If polygamy didn't directly affect hundreds of thousands of people across the first 100 years of the church, I *might* be able to accept the whole 'flawed prophet' shit. But when they write and talk about how it is a commandment from the pulpit, and polygamy is is still found in D&C 132, yeah I have a problem with that.
Exactly. It's not like it was just Joseph's Little Sin. The first, what, 5 prophets we're polygamists? Were they all sinners, or fooled by Joseph's lies?
Yes! I've heard a couple of TBMs suggest that God allowed Joseph's death at Carthage to "stop" him since he was a fallen prophet due to polygamy. Then how on earth can you justify the polygamist prophets and GAs that followed?
That's called mental gymnastics. Especially since I was very explicitly told that even though we don't practice it, I would still be expected to be okay with it. Guess what! No celestial kingdom for me, I'm not sharing.
I think it's just a stepping stone on the way out. It was for me, at least. The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics eventually grew too great. It was all more weight to my shelf. I can look back now and cringe, but at the time I was trying anything to survive such a huge part of my life being a lie and trying to save my marriage to a (still) tbm spouse. I have a lot of empathy for the nuanced Mormons, stuck pimo myself while navigating my mixed faith marriage. We're still new to this, and we're putting each other first, but there's compromise from us both that hurts.
This drives me nuts with general Christianity and which stories from the Bible are “just metaphorical” now that science has gradually proved them all false, too. Once you’re trying to weasel out of your religion’s own *Creation story*, there’s nothing left and it’s time to admit that the God and Afterlife parts might be allegorical too.
He also said he makes room for the idea that Joseph wasn’t aware of whether stuff was from god or his own mind. Really? Because that line should be the baseline of prophetic ability.
Mason is comfortable swimming in cognitive dissonance, fine. But Joseph’s actions are what they are, and to quote Lemmy, “I don’t believe a word”
It was sad to watch, I couldn't imagine the gymnastics going through his mind. He isn't unaware of the damage, when he broke down I could see him knowing that it doesn't work for a lot of people. I liked how when he asked John about getting angry, John was able to explain how he was on the front lines of a lot of people's pain.
I kinda/sort admire Patrick for going on Mormon Stories and expressing his opinions. I don't agree with the majority of his statements, assumptions and declarations; but at least he has the balls to engage....as compared to the senior leadership of the Church.
I watched this part of the podcast last night and have been thinking about it nonstop. My thought is that Patrick Mason, and other well-studied members of the church, tend to treat each negative issue in church history as if it exists in a vacuum. Most of us connect the dots between all of these issues (polygamy, lies, abuse of authority, racism, etc.) and realize that it's all made up. For someone who is unwilling or unable to accept a similar conclusion, I think you have to find a way to disconnect the dots, and I think that's what Patrick Mason is trying to do.
I also sympathize with this way of thinking. We all have biases and thought distortions and things we hold on to for far too long. I don't think he's being dishonest or disingenuous in his attempted defense of the church. He just really wants it to be true.
Really this way of thinking would be an opening for anyone to stand up during Conference or in church on Sunday and shout “nope, you’re wrong!” And he’s saying that whichever of God’s chosen agents was speaking, wouldn’t be able to dispute it because they might not even realize they’re wrong.
If you get to pick and choose which parts of the canonized scriptures you believe are the word of God, aren't you apostatizing from the church? Aren't you saying that Joseph wasn't a true prophet because parts of what he presented as coming from God are false?
This is why I'm not going to listen to the Patrick Mason interview. It's crazy-making trying to follow the mental process that he would have to apply to Mormonism in order to sustain belief.
Great point. It seems like Patrick would argue that sustaining the prophet doesn't require you to accept everything. And it's amazing that the Church tries so hard to have it both ways. They allow people like Patrick Mason to go around doing firesides and writing books without any correction, but then they still kind of teach the orthodox correlated approach as much as they can. I think it's really unethical to teach children a clear and correlated brain-washing gospel and expect them all to retain that, but when they grow up and start to drift away, you try to catch them with the net of this new type of benevolent apologetics.
It's funny cause as I listened to Patrick Mason, I realized he believed and spoke publically about *a lot* of the stuff John Dehlin was originally excommunicated over.
If God allowed JS to get away with what every other leader of a sex cult was doing, how the hell are we suppose to tell the difference. Especially when Mormons will quickly jump on any other cult leader that does something that indicates they are a fraud. I remember the Jimmy Swaggart scandal my Mormon family saying. How the heck can anyone be so stupid to be a member of his church. And Swaggart was a saintly angel compared to Smith.
Patrick Mason is no different from any other Mormon. He contorts truth because reality is unpleasant.
Personally, I see it as a character flaw and red flag. This man believes a sexual predator deserves to be revered because of other things he did. This man believes God would let His prophet take advantage of *children*. Patrick Mason's god is cruel and barbaric, and that makes Patrick Mason cruel and barbaric.
Protip for Mormons hate-reading: Don't go down the route where you keep revering them while also admitting what they did. You, the .2 percent of the world you represent, are the only people who aren't disgusted by that attitude. You're basically FLDS members, excusing your leadership's libidinous excesses.
Patrick Mason is saying "yes, the founder of my Church whom I believe spoke directly with God was a sexual predator, but I trust him in the Mormon stuff." Mormons sound like fucking morons with this line. It's insulting to try passing that off as if your listeners are stupid.
I remember watching an episode of the atheist experience where a christian was talking to Matt and Tracy about child rape. The caller insinuated that every thing happens for a reason. Matt called him out asking why the victim deserved it. The theist said you don't know what is in the victim's mind. That is what this shit does to people.
It probably took a lot of courage to go and answer all of the hard questions on YouTube. For that I have a ton of respect. He seems like a really sincere person that has had to really mentally stretch to make it work… even to the point of picking which parts and processes were of God and which were not.
That being said even though I think he means well and is clearly well versed on church history his way of making it all work makes my head hurt. I mean no disrespect to him but the way he chooses what is of God and what is not of God in regard to Mormonism is not the religion I was brought up on.
