Shawn McCraney on Mormon Stories

[Bernard Gui]

This was the first Mormon Story I watched and it will be the last.

My two cents.

I've heard and seen interviews with various ex-Mormons, and even Ed Decker comes across as some kind

of nice person. Then I remember him prancing around our information booth at a state fair in temple

clothing telling passers-by to ask us what these clothes are all about, and...oh yeah, I remember, he's that kind of guy.

Bernard

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hopefully John will come back and address my comments.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems my comment on John Dehlin's website has been removed for some reason. In it, I apologized to Shawn for an error I made in my review of his book and provided a link to a correction posted on my blog. It's unclear why the comment was removed, but it happened recently.

I also took the time today to listen to his interview with McCraney. There were a few parts I enjoyed, there were parts that I didn't enjoy.

[oats]

I managed to get through the first and second video.

My favourite part was his explanation for the more extreme rhetoric he uses on his show versus how reasonable he was during the interview. It's around the 6:50 mark on the second video.

I'm glad I got to see the side that could make concession to what and how LDS people believe. At least now when I see his videos I can know that behind the preachy facade this guy is capable of some critical thought.

What I don't understand is his attacks on the first presidency and quorum of the 12. Has he even met any of those people? Why the hate?

[lostindc]

I know I am going against the grain but I eat up every podcast of John's. They are fantastic and I actually felt something for this Shawn guy. They laughed and cried. Better than Barbara Walters! I think I am going to donate.

[kamenraider]

Blair, did you dig up dirt on Shawn's past?

[lostindc]

Blair, did you dig up dirt on Shawn's past?

Blair is wrongfully being slung through the mud on the MD board. I think you can ease up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair, did you dig up dirt on Shawn's past?

You tell me:

http://www.farmsnewsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=774

I'm interested in why you ask such a question.

[mormonstories]

You tell me:

http://www.farmsnewsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=774

I'm interested in why you ask such a question.

Blair -- I think your title speaks for itself.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair -- I think your title speaks for itself.

John, your response would make more sense if I wrote the title, but I didn't. I requested a different title. As with other publications, titles are written by editors. As a journalist this rule applied as well, not uncommonly did I dislike the headlines given to various articles I've written.

What's that old saying about judging a book by its cover? You told me you'd read the review. Are you going back on that? Click here to read.

Also I'm still wondering why my comment disappeared from the Mormon Stories website.

[kamenraider]

You tell me:

http://www.farmsnewsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=774

I'm interested in why you ask such a question.

I wasn't referring to the article. I was just rather suprised that you would act indignant at the suggestion that you dug up dirt on Shawn, that's all. You know whether you did or not.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wasn't referring to the article.

I'm not sure what you were referring to then.

I was just rather suprised that you would act indignant at the suggestion that you dug up dirt on Shawn, that's all. You know whether you did or not.

Where was I acting indignant?

[Wiki Wonka]

I'm not sure what you were referring to then.

Where was I acting indignant?

Oh come on, face it LOap...you're writing apparently isn't even good enough for Wikipedia's "peer review process."

One more time...because this just makes my day:

Wikipedia's peer review process.

Hoping that you harness the "rage."

WW *

* I'm going to have to resign from being your sockpuppet if you don't shape up

[LifeOnaPlate]

[mfbukowski]

Looks like somebody has a new avatar- I am just not sure who.

And Willy- that is the first time I noticed the background on your avatar! Is that addition new or have I just been snoring again?

