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.