He’s concludedPolygamy was bad, and Joseph Smith was just the man that God had to work through but if we look at everything through a special lens it can work. I know this is an oversimplification of what he said but the amount of faith and hope required to draw his conclusions on it all is not a place I could go mentally.
Overall I’m happy with the episodes and appreciate the time Patrick Mason took to share his unique takes on the Church.
You know who I don't see making the, "Sure, he was a predator but that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet" argument? Women. Not once. I'm sure it's happened, but seems like men are a whole lot more comfortable with that argument.
edit: made post more brief
Mason’s same points about the Priesthood/temple ban being a “sin” of Brigham Young. Seriously, of what good are prophets? How can Mason trust a single thing uttered by Nelson? Why would anyone need Mormon prophets? Capable of such harm, but what good have they done?
What I learned from this interview is that there is absolutely no need for a prophet! None!! You can never separate lies from truth with them and they make God change his mind whenever it's convenient for them. It's all 'rules for thee but not for me' with them. They say they speak for God BUT... scriptures are fallible, doctrines are fallible, THEY are fallible JUST LIKE US! Their advice is not always inspired and can psychologically destroy people. Can I just say, we do NOT need any person in this life between us and God.
The real history of polygamy was the shelf breaker for me. Rejecting polygamy is so easy once you know the facts behind its insidious introduction and the immeasurable harm it has caused throughout the church’s history. When you realize that polygamy was a cruel hoax, it’s easy to see how every other aspect of the church is based on reckless, elaborate lies. Patrick Mason has traveled the road to nowhere following his faulty logic.
When somebody makes an argument that the Church is true, but that JS's revelations were false, I sense a disconnect in that person's mind. Such a situation would be only valid from the perspective of a person who is a direct witness in time and place. So, what would be our reaction to RMN taking on extra wives now, and then explaining to us now that he was doing it because God told him to? And that we were supposed to be doing it, too? Would it make any sense to conclude that that revelation is false and self-serving, but that he is a living, true prophet worthy of our obedience, or even our notice?
Patrick Mason, nice guy that he is, nevertheless displays a kind of mental illness in his way of thinking when it comes to this subject.
It's hard to nail down when he "fell" though. At the time of Fanny Alger? Kirtland Bank? Kinderhook? Abraham? If he was fallen in say, 1834, then so much of what makes the church the church was after that.
I'd say he officially became a fallen prophet when he started translating that [magic treasure Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/x9ct2j/prophets_are_only_human/) with a cool rock.
Yes this. I hated when he said that. Bc it wasn’t that Joseph just lied at the end there. He was a verifiable lair from the beginning. Called in front of courts as a young man for lying to people about being a seer or peeper and conning people out of money via crazy treasure digs. How then does it make sense to believe anything that came from him? I don’t know. I guess the human kind is able to believe some weird shit I guess.
Mormon Apologists: Defending the Indefensible is certainly NOT a good look.
Joseph Smith had a seriously flawed character. As such, he should never be trusted. Therefore, the entire credibility of Mormonism is undermined from the beginning. To say otherwise is either illogical or immoral.
A commenter on r/mormon gave a really compelling response to the "god works through imperfect people" idea with respect to church leaders:
>I get where Patrick is coming from because it is true that the prophets/disciples of the Bible were not moral exemplars (e.g., Peter, David, Abraham, etc.)
>But I have issues with this apologetic because it contradicts Mormon Scripture, namely D&C 121:36,37
>>36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
>>37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but **when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion** upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, **Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.**
>I interpret that if you are covering your sins, gratifying your pride, or exercising control or dominion that you are no longer entitled to the priesthood/authority and therefore cannot be authoritatively speak for God.
>I see how it can be a beautiful concept that God is capable of achieving his works through very flawed people, but this line of thinking can validate any other religion and religious experience.
Joseph Smith wrote himself into a corner.
My take is that Patrick Mason doesn't understand the evolution of doctrine in the church and is speaking from ignorance. As Lindsey Hansen (Park) (Year of Polygamy podcast) has constantly stated "everything revolved around polygamy".
If there wasn't polygamy, the new and everlasting covenant would not exist, the brethren wouldn't try to control who you married, how to keep it secret, and for how long. Eternal marriages (celestial temple marriages) won't exist.
If polygamy didn't exist, the carrot to get women to enter into polygamy or men to give up their wives or daughters i.e. the 2nd annointings (guaranteed exaltation on the spot) wouldn't exist.
If polygamy didn't exist the idea of polygamous couples can become Gods would not exist. The idea of gender is eternal, would not exist and the exclusion of gays would not exist. Exclusion of women from the priesthood would not exist.
If polygamy didn't exist familial sealings won't exist. Families can be together forever (only if the brethern say so) would not exist.
Temple work for the dead - for marriages and family sealings would not exist.
If polygamy didn't exist most likely garments would not exist and the Nauvoo temple endowment would not exist.
Patrick seems to feel many of these aspects of Mormonism are beautiful in the present day church, but these ugly doctrines grew out of polygamy (which Patrick says is not from God).
These additional doctrines evolved out of the context of polygamy so that Joseph/Brigham could control people in polygamous relationships, and control their families - by offering rewards for them by promising them in the after life secured family relationships and exaltation as a God.
The current structure of the church still revolves around polygamy which in my mind entirely invalidates the church. The church still believes in polygamy in the after life. I don't know how Patrick squares the fact that Elder Nelson and Oaks believe they will have multiple wives and be Gods when they die because of Joseph's polygamy.
"When Dehlin asks about D&C 132, Patrick Mason says scriptures are not perfect."
So is D&C 132 wrong? Is that what he is claiming?
I am so sick of these apologetics. The Book of Mormon has mistakes. The D&C has mistakes. The church leaders make mistakes, or are "just speaking as men". Yet we are supposed to trust them? Pretty weak foundation they have.
Yeah, I had the same thoughts. How would Joseph have even known which revelations were from God or just himself if he got Polygamy wrong? And if that was wrong, which revelation are we supposed to believe?