Great stuff!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Alright, I'm back for a second. As I noted, I had the chance yesterday to listen to the three parts of John's interview with Shawn. The first thing to point out is the production quality, which for a webcast is pretty dang spiffy. I wish I had that sort of equipment to use! The part that I enjoyed most was when John asked Shawn about his demeanor on his TV show. Though John doesn't go into detail in the asking, I see Shawn's behavior on his TV show as generally brash, confrontational, rude, and so forth. He's down some downright dirty things on the program, things that would offend practically any Latter-day Saint. (this is around the 8 minute mark of part 2.) Shawn replied that he started off with the show being more "passive," and that led viewers to believe they had more in common with him than he wanted them to believe. He said various LDS would call and say "it's so great we all believe the same thing." Shawn said he realized the "love" method in TV did nothing but make people who didn't know they had differences say they are all the same. Then Shawn says he wanted to represent a segment of society who is voiceless, who don't et to come back at somebody, who don't articulate things as well as Shawn would. And he appealed to Jesus Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees as "vipers," much like the street preachers who protest outside temples and during general conference. John asked good good questions here, Shawn's responses outlined how he rationalizes moving away from his original plan to preach to LDS respectfully as discussed in his own book. He also acknowledged the "entertainment angle," contrasting his show with the boring stuff on BYU TV. For me, this was a great part of the interview, and John's questions were asked well, including citing 1 Corinthians on sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. Shawn continues, that we live in a society where love is eveything and truth takes a back seat. It is irresponsible to just say Jesus loves you all, etc.

In the way of improvements, I thought it went too long, I thought some of the questions were leading, (such as the questions about gays in part three around the 6 min mark) and I thought it was a bit off-putting that Shawn harangued Bob Millett, going as far as to claim he is "duplicitous" (And I thought Shawn's quick dismissal of my review as an attack piece was bad!). John challenged him a bit on this, but I still felt like Millett emerged with an unnecessary and uncalled for black eye, however else I personally disagree with Millett on other matters. I thought Shawn's proof of God by appealing to the diversity of foodstuffs was sort of weird, too. Nevertheless, it's easy to see what sort of demographic Shawn would appeal to, and he has some talent in that regard. John himself has a lot of natural talent as an interviewer, he seemed to be able to keep Shawn calm and on point (as opposed to the McCraney interview on Van Hale's radio show), and he asked some good questions despite some lapses (a subjective judgment, of course). One more thought: it was weird when John asked Shawn about God being a "*******" in order to bring up the problem of theodicy.

(the censored word rhymes with mastered.)

[kantgomo]

Where exactly is it, LOaP that Mr. McCraney mentions or refers to you?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Where exactly is it, LOaP that Mr. McCraney mentions or refers to you?

About the 12 minute mark is where he mentions it specifically.

[kantgomo]

About the 12 minute mark is where he mentions it specifically.

Part 1,2, or 3?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Part 1,2, or 3?

Part 1. Here's my response to Shawn.

[Lamanite]

2) In general, I don't find FAIR or FARMS reviews to be fair or credible, so with limited time, I chose to prepare in other ways with my time...which I did.

I think this statement is rather juvenile. The dismissal of these two organizations seems silly; especially for someone who should at least be familiar with recent commentaries on your subject matter.

I just think that your approach lacks rigor and could easily be interpreted as being intellectually dishonest.

On a more positive note, I loved your Greg Kearny podcast, and I've heard the Bushman podcast is equally good.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mormonstories]

I just think that your approach lacks rigor and could easily be interpreted as being intellectually dishonest.

Guilty as charged. I long for the day when I have more time to prepare better. Right now my focus is on my thesis research, coursework, my family, and helping couples struggling w/ faith crises.

On the positive note -- I'm not trying to be Charlie Rose or Terry Gross right now. The best I can try to be is Larry King right now.....who actually takes the approach of intentionally NOT reading the books or doing background research before he interviews folks. There is definitely a sacrifice in preparedness and scholarship with this approach, but it comes w/ the advantage of coming at the interviews fresh, w/ the same eyes as most of my listeners.

Anyway...basically I agree with you, and hope to change this someday.

But I will also say this -- I acknowledge that FAIR/FARMS do some good things, and have some really good people. But as long as they continue to name articles in a thuggish manner (like they did with Blair's review), and do hit-job reviews like the ones they did w/ Grant Palmer (that's just my opinion...I'm not stating it as fact) -- then they will suffer from a lack of credibility among people like me (which I'm sure is of no concern to them, which is fine). You can do effective interviews without being mean spirited and sarcastic, fellas. If I've done anything right w/ Mormon Stories, it's been by interviewing folks from all sides w/ a similar, respectful tone. I challenge you to find a mean-spirited or sarcastic interview (overall).

