MSNBC’s “Mormon in America”

MSNBC’s
“Mormon in America”
A Critique

Mark D Larsen
August 26, 2012

On August 24, 2012, MSNBC aired a report to supposedly explain Mormonism to the network’s viewers, obviously because of national interest in the religious beliefs of presidential candidate Willard “MittWitt” Romney Rmoney (my preferred spelling).
I confess right up front: these kinds of “investigative” reports about Mormonism really piss me off. They pretend to convey an objective, fair-and-balanced point of view, but in reality they barely look any deeper than the polished, “osmondized” surface that the cult itself wants to portray to the world at large. It makes me wonder what powerful, influential, corporate connections they must have to arm-twist the news media so that they can “help” script and edit the program.
Below I will ennumerate what specific, important details they somehow failed to mention about the Mormon cult.

Part 1

They explicitly state that serving a mission turns out to be “humbling and rewarding”? Why didn’t they also interview those —like me, and countless others— who still have nightmares about being back on the mission and wake up in a cold sweat, relieved to realize it was only a dream?

“Hard work, perserverance, thrift” are all part of the Mormon DNA? How about the other side of the coin: patriarchal control, obfuscation, crass materialism, self-delusion, blind obedience, group conformity, lying for the lord?

“Put your shoulder to the wheel, push along...”! Not one word about that fact that many of those oh-so-admired pioneer handcart companies ended in utter disaster, with dozens and dozens of horrific deaths for the gullible, faithful converts who blindly trusted their leaders. This is a prime example of how a cutesy Primary song whitewashes the real truth to indoctrinate children in the cult.

The Mormon who founded Jet Blue is “the father of nine children”...! Not one single challenge to such selfish, unrestrained procreation in a finite world with finite resources.

Harry Smith reports: “When people come back from that [the mission], and they have that brotherhood, they are all in.” As though that’s a good thing, praiseworthy, admirable...! Not one question exposing how that very same indoctrination conversely makes it all the more difficult, painful, heart-wrenching to ever get out, once those “people” later learn they had actually been teaching half-truths —if not outright lies— as missionaries.

Part 2

Interview a professor of theology? As if such a field belongs at any university in the 21st century. Sure, interview a professor of history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, archaeology, even philosophy about Mormonism, but don’t tip the scale toward the “value” of religious faith by turning to a theologian, especially one who opines that lies about gold plates and angels are just as acceptable as millenia-old fables about parting of the Red Sea or Jesus walking on water. All the above is unadulterated B.S., professor, but deliberate deceit is a very different animal than ancient myths and legends.

MSNBC used the “Church’s own video” to depict Joseph Myth’s claims! They thus show him seated at a table, translating the gold plates in front of him —just like the illustrations the cult paraded in front of us as children in Primary. Why didn’t they depict the true method of “translation,” i.e., putting his “seer” stone in his hat and burying his face in it, dictating the “scriptures” he saw in that stone to a scribe, all the while the plates were supposedly buried somewhere out in the woods? Not one word about him previously duping people for money by using the same stone and hat to “seek” buried treasure, nor about him being arrested and tried for such chicanery in a New York court. Damn the cult for continuing to censure and hide the facts! And MSNBC has now helped perpetuate that deception.

Quote: “They were persecuted, arrested, and several were killed, including the founder, Joseph Smith, at the age of 38.” Not one mention that Mormons likewise persecuted and killed! Their recap of the cult’s “history” is the usual one-sided “victimization” to elicit sympathy and compassion among viewers. Do you think MSNBC will do a follow up on how that self-pronounced “lamb going to the slaughter” took out two others first with a smuggled pistol, hid behind his followers to shield himself, and then abandoned them to their fate while trying to escape through the window? Or maybe they’ll do a segment on the Gunnison and Mountain Meadows massacres? I’m not gonna hold my breath.

Then the topic of polygamy. Church “Historian” Steve Snow glibly states, with a typically benign, general authority grin on his face: “It is our history. And we make no apologies for that. We believe that was God’s will at the time, but we believe that in 1890 that stopped, and our prophet told us that was no longer acceptable.” Cheeses Crust! Just “forgot” to mention that it is still Mormon doctrine? That polygamy will be practiced in the afterlife? That it is a requirement to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? Did it just slip his mind to clarify that it “stopped” as a simultaneous practice, but that it is still practiced sequentially? That if Ann Romney were to die, MittWit could marry again and have both wives in the afterlife? But conversely if Mittwit died, Ann could only remarry “until death do them part”? What a convenient loss of memory! Oh, but I’m sure MSNBC viewers wouldn’t be the least bit interested in knowing that the doctrine is still alive and well, right? Sheisters.