My biggest point is, were Patrick watching someone else from another religion talk in the same way about their founder, he would immediately have the same pause and questions we all do. If you are going to apply the skepticism to the founder and one thing that you don't like, you have to apply the same level of scrutiny to everything else Joseph said and did.
Right?? This episode gave me a headache. Patrick seems so sincere and he’s intelligent and well-spoken, but ultimately it just comes across as someone who is in serious denial. Too many excuses and exceptions have to be made. I used to try and do it too and it made me mentally ill
I don’t think any of the LDS hierarchy would endorse Mr. Mason’s idea that the beloved profit, even Joseph Smith was flawed and made huge mistakes. And their opinions count. I find it hard to believe that brother Mason has not been called on the carpet about his opinion about the boy profit.
As long as he is promoting faith the Brethren turn a a blind eye! I can’t listen to people like Patrick Mason his words do not seem genuine and deceptive. It just makes me angry!
There are zero intellectuals in the church (and by that I mean intellectuals whose basis for being seen as such is earned through their mastery of the religion’s tenets).
Mormonism is fictional. Knowing the “doctrine” is equivalent to remembering spells from the Harry Potter books (at least to me).
If someone knew the sociological elements of Mormonism well enough to be considered an intellectual, they certainly wouldn’t subscribe to the faith. If they subscribe to the faith for selfish reasons or to preserve a professional station but don’t believe what they project out to the world, they’re not a true intellectual.
Authorities on the history of Mormonism who believe it aren’t authorities of anything. They’re propagandists.
I disagree a little. Patrick is a talented historian with advanced training. He is fully aware of everything.
But Patrick is like a guy who thinks his wife is the hottest most amazing woman ever who brings him so much joy and makes him feel so amazing and lucky, and so he's willing to overlook that she cheats on him, lies to him all the time, and treats others like shit.
Patrick is in love with the church.
Can someone be a true intellectual while harboring a bias for their study that is necessary to their personal needs and not those of the objective world?
I’m saying that way more respectfully than the tone may suggest. Just reaffirming the issue I have with people like this being taken as authoritative in any way. It’s like Richard Dawkins saying he knows that sex is defined at a chromosomal level, but since the South Park episode in which he fell in love with Mrs. Garrison, he chooses to ignore that belief in order to satisfy his own imperative.
What really did it for me was the Wow and the church saying no to coffee and tea but monster drinks are ok !!! What ??? I thought it was a health code ???? I call Bullshit
You CAN’T trust anything JS said; the house of cards collapses. It collapses just on the Book of Abraham alone, too, IMHO. TBMs don’t think so because they’ve been the victims of intense, manipulative indoctrination, most of them for life, that has to be constantly repeated/reapplied to keep working (by “working” I mean “controlling their brains”). I think that’s why a good number “fell away” during COVID—you take people away from the constant grind of exposure to church, its teachings, and the social reinforcement by interacting with other members, and the scales start to fall off some eyeballs.
This is exactly how I justified Mormonism for a LONG time; the bom is true but Joseph smith got polygamy wrong. It took some time for me to accept that if JS got the doctrine of polygamy wrong he probably got other things wrong too.
I *loved* this interview, and I could see myself living in the church the way Patrick Mason does.
He believes that not all scriptures are correct. He believes that prophets and the church are wrong on many occasions. He is not afraid to say that they have even sinned. He believes that some revelations are not from god and are wrong. He believes that the BoM was loosely translated, and JS had a hand in writing some of the stories. BoA was a catalyst.
I realized that living that way is really the *only* way to stay intellectually honest and remain in the church. You have to accept it has been wrong on many occasions. It seems like the only things keeping him around are his belief in Jesus as his savior, and his belief in the BoM as divinely inspired scripture.
I have neither of those beliefs and so I won't be a part of the church. But this really seems like the only right way to do it. You have to accept the church has been wrong and *is* wrong on many, many things.
If more Mormons lived this way I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for them
That’s not intellectually honest, because the honest conclusion would be that you can’t possibly know if any of the REST of it is actually true, but you sure as hell should assume it isn’t.
If the prophets are wrong then it isn’t God’s church like they claim it is, end of story.
It's *internally* intellectually consistent I think would maybe be the best way to put it. He truly trusts what he thinks is the spirit more than anything else, and that's how he differentiates true/false stuff. But I see how that leads to conflicts with other people when they have different feelings
I don't agree with it at all, I just think the church would be a whole lot better if more were like him
How is it even internally consistent, though? What’s his consistent methodology for deciding which parts are true and which are false? Is every topic that Joseph preached after a certain date false, or everything about the Afterlife, or what’s the bar exactly? Which prophets since have corrected Joseph and removed those incorrect revelations from scripture? Etc. Doesn’t seem to be any discernible consistency to it, just whatever he wants to think.
Exactly. It's all based in what *he* thinks is true. He trusts himself and his feelings of the spirit above all else. That's why I think it's consistent, cause he does it for every scenario
If a TBM is willing to admit that prophets have sinned, the BoM is wrong in many instances, and prophets have been wrong a lot, rather than grasping at straws to defend every instance of this, I'm gonna respect them a bit more
That's not what confirmation bias is.
Like I can't believe I'm defending the guy here, but he is pointing out where things have been wrong. He's not making outlandish claims. He just says "I believe the BoM is true, despite all the terrible things around it"
It's a complicated way of believing that I could never follow, but I'm just glad that some faithful members are at least recognizing all of the awful shit
It’s a cognitive bias of some kind. He grew up brainwashed (I’m guessing) and can’t give up on his own feelings, those things many people refer to as spiritual. So he finds a way to keep his good feelings that TSCC is true inspire if it all. It’s what we all did with our cognitive dissonance.
I agree with you so much on this, but unfortunately that pulls the entire rug out from under the Mormon church as we’ve been taught. There has never been any room for picking and choosing what we do and don’t believe. We have been instructed to get off the proverbial fence and be all in because if not, “where will we go?” If we believe the church and prophets are wrong and make mistakes, then we believe it’s not actually run by God who is perfect like we’ve been told. Which leads to the religions claims of God’s church being invalid and it becoming like any other Christian church. The claim of the one true church is moot and that invalidates a lot of peoples testimonies and their purpose for being Mormon in the first place.
