints—it is what they do and is a full-time job. And if you think that they are willing to cut us the least bit of slack and "live and let live," you are likely to be mistaken. So the truth of the matter is that I do not take them very seriously. They are funny. I merely point it out.

(emphasis added)

As you can see, Novak feels like he and other Mopologists are under a great deal of pressure. "Anti-Mormon" criticism, in his view, is like a relentless force that will never let up. So, is the "laughter" a kind of "release valve"? To a certain extent, I would say: Yes, it is.

But I believe there are deeper, more subterranean things at work here. As I remove my spectacles and massage the bridge of my nose, it comes to me: The Mopologists cannot stand the thought that they are being laughed at and ridiculed. Eureka. Gary Novak's angry, rather vicious and immature "mockery" is really the result of his long-standing feelings of embarrassment and shame over the fact that the LDS Church is so easy to make fun of. Novak and other Mopologists lash out in frustration because they know, at base, that things like Isrealites as Native Americans, polygamy, Zelph the White Lamanite, and Kolob will always constitute the butts of an endless stream of jokes. But, as hardcore TBMs, they themselves cannot be permitted to find the humor---or absurdity?---in any of this. And it galls them in a most terrible fashion.

I think that this concept---this character trait common among Mopologists---can be summed up by an image from contemporary American cinema: Adam Sandler, enraged and shaking, his lips atremble, growling, "Stop makin' fun of me! in The Waterboy. Essentially, I think this is what Mopologists like "The Berry Picker" are doing. "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" is a Waterboy-esque gesture, as was DCP's "Apologetics by the Numbers", and Bill Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead." Consider that the Novak quote I cited in the epigraph states that the tears bring the laughter, and not the other way around.

I am sure that some naysayers will point to the apparent Mopologetic acceptance of such things as the pair of South Park episodes dealing with Mormonism. It is worth pointing out that the Mopologists inevitably opt to pooh-pooh away the "All About Mormons" episode just as they inevitably salivate over the episode in which God announces to everyone that the Mormons got it right. This only supplies further evidence that the utterly humorless Mopologists are incapable of laughing at themselves.

And so I return again to the second epigraph of this post, in order to ask the Mopologists the obvious question: Why so serious???

[_Jersey Girl]

Am I allowed to argue any of the points listed in the first website link you gave or is that too far from the point of this thread? I'll accept whatever preference you declare.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bro. Gary Novak--an individual who once seemed just on the cusp of breaking into the ranks of amateur Mopologists.

How hard can that be, to somebody bent on doing it?

I should think that one simply starts posting on a message board somewhere, or something of that sort. And, goodness knows, the requirements for posting on message boards aren't all that high!

Novak, whose l-skinny code name is "The Berry Picker,"

I didn't realize that we had "code names" on Skinny-L.

And I've never heard of "The Berry Picker."

How fascinating, though!

I trust that Gadianton Scratch will be here shortly to praise the brilliance of your insights.

had his confidence demolished after some of his Mopologetic writings were turned down for publication.

I've never heard about this traumatic event, and, anyway, didn't realize that Gary Novak's "confidence" had been "demolished."

Indeed, his bitterness--so I'm told---cankers his soul to this day.

I hadn't noticed his cankered soul or his bitterness.

I guess I'll need to pay closer attention in the future.

But that is not what this thread is meant to be about.

No, it was merely some gratuitous pop-psychologizing about someone you presumably haven't even met. Worth the price of the electrons used to post it.

Devoted readers of this board will recall that "Novak's Rule" states that anyone who dares to criticize the Church [sic] will lose something like 80 points off of their IQ, or something [!] like that.

Something like that. Sort of.

Obviously, "Novak's Rule" is very childish, just like the man who helped coin it.

Actually, in my interactions with him -- I've only met him once, and don't even remember what he looks like, but have conversed with him on line, off and on, for many years, and have edited some of his writing for publication -- I've detected good humor and acute intelligence, but no particular childishness.

I suspect that jokes generally seem childish to people without a sense of humor.

It is intriguing that "The Berry Picker" is admitting to his laziness here. One has to wonder: did his "fundamental constitution" play any role in the rejection of his Mopologetic writings?

I think the "laziness" was a joke.

I'm not surprised that that passed you by, or, at least, that you're feigning cluelessness.

Furthermore, how "lazy" is he really if he took the time to create "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" page?

Good point. See above.

I have not yet arrived at my thesis, however.

I would imagine that Scratches everywhere are quivering with breathless anticipation by this point.

I believe that this page reveals the duality of Bro. Novak's character, and it tells us something about a very deeply-seated insecurity at the heart of every Mopologist.

Amateur anonymous pop-psychoanalysis of strangers.

Not even mathematical logic could be any more rigorous or objective!