Brian Williams asks about the temple: “What goes on in there?” Inactive member Abby Huntsman replies: “Nothing crazy.” Oh... really? There is nothing crazy about the costumes, pantomines, role playing, covenants, chants, the veil to enter heaven, sacred handshakes, new names and passwords, threats from “Satan,” let alone the now conveniently dropped “penalties” of slitting your throat, cutting open your chest, disembowling yourself? I daresay that, if Williams were able to actually witness an endowment session, he would readily conclude that the adjective does, indeed, apply: the whole thing is as nutty as squirrel poo. And not one mention of how Joseph Myth purloined the ritual from the Masons! Not one! Oooops. Then the discussion moves on to the temple garments, and gives the impression that they are just odd underwear, without pointing out anything about the masonic symbols —the compass, the square, the straight edge, etc.— embroidered into the fabric over the breasts, navel, and knee. Huh. Nothing “crazy” here: just move along, folks.

Then there was the topic of baptism for the dead. The only point here was to reassure viewers that Mormons no longer baptize holocaust victims. Riiiight...! No discussion about the broader implications, such as the fact that millions of human beings have lived and died without leaving any written records of their existence whatsoever, and thus all that genealogy to get “everyone” baptized is futile. And somehow they just forgot to mention that they also vicariously perform those same temple endowments and sealings, including polygamous marriages, for the deceased whose records they do manage to find and duplicate. Why doesn’t anyone even ask what kind of anal retentive deity would demand such physical rites and rituals in the first place? One can well imagine the results for Judgment Day. “What? You were born a Tehuelche Indian in pre-Colombian times? A slave in the Roman Empire? The concubine of a Chinese ruler during the Ming Dynasty? The illegitimate daughter of a Viking invader? Oops. No celestial kingdom for you!”

And when it comes to Blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978? Snow has the unmitigated gall to say: “We’re not certain, even today, why that practice, why that doctrine, was in place.” That’s a barefaced lie! How can he not be embarrassed to utter such subterfuge on national television? If there were an afterlife, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Mark E. Peterson would be spinning in their graves right now. These and other “prophets” and “apostles” repeatedly made statements that clearly explained the reasons for such racism. Indeed, everyone who grew up in the church prior to 1978, like I did, was indoctrinated with them.

We were repeatedly taught that, in the premortal existence, there were “fence sitters” who couldn’t decide to join either Jesus or Lucifer in the “War in Heaven.” As a punishment, those spirits were thus born into the lineage of Cain, cursed with a black skin because he killed his brother Abel. Their black skin was therefore to mark them as unworthy, unlike the “valiant” spirits who had fought alongside Jesus and were therefore born into white bodies and entitled to hold his priesthood. In point of fact, the Book of Mormon likewise declares that Native Americans —Lamanites— were similarly cursed with a reddish, darker skin for their idolatry and wickedness. How can a so-called investigative report fail to expose such doctrines, and instead allow the Mormon cult to sidestep, downplay, and even pretend not to know the reasons behind them? Racism is disgusting, religious dogma that justifies racisim even moreso, but for an official Mormon spokesperson to publicly “lie for the lord” about such dogma is not only unconscionable, but cowardly. Of course, MSNBC doesn’t push the issue any further. Consequently, viewers come away thinking that, despite all rumors to the contrary, the cult’s racist practices in the past were simply some kind of misunderstood “tradition.”

Part 3

As I could have guessed, this segment claims to highlight a “typical Mormon family,” but in truth it has been orchestrated to reinforce the claim of the new racial equality touted at the end of the previous segment. Make no mistake, the family is not typical among Mormons in any way, shape, or form: a Black father and a White mother, with five children of mixed race? That is, most unfortunately, still very rare in the cult. Whatever they had to say in their interviews about their faith, the Word of Wisdom, their “living the gospel,” etc., the more crucial, unspoken message that viewers came away with was: “See? Racial discrimination among Mormons no longer exists.” Voilà! The very occasional exception is now the rule. Not!