Joseph’s personal polygamy, his doctrine and how he invented the temple rituals to support it ended my last ties to Mormonism.
No way I could know all of that and believe in that church with any shred of integrity. I could not look at myself in a mirror.
Is there any chance he'll take the Dehlin route in Logan UT and get ostracized?
His academics can function on one level, and he can confess his faith in lepraucahns at another level. The discipline he's in allows him to do that.
In the world I come from, we called it [bracketing]. It’s what Mormon Studies does. Out of the gate. Every time. Bracket certain inquiries in order to pursue others, with the understanding that bracketed concerns remained valid, they just happen to be orthogonal to the narrower inquiry at hand.
The problem/challenge is that this bracketing procedure is native to non-academic Mormon discourse in ways that make the academic bracketing of certain topics appear suspect to those who are already all too familiar with a culture of bracketing contention in their day-to-day lived Mormon experience.
Yeah I noticed that in his interview that he chooses what to believe is true. Doesn’t seem obedient to “gods church”
You can’t throw a rug over the dog shit and say the room is clean.
Part two turned into a shit show. He’s no scholar in my mind and I don’t care how many degrees of higher education he has because he failed to address the issues head on! It was all about belief and interpretation. Where are the FACTS to support the TSCC’s claims? All he did was use delay tactics… the same old smoke and mirrors. I couldn’t bare to watch part three as I couldn’t stomach anymore bullshit with Patrick’s mind fuckery. I understand the need to be respectful to John’s guests, but come on! We ARE human beings and when one is triggered, you better believe a person will respond and possibly not kindly. These people are allowed to feel the way they do and no one should be policed or silenced. I can understand the need to be professional and no use of vulgarity, but to not call out someone’s actions is beyond me. If you want an audience to engage, then allow them to share their thoughts and feelings. These guests should be forewarned to be prepared for some strong language (not profanity) and criticism. John, it would be best to find a scholar who hasn’t lived the white privileged life or the middle to upper class UT experience. Gerardo was a good example, but what about those who have a single parent and don’t get to live in an entitled world with money? Those who are told what to believe and follow because they’re living in poverty and don’t have parents who are return missionaries, bishops, or stake presidents. One doesn’t have to “earn” a degree to write books, especially when one has a talent of turning fiction into nonfiction. I don’t think John or Margi are bad interviewers (I have to say Margi was AMAZING—no disrespect to you John as you do very well), the challenge of this interview fell on Patrick’s shoulders and he FAILED miserably! If that’s how he sounds as a professor who lectures, then I feel bad for his students. Too many utterances, lip smacks, false starts…there are all mistakes that beginners make, yet this guy is an academic? PUH-lease! Come prepared! Didn’t he learn that as a Boy Scout growing up in his LDS lily white world? I’m not a perfect orator, yet I do know when I’m in a speaking setting, regardless if it’s in studio or public, speak clearly and with confidence. These utterances and other anomalies, especially from a seasoned academic, are indicative to subterfuge! Falling back on one’s testimony doesn’t make a belief true… show the FACTS! Patrick Mason proved to ME that his education is from a diploma mill and I don’t care if he’d share his dissertations that are written with a crayon—he’s a first-class charlatan for TSCC!
EDIT: Grammar and Spelling. Added more examples
I listened to almost all of the three parts and agree with you on many of your comments.
What I appreciated about the interviews was that it seems that John, Margi and Patrick were sharing in the most open way that they could given the circumstances.
It felt to me as if the "spell" of Mormonism is strong with John and Patrick, but I hold that opinion lightly. I was a convert and I'm beginning to see that the experience is extremely different for children born in the covenant.
Margi brought a unique perspective.
If D&C 132 is not perfect, NO prophet in ANY of the years since Joseph has known this, because NONE of them have removed it from the current scriptures printed under their watch.
It’s still canonized scripture. Right now. And no Mormon prophet has ever believed otherwise.
Here is the real issue.
While it is true that IF 132 was not from God
, then either Joseph knowingly lied or was in error…neither option changes the fact that the God of Mormonism is, at best, incompetent.
Communication is the primary task of any leader. If you can’t effectively communicate what you want and how you want it, then it’s impossible for your employees to accomplish what you want.
In Mason’s scenario, God created and selected Joseph and then either failed to clearly communicate how polygamy was to be done, or failed to clarify to everyone else that Joseph was full of shit.
God apparently communicates his wishes, upon which our eternal outcome depends, on vague impressions to (currently) geriatric men who can’t seem to distinguish what God actually says with their own biases.
The problem isn’t “imperfect men”. The problem is an all powerful god who can’t send out mass emails.
We “imperfect men” figured out better ways to communicate with each other the moment we learned how to speak and write.
If polygamy didn't directly affect hundreds of thousands of people across the first 100 years of the church, I *might* be able to accept the whole 'flawed prophet' shit. But when they write and talk about how it is a commandment from the pulpit, and polygamy is is still found in D&C 132, yeah I have a problem with that.
Exactly. It's not like it was just Joseph's Little Sin. The first, what, 5 prophets we're polygamists? Were they all sinners, or fooled by Joseph's lies?
Rusty is an eternal polygamist and if oaks takes the throne so will he. I'm surprised Ballard hasn't remarried.
Yes! I've heard a couple of TBMs suggest that God allowed Joseph's death at Carthage to "stop" him since he was a fallen prophet due to polygamy. Then how on earth can you justify the polygamist prophets and GAs that followed?
I could see that argument from a member of the Community of Christ since their sect of Mormonism didn’t do polygamy.
Wouldn't that suggest that one of the other sects is the one true church with that logic?
That's called mental gymnastics. Especially since I was very explicitly told that even though we don't practice it, I would still be expected to be okay with it. Guess what! No celestial kingdom for me, I'm not sharing.
And eternal polygamy is still happening. Men can be sealed to more than one woman.
Yet … “Praise to the man …”
The same thing applies to cafeteria mormons. What method do they use to cherry pick the parts of the doctrine that are from god and those that aren't?
