RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate

[honorentheos]

Tactically, the debate was a wash.

It's interesting to me that MM appear to have a narrative strategy that they successfully followed.

The bullet proof vests are part of this narrative strategy that, while gimmicky and even outrageous, land for those who were the intended audience of said narrative strategy.

In other words, cheap stunts and character assassination continue to be the best Mopologists can come up with, but it does a remarkably good job at scaring the wavering faithful back in line, sadly.

Maybe, maybe not. What one can't do is effectively dismiss it with snark. One has to offer something positive not so much as an alternative but as a purpose worth the trauma of worldview disassociation.

Perhaps the risk in the current age of Exmormon Reddit is the flippant ease of rejection Mormon beliefs have achieved online. Anti-establishment "BULLS EYE!" like the exposed flaws of the leadership leave a false impression that one is walking away from one community to join another. But that's not accurate. All the Exmormon subreddit community shares for an identity is attacks in Mormonism. It not even a waypoint let alone a destination yet if one makes such the substance of post-Mormonism one is losing a bigger argument with human nature and basic human needs.

I don't agree with MM at all, but I do believe they executed a strategy that was apparent from start to finish in the debate and wisdom suggests taking that information as a gift. They made their position known. Rather than snarkify it, it's best to articulate it as close to how they think of it and then engage with THAT.

[honorentheos]

Here's an essay on the abandonment of facts in a political and Mormon context for those interested:
https://flux.community/matthew-sheffiel ... nservatism

Good thoughts. Is that your piece?

[Kishkumen]

First would be to contrast the epistemology of Mormonism with that of philosophy and science. Saying I know in Mormonism is akin to saying I have felt the truth of it so it must be true. But that's making subjective experience the threshold for evidence that is easily manipulated.

I agree with this point very much. Mormon activists, like those of other fundamentalist religious groups, have shifted their tactics to be less about trying to "prove" their very weak truth claims. They realized that a lot of people do not actually care about facts. Instead, they care about identity and group belonging. That is the reason they attacked RFM for not providing an alternative.

Overall, he did very well, but I do think that RFM should have called out his opponents for abandoning facts and retreating to identity politics. The central conflict in society now is between people who believe facts should be most important and those who believe feelings should be most important.

MMs explicitly said repeatedly that they don't think facts matter. That was an unused weak spot because a lot of people whose epistemologies are feeling-based wrongly think that they are fact-based. Finding that cognitive dissonance and using it was a missed opportunity.

Nah. Attacking Mormon epistemology will have a very limited appeal. Look, if you accept that there is a spiritual side of life that science does not deal with, then the attack on Mormon epistemology won't get anywhere with you. The best defense Christians of different stripes have--and it is very effective--is that materialists are only open to part of the entirety of reality. They will always have a place to hide.

The truth of the matter is that the LDS Church is weakest in what it offers its members. It is really a crappy organization. Look at what Pete Buttigieg does with religious opponents. He proudly affirms his religiosity as someone who sees differently on important issues. That is a better way to go. Of course, I heartily disagree with the secularists on this board who lean in the direction of separating people from their religion. I think it is both a quixotic task and a waste of time. I don't even think separating people from the LDS Church is a good goal.

RFM is in a tough position. He is there to appeal to those people who are unconventionally Mormon or on the way out of Mormonism. A few LDS people who are strong and independent will gain a lot from listening to him too. But he is after an entirely different demographic from the one that finds the Midnight Morons appealing. Their fans are active but causal LDS. They participate. They like it. They like what the Church stands for, but they hardly crack a book and don't really care to dig deeply into things. I tend not to agree with them, have little in common with them, and dislike their politics, but I usually wouldn't waste my time having a beef with such people.

RFM, on the other hand, is a truly interesting and brilliant person. I would say that he has done more than just about anyone on this board to contribute to actual Mormon Studies, and he continues to think deeply about Mormonism. His fans are people who are discovering Mormonism anew as they leave Mormonism. They are thirsting for new ways to think about it, and he can give that to them like few other podcast personalities can.

[Kishkumen]

Maybe, maybe not. What one can't do is effectively dismiss it with snark. One has to offer something positive not so much as an alternative but as a purpose worth the trauma of worldview disassociation.

Perhaps the risk in the current age of Exmormon Reddit is the flippant ease of rejection Mormon beliefs have achieved online. Anti-establishment "BULLS EYE!" like the exposed flaws of the leadership leave a false impression that one is walking away from one community to join another. But that's not accurate. All the Exmormon subreddit community shares for an identity is attacks in Mormonism. It not even a waypoint let alone a destination yet if one makes such the substance of post-Mormonism one is losing a bigger argument with human nature and basic human needs.