This, of course, led to the sticky issue of gender discrimination, since women are still excluded from the priesthood, and consequently any position of real power and authority. Here I found Joanna Brooks’ stance as banal as in her previous interviews that I have watched. I’m sorry, but it seems to me that she continues to "lie to herself," if not "for the lord." Yet again she tries to give the impression that she has “struggles,” and as a "liberal" Mormon has asked the "hard questions." But has she? Really? Then what are her answers to those questions? The interviewer never asked, and Joanna didn’t offer even one of them.
For example, has she seriously come to conclude that burying your face in a hat to stare at a “peep stone” is how god works? That the Nephites really existed, despite all the historical, archaeological, and now even biological DNA evidence to the contrary? That Joseph Myth’s translation of the Book of Abraham is authentic, despite what the papyri actually show? That the temple ceremony is truly how one must enter heaven, and not a paganistic ritual purloined from the Masons? That the various versions of the “first vision” are not contradictory and undermine its credibility? That the doctrine of blacks being “fence sitters” in the pre-mortal existence was correct, rather than an imagined excuse for racism, pure and simple? That polygamy is right, proper, an eternal principle, mandated by god to inhabit his celestial kingdom, and not merely a doctrinal invention to justify sexual predation? Hmmm. Let’s hear the hard answers, Joanna.
Brooks tries to assert to the world that she is “fully aware” of the problems with Mormonism’s claims, but nonetheless remains a member because of its laudable, family oriented, wholesome, clean-cut, touchy-feely lifestyle. Ergo, the cult’s controversies aren’t really so controversial, right?
You’ll have to forgive me if I say that I don’t find that very admirable at all. It is, to say the least, a slap in the face to those like me who were unwilling to sacrifice personal integrity to live a comforting, socially acceptable lie. I purport that MSNBC should have interviewed Kay Burningham instead: she would have been much more candid and honest, and provided a much wider, more realistic perspective of what it really means to be a woman in the Mormon cult.
Next on the agenda? Homosexuality. They interviewed a gay member who was subjected to the cult’s “therapy” for his sexual orientation, but somehow failed to mention how for years this involved electric shock treatments at BYU YBU (I prefer) to “correct” what the cult deems an “abnormality.” And the clincher here was that they didn’t say one word —not one!— about the cult’s very active role, politically and financially, with Proposition 8 in California. Frankly, I was amazed to think how long MSNBC must have had to search and dig to find a gay man who actually has a calling in his ward —with the caveat, of course, that he must remain celibate to hold that position. My guess is that the cult itself facilitated that contact. They didn’t specify, so let me guess: they have made him a ward clerk. You can bet there is no way in Hades that they are allowing him to serve as a scout leader.
The concocted message for the viewers in this segment? That the cult is much more accepting of homosexuality than in the past. Yeah, right. Even though the official pronouncements of its leaders still label it sick, evil, a sin, a perversion, a wicked “choice,” and thus they continue to emphatically oppose gay marriage. Believe me, the Mormon cult’s stand on homosexuality is diametrically opposed to the truly admirable views of organizations like, say, Pixar Animation Studios or the Walt Disney Company. I purport that MSNBC should have interviewed Marie Osmond, and finally asked her point blank in front of the camera: “Was your son who committed suicide gay? You said in previous interviews that he had recently completed a series of therapy sessions. Was that therapy with LDS Social Services for the purpose of helping him overcome and change his sexual orientation?” I am willing to wager that such was the case —and the reason he took his life.

Part 4

Ah, a tour of the Desert Industries warehouse...! The size is certainly impressive. As Harry Smith remarks, it would make the people from Costco jealous. Too bad they inaccurately reported that it is all to help “others.” It is, make no mistake, to primarily help members of the cult under strict guidelines that include how “worthy” they are. What the cult actually provides in humanitarian aid around the world to non-members is a very small percentage of its annual income, according to Businessweek: “the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity.” Of course, apologists immediately claimed that the magazine’s figures were inaccurate, since the cult doesn’t make its financial records public. I find it intriguing, however, that those apologists failed to fill in the missing blanks to set the record straight —which makes me wonder if the percentage of charitable donations to non-members could actually be even lower.

The way the cult takes care of its own is very laudable, of course. No doubt about it. Anyone who views this segment would be impressed. Nonetheless, the issue bedazzles and distracts from the underlying, unanswered questions. What is the cult’s actual worth? What is its annual income from all that tithing? Where and how is the vast majority of that money spent? We will likely never know the truth about its immense financial holdings —which says a lot about how honest and open the cult really is. If there is nothing to hide... why hide it?

Part 5

Here I simply want to say how very much I sympathize with the young actor in the Broadway production of The Book of Mormon whom they interviewed. Simply watching his facial expressions, hearing the tone of his voice, reading his emotions, while he talked about growing up in Mormonism, serving a mission in Mexico, later leaving the church because he is gay... tells me that under the surface there is much, much more to his story that deserves to be told. It would not surprise me if his personal saga could actually reveal more about the truth behind the Mormon cult than the entire program managed to show in all the previous segments.

My overall conclusion is that this report can hardly be called “investigative.” MSNBC did not contact any of the numerous ex-Mormon organizations that now exist. They did not interview even one apostate about the specific problems with the cult that motivated him/her to have his/her name removed. Nor did they bother to ask what kind of disruption, personal turmoil, heartache, absolute hell on earth an apostate has to suffer in practically every aspect of life to take that step.
Viewers consequently come away knowing nothing about the cold, hard, scientific facts that have disproven the cult’s outlandish claims. Neither do they learn about the horrific condescension, the holier-than-thou judgments, the shunning, the rejection, the isolation, the loss of family, friends, associates, colleagues that apostates must face. At the very least, you’d think that they could have commented on the cult’s standard, default conclusion about those who leave the faith, i.e., that there must be something wrong with them if they can’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes. Nope. Not a word.
In short, the program amounted to little more than a sanitized, two-hour “And I’m A Mormon” commercial to spotlight the cult’s virtues and obscure its faults. Its P.R. department must be absolutely delighted.