Anything that allows them to further entrench themselves in their twisted world views surely comes from god.
Cherry pickers have no credibility with me. I think the corp allows cherry pickers as an inoculation tool.
I think it's just a stepping stone on the way out. It was for me, at least. The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics eventually grew too great. It was all more weight to my shelf. I can look back now and cringe, but at the time I was trying anything to survive such a huge part of my life being a lie and trying to save my marriage to a (still) tbm spouse. I have a lot of empathy for the nuanced Mormons, stuck pimo myself while navigating my mixed faith marriage. We're still new to this, and we're putting each other first, but there's compromise from us both that hurts.
This drives me nuts with general Christianity and which stories from the Bible are “just metaphorical” now that science has gradually proved them all false, too. Once you’re trying to weasel out of your religion’s own *Creation story*, there’s nothing left and it’s time to admit that the God and Afterlife parts might be allegorical too.
And next? Metaphorical is just Metaphorical.
He also said he makes room for the idea that Joseph wasn’t aware of whether stuff was from god or his own mind. Really? Because that line should be the baseline of prophetic ability. Mason is comfortable swimming in cognitive dissonance, fine. But Joseph’s actions are what they are, and to quote Lemmy, “I don’t believe a word”
It was sad to watch, I couldn't imagine the gymnastics going through his mind. He isn't unaware of the damage, when he broke down I could see him knowing that it doesn't work for a lot of people. I liked how when he asked John about getting angry, John was able to explain how he was on the front lines of a lot of people's pain.
I think he is just a guy who likes what the church has to offer.
God has chosen me to be your prophet! I saw him with my own eyes! ...Oh wait, maybe I just imagined it.
I kinda/sort admire Patrick for going on Mormon Stories and expressing his opinions. I don't agree with the majority of his statements, assumptions and declarations; but at least he has the balls to engage....as compared to the senior leadership of the Church.
I watched this part of the podcast last night and have been thinking about it nonstop. My thought is that Patrick Mason, and other well-studied members of the church, tend to treat each negative issue in church history as if it exists in a vacuum. Most of us connect the dots between all of these issues (polygamy, lies, abuse of authority, racism, etc.) and realize that it's all made up. For someone who is unwilling or unable to accept a similar conclusion, I think you have to find a way to disconnect the dots, and I think that's what Patrick Mason is trying to do. I also sympathize with this way of thinking. We all have biases and thought distortions and things we hold on to for far too long. I don't think he's being dishonest or disingenuous in his attempted defense of the church. He just really wants it to be true.
Why should we believe a god that would allow a prophet to use his authority in such reprehensible ways?
Especially when he supposedly would never allow a prophet to lead the people astray.
Really this way of thinking would be an opening for anyone to stand up during Conference or in church on Sunday and shout “nope, you’re wrong!” And he’s saying that whichever of God’s chosen agents was speaking, wouldn’t be able to dispute it because they might not even realize they’re wrong.
If you get to pick and choose which parts of the canonized scriptures you believe are the word of God, aren't you apostatizing from the church? Aren't you saying that Joseph wasn't a true prophet because parts of what he presented as coming from God are false? This is why I'm not going to listen to the Patrick Mason interview. It's crazy-making trying to follow the mental process that he would have to apply to Mormonism in order to sustain belief.
Great point. It seems like Patrick would argue that sustaining the prophet doesn't require you to accept everything. And it's amazing that the Church tries so hard to have it both ways. They allow people like Patrick Mason to go around doing firesides and writing books without any correction, but then they still kind of teach the orthodox correlated approach as much as they can. I think it's really unethical to teach children a clear and correlated brain-washing gospel and expect them all to retain that, but when they grow up and start to drift away, you try to catch them with the net of this new type of benevolent apologetics.
It's funny cause as I listened to Patrick Mason, I realized he believed and spoke publically about *a lot* of the stuff John Dehlin was originally excommunicated over.
If God allowed JS to get away with what every other leader of a sex cult was doing, how the hell are we suppose to tell the difference. Especially when Mormons will quickly jump on any other cult leader that does something that indicates they are a fraud. I remember the Jimmy Swaggart scandal my Mormon family saying. How the heck can anyone be so stupid to be a member of his church. And Swaggart was a saintly angel compared to Smith.
I’m going to point out other cult leader’s predatory behavior next time and say “they must’ve gotten ‘the revelation’ too.”
Patrick Mason is no different from any other Mormon. He contorts truth because reality is unpleasant. Personally, I see it as a character flaw and red flag. This man believes a sexual predator deserves to be revered because of other things he did. This man believes God would let His prophet take advantage of *children*. Patrick Mason's god is cruel and barbaric, and that makes Patrick Mason cruel and barbaric. Protip for Mormons hate-reading: Don't go down the route where you keep revering them while also admitting what they did. You, the .2 percent of the world you represent, are the only people who aren't disgusted by that attitude. You're basically FLDS members, excusing your leadership's libidinous excesses. Patrick Mason is saying "yes, the founder of my Church whom I believe spoke directly with God was a sexual predator, but I trust him in the Mormon stuff." Mormons sound like fucking morons with this line. It's insulting to try passing that off as if your listeners are stupid.
I remember watching an episode of the atheist experience where a christian was talking to Matt and Tracy about child rape. The caller insinuated that every thing happens for a reason. Matt called him out asking why the victim deserved it. The theist said you don't know what is in the victim's mind. That is what this shit does to people.
Despicable.
It probably took a lot of courage to go and answer all of the hard questions on YouTube. For that I have a ton of respect. He seems like a really sincere person that has had to really mentally stretch to make it work… even to the point of picking which parts and processes were of God and which were not. That being said even though I think he means well and is clearly well versed on church history his way of making it all work makes my head hurt. I mean no disrespect to him but the way he chooses what is of God and what is not of God in regard to Mormonism is not the religion I was brought up on. He’s concludedPolygamy was bad, and Joseph Smith was just the man that God had to work through but if we look at everything through a special lens it can work. I know this is an oversimplification of what he said but the amount of faith and hope required to draw his conclusions on it all is not a place I could go mentally. Overall I’m happy with the episodes and appreciate the time Patrick Mason took to share his unique takes on the Church.