Hugh Nibley set a really poor example with "No Ma'm. That's not history" -- and FAIR/FARMS apparently continues to carry the torch, unfortunately (though I know that they're trying to do better...but to win my confidence, they're not quite there yet). Titles like, "Stillborn: A Parody of Latter-day Saint Faith," are NOT Christlike in any way, shape or form to me.....and do not make me want to give them my limited time. And those of you who excuse the sarcasm by saying that it's what you do to have to do to get folks to read the article -- well then, I say that you're no better than McCraney (when he is disrespectful to LDS folks).

Love you guys.

And Blair -- thanks for your private apologies and concessions. I appreciate what you're trying to do in helping nudge FARMS/FAIR in a more Christlike direction, and I hope that you and I can constructively build on our new ground.

[Lamanite]

Guilty as charged. I long for the day when I have more time to prepare better. Right now my focus is on my thesis research, coursework, my family, and helping couples struggling w/ faith crises.

On the positive note -- I'm not trying to be Charlie Rose or Terry Gross right now. The best I can try to be is Larry King right now.....who actually takes the approach of intentionally NOT reading the books or doing background research before he interviews folks. There is definitely a sacrifice in preparedness and scholarship with this approach, but it comes w/ the advantage of coming at the interviews fresh, w/ the same eyes as most of my listeners.

Anyway...basically I agree with you, and hope to change this someday.

But I will also say this -- I acknowledge that FAIR/FARMS do some good things, and have some really good people. But as long as they continue to name articles in a thuggish manner (like they did with Blair's review), and do hit-job reviews like the ones they did w/ Grant Palmer (that's just my opinion...I'm not stating it as fact) -- then they will suffer from a lack of credibility among people like me (which I'm sure is of no concern to them, which is fine). You can do effective interviews without being mean spirited and sarcastic, fellas. If I've done anything right w/ Mormon Stories, it's been by interviewing folks from all sides w/ a similar, respectful tone. I challenge you to find a mean-spirited or sarcastic interview (overall).

Hugh Nibley set a really poor example with "No Ma'm. That's not history" -- and FAIR/FARMS apparently continues to carry the torch, unfortunately (though I know that they're trying to do better...but to win my confidence, they're not quite there yet). Titles like, "Stillborn: A Parody of Latter-day Saint Faith," are NOT Christlike in any way, shape or form to me.....and do not make me want to give them my limited time.

Love you guys.

And Blair -- thanks for your private apologies and concessions. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I hope we can constructively build on our new ground.

That honest reply says more about you than anything else could have.

Stay the course!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[LifeOnaPlate]

And Blair -- thanks for your private apologies and concessions. I appreciate what you're trying to do in helping nudge FARMS/FAIR in a more Christlike direction, and I hope that you and I can constructively build on our new ground.

No problem, I'm not trying to be controversial or unreasonable. While I believe there have been things published in the FARMS Review, or certain articles or presentations from FAIR, on the whole I think such things get a much larger amount of attention than they warrant. As I noted to you, the majority of things from FARMS (and FAIR) do not carry the snarky tone. To the contrary, they are often-untapped rich sources of info that more members of the church, including your listeners, would greatly benefit by reading. I think it's generally unfortunate that people complain about these organizations and their publications without recognizing any of the good they do. And by recognizing I indicate more than acknowledging that they have some good stuff.

[mfbukowski]

Hugh Nibley set a really poor example with "No Ma'm. That's not history" -- and FAIR/FARMS apparently continues to carry the torch, unfortunately (though I know that they're trying to do better...but to win my confidence, they're not quite there yet). Titles like, "Stillborn: A Parody of Latter-day Saint Faith," are NOT Christlike in any way, shape or form to me.....and do not make me want to give them my limited time. And those of you who excuse the sarcasm by saying that it's what you do to have to do to get folks to read the article -- well then, I say that you're no better than McCraney (when he is disrespectful to LDS folks).

The tradition goes back a lot farther than that- Brother Brigham as I recall had a few zingers for the "loyal opposition" and Wilford Woodruff was known to let a few fly himself.

I don't know if it is escapable. We don't have a tradition of genteel European foppishness, heck (that word is itself a concession) we are descendants of rude American frontiersmen. Look at the English parliament for Pete's sake, it even goes back father than the frontier.

Yes, we should try to be Christlike, but remember he plaited a whip when necessary too. If you can't take the fire...