I don't agree with MM at all, but I do believe they executed a strategy that was apparent from start to finish in the debate and wisdom suggests taking that information as a gift. They made their position known. Rather than snarkify it, it's best to articulate it as close to how they think of it and then engage with THAT.

So what I mean by cheap stunts and character assassination would include this idea that RFM seeks actively to convert people away from Mormonism or that he has a responsibility to provide better alternatives. In my view that demand should be viewed as obviously ludicrous, but unfortunately it is not. No one has to provide better alternatives to something when criticizing it. The criticisms can be valid regardless of the existence of better alternatives. And criticism does not necessarily lead to abandoning something. RFM might more forcefully articulate the fact that MM is creating a false dilemma. The alternatives should not be LDS boosting or silence. Because those are not actually the only alternatives.

Maybe another thing worth pointing out is that not everyone who hands you a purpose necessarily hands you a gift worth receiving.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps the risk in the current age of Exmormon Reddit is the flippant ease of rejection Mormon beliefs have achieved online. Anti-establishment "BULLS EYE!" like the exposed flaws of the leadership leave a false impression that one is walking away from one community to join another. But that's not accurate. All the Exmormon subreddit community shares for an identity is attacks in Mormonism. It not even a waypoint let alone a destination yet if one makes such the substance of post-Mormonism one is losing a bigger argument with human nature and basic human needs.

I think the only bit I’d add to your observation is the subreddit exists to affirm people, most like in the zeitgeist of the day of ‘extreme acceptance’, probably as a result of age and being raised in a narrow moral paradigm. One of the interesting things about the subreddit is if you fall outside of its implicit morality or ‘exmo orthopraxy’, you’ll be downvoted with the gusto of a Torquemadian inquisition. No debate allowed.

- Doc

[Alphus and Omegus]

Here's an essay on the abandonment of facts in a political and Mormon context for those interested:
https://flux.community/matthew-sheffiel ... nservatism

Good thoughts. Is that your piece?

Yes

[honorentheos]

No one has to provide better alternatives to something when criticizing it. The criticisms can be valid regardless of the existence of better alternatives. And criticism does not necessarily lead to abandoning something.

Years ago a book came out called The Geography of Nowhere. The critique it captured is akin to the one behind many complaints of how the Church has commodified and flattened participation at the expense of the richness of variety in ward community expression. It critiqued the replacement of main streets and mom and pop shops with strip malls and cookie cutter franchises that made everywhere in suburban America the same with widespread detrimental effects. It was a strong critique that gained a lot of interest and drove conversation in professional and classroom settings where it applied. What it lacked, and what the conversation around it longed for, was direction. The author responded with a book titled Home from Nowhere. And the buzz around his first book quietly ended. His response was simply an appeal to turn back the clock, to reverse urbanization, and to declare the ideal to be semi-rural living. It was flabbergasting in it's mediocrity. But most critically it revealed a truth - recognizing there is a problem is easy. Coming up with solutions is hard.

But more importantly, it demonstrated that critique the merely bemoans the results is worthless if it fails to recognize the mechanisms that drove the behavior that brought about the results rather than just vilified them.

It is here where I believe you are wrong. Mormonism is an elementary school posturing as doctorate program for the soul and for spiritual community. Having a meaningful conversation about the failings of Mormonism must, out of necessity, address the spiritual famine it claims is a feast. And when the opposite of participation fails to lead to enrichment of a kind that contrasts with that famine but instead validates the claims it is a feast by contrast then one isn't engaging in critique of Mormonism but rather snipping at the fringe of things one would rather see align more with ones own preferences.

Is the spiritual feast to be found in community, in ritual participation as knowing Mormon who has abandoned the literal in favor of the myth? Where is that debated? Is it to be found in replacing the male leadership with a more diverse priesthood? What makes that a source of richness and how does it maintain the identity of Mormonism in a way that is meeting th wide range of needs of people rather than just fulfilling a niche wish of a handful of people to whom this appeals? Critique is easy. It can't be all that is put in offers though. Else the critique is simply snark and potshots at inevitable imperfections in any human endeavor.

[honorentheos]

Good thoughts. Is that your piece?

Yes

Nicely done.

[Dwight]

I am roughly an hour in, and here are some thoughts.

The vests are ridiculous and show how unserious these fools are, they haven’t gone into dangerous territory. Also they should have gotten the Canadian the right flag patch at least. I haven’t heard all of it, but I gather this theme will appear that exmos are a united group who must police themselves, and the only ones who could have beef with the church and its members. I remember on my mission it was that the non-denominational churches had the most antagonistic anti-Mormons of anyone I came across. I would counter with the many bishops and youth/scout leaders the church called that molested kids. If exmos have to own ours, they should have to own theirs.