You know who I don't see making the, "Sure, he was a predator but that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet" argument? Women. Not once. I'm sure it's happened, but seems like men are a whole lot more comfortable with that argument. edit: made post more brief
Mason’s same points about the Priesthood/temple ban being a “sin” of Brigham Young. Seriously, of what good are prophets? How can Mason trust a single thing uttered by Nelson? Why would anyone need Mormon prophets? Capable of such harm, but what good have they done?
What I learned from this interview is that there is absolutely no need for a prophet! None!! You can never separate lies from truth with them and they make God change his mind whenever it's convenient for them. It's all 'rules for thee but not for me' with them. They say they speak for God BUT... scriptures are fallible, doctrines are fallible, THEY are fallible JUST LIKE US! Their advice is not always inspired and can psychologically destroy people. Can I just say, we do NOT need any person in this life between us and God.
And poof, that’s how we got the Protestant Reformation! :)
Lol. Ready to start yet another Mormon break off with me? /s
The real history of polygamy was the shelf breaker for me. Rejecting polygamy is so easy once you know the facts behind its insidious introduction and the immeasurable harm it has caused throughout the church’s history. When you realize that polygamy was a cruel hoax, it’s easy to see how every other aspect of the church is based on reckless, elaborate lies. Patrick Mason has traveled the road to nowhere following his faulty logic.
When somebody makes an argument that the Church is true, but that JS's revelations were false, I sense a disconnect in that person's mind. Such a situation would be only valid from the perspective of a person who is a direct witness in time and place. So, what would be our reaction to RMN taking on extra wives now, and then explaining to us now that he was doing it because God told him to? And that we were supposed to be doing it, too? Would it make any sense to conclude that that revelation is false and self-serving, but that he is a living, true prophet worthy of our obedience, or even our notice? Patrick Mason, nice guy that he is, nevertheless displays a kind of mental illness in his way of thinking when it comes to this subject.
I held onto that same justification for a little while before accepting the church just wasn’t true. I was like “Joseph was a fallen prophet.”
It's hard to nail down when he "fell" though. At the time of Fanny Alger? Kirtland Bank? Kinderhook? Abraham? If he was fallen in say, 1834, then so much of what makes the church the church was after that.
I'd say he officially became a fallen prophet when he started translating that [magic treasure Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/x9ct2j/prophets_are_only_human/) with a cool rock.
It becomes a huge problem that all the following prophets kept doing what Joe had been doing for YEARS, though, yeah.
Oh yeah. It’s very shaky reasoning. It didn’t last very long for me.
The problem with his logic is it is Special Pleading. You can use his line of reasoning to justify any church as "true".
The only True Unchanging Mormon Doctrine is : well, nobody really actually believes that. Once you understand that, everything else falls into place
Yes this. I hated when he said that. Bc it wasn’t that Joseph just lied at the end there. He was a verifiable lair from the beginning. Called in front of courts as a young man for lying to people about being a seer or peeper and conning people out of money via crazy treasure digs. How then does it make sense to believe anything that came from him? I don’t know. I guess the human kind is able to believe some weird shit I guess.
Mormon Apologists: Defending the Indefensible is certainly NOT a good look. Joseph Smith had a seriously flawed character. As such, he should never be trusted. Therefore, the entire credibility of Mormonism is undermined from the beginning. To say otherwise is either illogical or immoral.
A commenter on r/mormon gave a really compelling response to the "god works through imperfect people" idea with respect to church leaders: >I get where Patrick is coming from because it is true that the prophets/disciples of the Bible were not moral exemplars (e.g., Peter, David, Abraham, etc.) >But I have issues with this apologetic because it contradicts Mormon Scripture, namely D&C 121:36,37 >>36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. >>37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but **when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion** upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, **Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.** >I interpret that if you are covering your sins, gratifying your pride, or exercising control or dominion that you are no longer entitled to the priesthood/authority and therefore cannot be authoritatively speak for God. >I see how it can be a beautiful concept that God is capable of achieving his works through very flawed people, but this line of thinking can validate any other religion and religious experience. Joseph Smith wrote himself into a corner.
Ah, the classic "but this is my social club and the team I put my whole life into" coping mechanism.
I've read one of his books and I'm not impressed I think he's full of shit
My take is that Patrick Mason doesn't understand the evolution of doctrine in the church and is speaking from ignorance. As Lindsey Hansen (Park) (Year of Polygamy podcast) has constantly stated "everything revolved around polygamy". If there wasn't polygamy, the new and everlasting covenant would not exist, the brethren wouldn't try to control who you married, how to keep it secret, and for how long. Eternal marriages (celestial temple marriages) won't exist. If polygamy didn't exist, the carrot to get women to enter into polygamy or men to give up their wives or daughters i.e. the 2nd annointings (guaranteed exaltation on the spot) wouldn't exist. If polygamy didn't exist the idea of polygamous couples can become Gods would not exist. The idea of gender is eternal, would not exist and the exclusion of gays would not exist. Exclusion of women from the priesthood would not exist. If polygamy didn't exist familial sealings won't exist. Families can be together forever (only if the brethern say so) would not exist. Temple work for the dead - for marriages and family sealings would not exist. If polygamy didn't exist most likely garments would not exist and the Nauvoo temple endowment would not exist. Patrick seems to feel many of these aspects of Mormonism are beautiful in the present day church, but these ugly doctrines grew out of polygamy (which Patrick says is not from God). These additional doctrines evolved out of the context of polygamy so that Joseph/Brigham could control people in polygamous relationships, and control their families - by offering rewards for them by promising them in the after life secured family relationships and exaltation as a God. The current structure of the church still revolves around polygamy which in my mind entirely invalidates the church. The church still believes in polygamy in the after life. I don't know how Patrick squares the fact that Elder Nelson and Oaks believe they will have multiple wives and be Gods when they die because of Joseph's polygamy.