Indeed, one can sense a roiling, highly self-conscious anger beneath "The Berry Picker"'s prose.

The irony here is about a mile thick.

Notice the threatening tone, here.

I tried. I really did.

I couldn't see it.

But I believe there are deeper, more subterranean things at work here.

Natch!

As I remove my spectacles and massage the bridge of my nose, it comes to me: The Mopologists cannot stand the thought that they are being laughed at and ridiculed. Eureka. Gary Novak's angry, rather vicious and immature "mockery" is really the result of his long-standing feelings of embarrassment and shame over the fact that the LDS Church is so easy to make fun of. Novak and other Mopologists lash out in frustration because they know, at base, that things like Isrealites as Native Americans, polygamy, Zelph the White Lamanite, and Kolob will always constitute the butts of an endless stream of jokes. But, as hardcore TBMs, they themselves cannot be permitted to find the humor---or absurdity?---in any of this. And it galls them in a most terrible fashion.

'Tis a revelation!

some naysayers

Infidels, who fail to accept the revealed character of Scratchism.

This only supplies further evidence that the utterly humorless Mopologists are incapable of laughing at themselves.

!!!!!!

ROTFL!

!!!!!!!!!

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi there, Dan. It's good to see that you're back from your adventures with Ed Snow, threatening wealthy LDS that they had better pony up $$$ for Mopologetics or the antis will "win."

Anyways, since you appear to be claiming that Mopologists are indeed perfectly capable of laughing at themselves and their cause, then perhaps you'd be willing to share with us those parts of the LDS Church that you find "laughable"?

[_The Nehor]

I find it shocking and amazing how much nuance and subtlety you pick up from words on the internet. Not only can you see that what they are saying is a smokescreen for what they're not saying which you can figure out quickly (with just a bit of rumination, removing your glasses, and massaging your nose) all their motives (including the subterranean ones) and see deep into their psyches.

Either that or you make it all up.

I think the careful reader can discern which it is by ruminating at length on your very revealing attitude and letting their mind keep drifting again and again to unearthing what you are all about.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hello there, The Nehor.

Which parts of the Church do you find "hilarious"? Do you get angry when people laugh at you for believing in the Book of Mormon?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hi there, Dan. It's good to see that you're back from your adventures with Ed Snow, threatening wealthy LDS that they had better pony up $$$ for Mopologetics or the antis will "win."

The title of my talk was "Islam: Behind the Headlines."

The imam of the Islamic Center of Orlando, Tareeq Rasheed, was there, along with a number of people from his mosque. He sat on the stand, and heard clearly.

Contact him. If you want the details of my threats against wealthy LDS and my demands for money to support "Mopologetics," he can give them to you.

Anyways, since you appear to be claiming that Mopologists are indeed perfectly capable of laughing at themselves and their cause, then perhaps you'd be willing to share with us those parts of the LDS Church that you find "laughable"?

Find a Pat Bagley cartoon book. Open to a random page.

The odds are relatively high that I own the book and have laughed at that page.

Other than that, though, I'm universally known for my solemn humorlessness.

[_The Nehor]

Hello there, The Nehor.

Which parts of the Church do you find "hilarious"? Do you get angry when people laugh at you for believing in the Book of Mormon?

I find all kinds of things about the culture of the Church hilarious from Saturday's Warriors cheesiness to overly dramatic testimonies to President Hinckley's jokes.

[_Mister Scratch]

Anyways, since you appear to be claiming that Mopologists are indeed perfectly capable of laughing at themselves and their cause, then perhaps you'd be willing to share with us those parts of the LDS Church that you find "laughable"?

Find a Pat Bagley cartoon book. Open to a random page.

Is Pat Bagley a Mopologist, or a supporter of "The Cause"? The only Bagley cartoons I'm familiar with are political cartoons. Does Bagley also lampoon things like Zelph, Kolob, and Jewish Native Americans? If so, please let me know. Otherwise, your counterpunch here has failed pretty miserably, and you still wind up seeming like a grimly humorless, very angry former missionary who's still embittered over being laughed at.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hello there, The Nehor.

Which parts of the Church do you find "hilarious"? Do you get angry when people laugh at you for believing in the Book of Mormon?

I find all kinds of things about the culture of the Church hilarious from Saturday's Warriors cheesiness to overly dramatic testimonies to President Hinckley's jokes.

That's not really what I was talking about, though, The Nehor. You seem to have completely ignored the second half of the post. Let me rephrase, for clarity:

There are a lot of people (usually non-members and ex-mos) who laugh at aspects of the LDS Church--aspects including but not limited to: Zelph, garments, polygamy, historicity of the Book of Mormon, and so on. Do you laugh at these things too? And if not, does it make you angry to be laughed at over such things?