They immediately started kicking up the dust about how the debate was arranged. I am not sure it helped or hurt, their side probably isn’t going to look at the stuff RFM produced and showed how sloppy they were. They really wanted Bill Reel cause they knew they could push his buttons and then point to the angry exmo.

The questions were a little long and complicated, and didn’t follow the format right off the bat. I am not surprised that they immediately went into testimony mode for the Book of Mormon, there just isn’t much of anything to support it. Also interesting how it clarifies and matches the Bible, but the Book of Mormon isn’t even internally consistent about the godhead being trinitarian or not.

Kwaku is seriously misinformed. I haven’t seen the Knights Templar angle before. Though there is absolutely no evidence of them tracing back all the way to Solomon’s Temple. Though it’s the same game apologists like to support the Free Masons are from Solomon’s Temple cause then Joseph was just taking something corrupted by men and restoring it to the proper thing.

Apparently the prophets and apostles can’t be held up to any standard cause we don’t know the full context of what they were doing. It’s the non-member artists fault for the bad paintings, as if the church didn’t order the artwork and accept it, have prints made and distributed it. RFM was on point there and they just skipped right over that. I knew a bunch of the things, but I didn’t know all of them, and I am not the main character such that it’s impossible for me to believe that my experience is not everyone else’s experience. Joseph Fielding Smith hid the seer stone and he cut out the 1832 first vision account. They have demonstrably hidden things from the members and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

To my understanding and from this event I believe Kwaku is the only convert in his family. However he is an expert and the only one capable of commenting on polygamy as his dad is/was a polygamist. Apparently he has some relationship with him, but his mom left his dad and moved to Texas when he was still a child. I suppose Kwaku isn’t ready to take the logical conclusion and that Warren Jeffs and his ilk have more authority to speak about polygamy and how/if the church should practice it. Also Kwaku isn’t married and he isn’t to my knowledge gay, so I hope he will keep his mouth shut about those topics that he doesn’t have first hand knowledge of. It’s documented that there wasn’t excessive women to men in Utah, and that the overall birthrate declined for women who were in polygamous marriages. Doesn’t matter what Joseph said, apparently these guys weren’t as fruitful as if these women weren’t sister wives.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is here where I believe you are wrong. Mormonism is an elementary school posturing as doctorate program for the soul and for spiritual community. Having a meaningful conversation about the failings of Mormonism must, out of necessity, address the spiritual famine it claims is a feast. And when the opposite of participation fails to lead to enrichment of a kind that contrasts with that famine but instead validates the claims it is a feast by contrast then one isn't engaging in critique of Mormonism but rather snipping at the fringe of things one would rather see align more with ones own preferences.

Is the spiritual feast to be found in community, in ritual participation as knowing Mormon who has abandoned the literal in favor of the myth? Where is that debated? Is it to be found in replacing the male leadership with a more diverse priesthood? What makes that a source of richness and how does it maintain the identity of Mormonism in a way that is meeting th wide range of needs of people rather than just fulfilling a niche wish of a handful of people to whom this appeals? Critique is easy. It can't be all that is put in offers though. Else the critique is simply snark and potshots at inevitable imperfections in any human endeavor.

In DCP’s De Profundis, the one rife with plagiarisms (uncorrected, by the way, despite his being aware of them now), he argued the gospel is totes profound:

For the record, I do believe the scriptures — including those peculiar to the Restoration — are profound, subtle, nuanced, complex, and almost inexhaustibly rich.

See? It’s richly profound! Don’t believe me? Well, he asserts:

The Gospel must not be misunderstood as an attempt at a philosophical system. It doesn’t purport to answer every question that might be raised by a graduate seminar in analytic philosophy. That isn’t its purpose. It need not define philosophically precise answers to questions about divine foreknowledge, the nature of preexistent personhood, or the ultimate origins of morality. Such definitions are no part of its intent.

which totally doesn’t contradict his statement found within the abstract:

We would simply be grateful to be saved. In another sense, the Gospel is clearly profound because it answers the deepest and most basic of human questions.

So, why is anyone concerned with all that fluff containing cookouts, softball, basketball, Boy Scouts, cafeterias, road shows, and other relationship building exercises when the gOsPeL iS pRoFoUnD?

Here is real depth, and it resides not in doctrines but, again, in a Person. To fully know him and his Father — not merely to know about them — is eternal life (John 17:3).

And how do you do that? Get bored out of your damned skull by cracking open those scriptures and sticking to the correlated Sunday School lessons you shallow rube.

- Doc