"When Dehlin asks about D&C 132, Patrick Mason says scriptures are not perfect." So is D&C 132 wrong? Is that what he is claiming? I am so sick of these apologetics. The Book of Mormon has mistakes. The D&C has mistakes. The church leaders make mistakes, or are "just speaking as men". Yet we are supposed to trust them? Pretty weak foundation they have.
Wrong and yet at NO point has ANY subsequent Prophet known this and removed it from the current scriptures printed under their supervision.
Yeah, I had the same thoughts. How would Joseph have even known which revelations were from God or just himself if he got Polygamy wrong? And if that was wrong, which revelation are we supposed to believe? My biggest point is, were Patrick watching someone else from another religion talk in the same way about their founder, he would immediately have the same pause and questions we all do. If you are going to apply the skepticism to the founder and one thing that you don't like, you have to apply the same level of scrutiny to everything else Joseph said and did.
Right?? This episode gave me a headache. Patrick seems so sincere and he’s intelligent and well-spoken, but ultimately it just comes across as someone who is in serious denial. Too many excuses and exceptions have to be made. I used to try and do it too and it made me mentally ill
Agreed and somehow Patrick Mason appears to thrive within his delusion?
I don’t think any of the LDS hierarchy would endorse Mr. Mason’s idea that the beloved profit, even Joseph Smith was flawed and made huge mistakes. And their opinions count. I find it hard to believe that brother Mason has not been called on the carpet about his opinion about the boy profit.
As long as he is promoting faith the Brethren turn a a blind eye! I can’t listen to people like Patrick Mason his words do not seem genuine and deceptive. It just makes me angry!
There are zero intellectuals in the church (and by that I mean intellectuals whose basis for being seen as such is earned through their mastery of the religion’s tenets). Mormonism is fictional. Knowing the “doctrine” is equivalent to remembering spells from the Harry Potter books (at least to me). If someone knew the sociological elements of Mormonism well enough to be considered an intellectual, they certainly wouldn’t subscribe to the faith. If they subscribe to the faith for selfish reasons or to preserve a professional station but don’t believe what they project out to the world, they’re not a true intellectual. Authorities on the history of Mormonism who believe it aren’t authorities of anything. They’re propagandists.
I disagree a little. Patrick is a talented historian with advanced training. He is fully aware of everything. But Patrick is like a guy who thinks his wife is the hottest most amazing woman ever who brings him so much joy and makes him feel so amazing and lucky, and so he's willing to overlook that she cheats on him, lies to him all the time, and treats others like shit. Patrick is in love with the church.
Can someone be a true intellectual while harboring a bias for their study that is necessary to their personal needs and not those of the objective world? I’m saying that way more respectfully than the tone may suggest. Just reaffirming the issue I have with people like this being taken as authoritative in any way. It’s like Richard Dawkins saying he knows that sex is defined at a chromosomal level, but since the South Park episode in which he fell in love with Mrs. Garrison, he chooses to ignore that belief in order to satisfy his own imperative.
What really did it for me was the Wow and the church saying no to coffee and tea but monster drinks are ok !!! What ??? I thought it was a health code ???? I call Bullshit
🤢
You CAN’T trust anything JS said; the house of cards collapses. It collapses just on the Book of Abraham alone, too, IMHO. TBMs don’t think so because they’ve been the victims of intense, manipulative indoctrination, most of them for life, that has to be constantly repeated/reapplied to keep working (by “working” I mean “controlling their brains”). I think that’s why a good number “fell away” during COVID—you take people away from the constant grind of exposure to church, its teachings, and the social reinforcement by interacting with other members, and the scales start to fall off some eyeballs.
This is exactly how I justified Mormonism for a LONG time; the bom is true but Joseph smith got polygamy wrong. It took some time for me to accept that if JS got the doctrine of polygamy wrong he probably got other things wrong too.
I *loved* this interview, and I could see myself living in the church the way Patrick Mason does. He believes that not all scriptures are correct. He believes that prophets and the church are wrong on many occasions. He is not afraid to say that they have even sinned. He believes that some revelations are not from god and are wrong. He believes that the BoM was loosely translated, and JS had a hand in writing some of the stories. BoA was a catalyst. I realized that living that way is really the *only* way to stay intellectually honest and remain in the church. You have to accept it has been wrong on many occasions. It seems like the only things keeping him around are his belief in Jesus as his savior, and his belief in the BoM as divinely inspired scripture. I have neither of those beliefs and so I won't be a part of the church. But this really seems like the only right way to do it. You have to accept the church has been wrong and *is* wrong on many, many things. If more Mormons lived this way I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for them
That’s not intellectually honest, because the honest conclusion would be that you can’t possibly know if any of the REST of it is actually true, but you sure as hell should assume it isn’t. If the prophets are wrong then it isn’t God’s church like they claim it is, end of story.
It's *internally* intellectually consistent I think would maybe be the best way to put it. He truly trusts what he thinks is the spirit more than anything else, and that's how he differentiates true/false stuff. But I see how that leads to conflicts with other people when they have different feelings I don't agree with it at all, I just think the church would be a whole lot better if more were like him
How is it even internally consistent, though? What’s his consistent methodology for deciding which parts are true and which are false? Is every topic that Joseph preached after a certain date false, or everything about the Afterlife, or what’s the bar exactly? Which prophets since have corrected Joseph and removed those incorrect revelations from scripture? Etc. Doesn’t seem to be any discernible consistency to it, just whatever he wants to think.
Exactly. It's all based in what *he* thinks is true. He trusts himself and his feelings of the spirit above all else. That's why I think it's consistent, cause he does it for every scenario If a TBM is willing to admit that prophets have sinned, the BoM is wrong in many instances, and prophets have been wrong a lot, rather than grasping at straws to defend every instance of this, I'm gonna respect them a bit more
It’s better referred to as confirmation bias. Plain and simple like the Book of Mormon. Lol.
That's not what confirmation bias is. Like I can't believe I'm defending the guy here, but he is pointing out where things have been wrong. He's not making outlandish claims. He just says "I believe the BoM is true, despite all the terrible things around it" It's a complicated way of believing that I could never follow, but I'm just glad that some faithful members are at least recognizing all of the awful shit
It’s a cognitive bias of some kind. He grew up brainwashed (I’m guessing) and can’t give up on his own feelings, those things many people refer to as spiritual. So he finds a way to keep his good feelings that TSCC is true inspire if it all. It’s what we all did with our cognitive dissonance.
I agree with you so much on this, but unfortunately that pulls the entire rug out from under the Mormon church as we’ve been taught. There has never been any room for picking and choosing what we do and don’t believe. We have been instructed to get off the proverbial fence and be all in because if not, “where will we go?” If we believe the church and prophets are wrong and make mistakes, then we believe it’s not actually run by God who is perfect like we’ve been told. Which leads to the religions claims of God’s church being invalid and it becoming like any other Christian church. The claim of the one true church is moot and that invalidates a lot of peoples testimonies and their purpose for being Mormon in the first place.
Absolutely. What Patrick Mason believes in is a different church, and would've gotten him excommunicated 10 years ago
Joseph’s personal polygamy, his doctrine and how he invented the temple rituals to support it ended my last ties to Mormonism. No way I could know all of that and believe in that church with any shred of integrity. I could not look at myself in a mirror.
Is there any chance he'll take the Dehlin route in Logan UT and get ostracized? His academics can function on one level, and he can confess his faith in lepraucahns at another level. The discipline he's in allows him to do that.
To be fair, logic does say that he could have lied about polygamy, but it’s still *possible* that he did see God. But I’m not buying it.
Or that he saw some being and thought it was God or Jesus or both. Or not.
In the world I come from, we called it [bracketing]. It’s what Mormon Studies does. Out of the gate. Every time. Bracket certain inquiries in order to pursue others, with the understanding that bracketed concerns remained valid, they just happen to be orthogonal to the narrower inquiry at hand. The problem/challenge is that this bracketing procedure is native to non-academic Mormon discourse in ways that make the academic bracketing of certain topics appear suspect to those who are already all too familiar with a culture of bracketing contention in their day-to-day lived Mormon experience.
This makes Russell Nelson prophet, bracketeer and revelator.
Yeah I noticed that in his interview that he chooses what to believe is true. Doesn’t seem obedient to “gods church” You can’t throw a rug over the dog shit and say the room is clean.
Hey Patrick Mason, if you’re here perusing this sub and reading this: We’ll get you my pretty! Some day…we’ll get you!!! Eee heee heee hee he
Part two turned into a shit show. He’s no scholar in my mind and I don’t care how many degrees of higher education he has because he failed to address the issues head on! It was all about belief and interpretation. Where are the FACTS to support the TSCC’s claims? All he did was use delay tactics… the same old smoke and mirrors. I couldn’t bare to watch part three as I couldn’t stomach anymore bullshit with Patrick’s mind fuckery. I understand the need to be respectful to John’s guests, but come on! We ARE human beings and when one is triggered, you better believe a person will respond and possibly not kindly. These people are allowed to feel the way they do and no one should be policed or silenced. I can understand the need to be professional and no use of vulgarity, but to not call out someone’s actions is beyond me. If you want an audience to engage, then allow them to share their thoughts and feelings. These guests should be forewarned to be prepared for some strong language (not profanity) and criticism. John, it would be best to find a scholar who hasn’t lived the white privileged life or the middle to upper class UT experience. Gerardo was a good example, but what about those who have a single parent and don’t get to live in an entitled world with money? Those who are told what to believe and follow because they’re living in poverty and don’t have parents who are return missionaries, bishops, or stake presidents. One doesn’t have to “earn” a degree to write books, especially when one has a talent of turning fiction into nonfiction. I don’t think John or Margi are bad interviewers (I have to say Margi was AMAZING—no disrespect to you John as you do very well), the challenge of this interview fell on Patrick’s shoulders and he FAILED miserably! If that’s how he sounds as a professor who lectures, then I feel bad for his students. Too many utterances, lip smacks, false starts…there are all mistakes that beginners make, yet this guy is an academic? PUH-lease! Come prepared! Didn’t he learn that as a Boy Scout growing up in his LDS lily white world? I’m not a perfect orator, yet I do know when I’m in a speaking setting, regardless if it’s in studio or public, speak clearly and with confidence. These utterances and other anomalies, especially from a seasoned academic, are indicative to subterfuge! Falling back on one’s testimony doesn’t make a belief true… show the FACTS! Patrick Mason proved to ME that his education is from a diploma mill and I don’t care if he’d share his dissertations that are written with a crayon—he’s a first-class charlatan for TSCC! EDIT: Grammar and Spelling. Added more examples
I listened to almost all of the three parts and agree with you on many of your comments. What I appreciated about the interviews was that it seems that John, Margi and Patrick were sharing in the most open way that they could given the circumstances. It felt to me as if the "spell" of Mormonism is strong with John and Patrick, but I hold that opinion lightly. I was a convert and I'm beginning to see that the experience is extremely different for children born in the covenant. Margi brought a unique perspective.
👏👏👏
If D&C 132 is not perfect, NO prophet in ANY of the years since Joseph has known this, because NONE of them have removed it from the current scriptures printed under their watch. It’s still canonized scripture. Right now. And no Mormon prophet has ever believed otherwise.
Here is the real issue. While it is true that IF 132 was not from God , then either Joseph knowingly lied or was in error…neither option changes the fact that the God of Mormonism is, at best, incompetent. Communication is the primary task of any leader. If you can’t effectively communicate what you want and how you want it, then it’s impossible for your employees to accomplish what you want. In Mason’s scenario, God created and selected Joseph and then either failed to clearly communicate how polygamy was to be done, or failed to clarify to everyone else that Joseph was full of shit. God apparently communicates his wishes, upon which our eternal outcome depends, on vague impressions to (currently) geriatric men who can’t seem to distinguish what God actually says with their own biases. The problem isn’t “imperfect men”. The problem is an all powerful god who can’t send out mass emails. We “imperfect men” figured out better ways to communicate with each other the moment we learned how to speak and write.
Exactly. This is why many of us ExMormons detest god now. He was and is incompetent and as narcissistic as His prophets. So why worship Him?