McKay Coppins: Good Writer, Decent Article in the Atlantic Monthly, But:

I will only focus and harp on two things; okay three:

 

Critique # 1. Mormon, mormon, MOrmon, MORMON, mormon, Mormon, Mormonism, ... 

Mormon much? You do it too much, buddy.

I appreciated how you slipped Latter-day Saint in there a time or two, and the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was eventually mentioned, for measure of accuracy. But the President of the Church, that you admit, or agree with is the spokesperson for God on earth, (and who granted you an interview, a very generous one, it seems!) has specifically asked us members to give more attention to the Reason for the Season, the official name of the Church, and the Being in whom we posit our devotion and worship: Jesus Christ, the Son of God; Handl quoting Isaiah tells us more in his master work "The Messiah", as in the Counselor, the Prince of Peace, etc. Endless are His names. But you refer to us as the stereotype and at times denigration of a nickname, which granted is complicated, because we usually try to wear it with pride, and many life long members still use it too much. I get the shortness and ease of it. In Spanish and Arabic it is easy, too. Practically the same pronunciation in the languages of hundreds millions. In Spanish we can make it agree in gender as "Mormona". We all can call our Grandpa Papa or abuelo, or whatever cute cultural nickname we have for that guy. But I do think our living prophet makes a big point about nomenclature, and I am trying to stick with it. Then again, I am not writing for the Atlantic Monthly and I am simply an obscure blogger.

But you Mr. Coppins (a young Mister to me, a newly turned 50 year-old writing from my family den on a cold snowy day), reduced this faith of you and me and few more millions to the over-used trope "Mormon". Typical journalism, I suppose. And, sadly, you do not mention who that character of the unique identity-making book is: Mormon was a general, and editor, and a prophet of God. Yeah, that Mormon.

Oh, well. You can't have everything, McKay. Nice first name, too, named after a powerful earlier leader of the faith of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. I am not sure that you mentioned Restoration, either, but you did sum up the key points of many parts of Church history, albeit with a more recent slant on politics... It was a really good article, however, and I appreciate your points of view and I like your writing and reporting.

LDS was not used, the short acronym, which has been a standard go-to when avoiding the "M" word (yes, Tre Parker and Matt Stone: Mormon! Like as featured in your racist Broadway play, fashionably monikered the Book of Mormon! Wake up, woke nation post-George Floyd: Parker and Stone: bigots...). I digress...

Anyway, Mckay, you chose your name and you stuck with it. And overdid it, to the consternation of me and maybe the Prophet President Nelson (possibly more disappointment in his case), and maybe to the chagrin of the Son of God Himself, the Savior. Who is to say? It is very possible that the Lord of All Humanity is not chagrined by anything. So, maybe no harm, no foul. He of all, will forgive us our potential trespasses.

Okay, felt good getting that out there. Getting over it. (Not really, but it feels good to be honest).

Beef # 2. Hardships in the mission, but the mission was to do what ... For whom?

You personalized your article by mentioning your Church mission, how you had romantic fantasies about going abroad and roughing it with thatched roofs in the jungle beforehand (I wanted a dangerous mission, where I learned a foreign tongue; that sounded romantic and cool to me), and instead you were called to Texas, and how in Texas there were personal privations and struggles to be different, and that helped forge your character and faith. But what was the intent of the mission? Not just to pass out the pamphlets and be a good person and improve the brand name of the faith, which you amply discuss, and "sowing seeds", but to bring the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ into the lives of potential converts. Anyone else affected by your faith in the Lone Star State?

Did this happen? Boiled down, this is the crux of a mission for a participant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, a lot of the conversion and growth is about you, the actor, but what about them? Did your efforts lead anyone to Christ, as we say, formally or informally? Did they not have to join and be baptized to the religion, but were they moved, even a slight King Agrippa moment? Paul had tons of trials and great stories during his missions, but he brought thousands into the fold. That was the endgame of the mission, not just building his own character and identity.

Nada? 

Again, I know that this article cannot and should not be all things to all people, but you, as I, were called to be a representative or emissary of the Lord Jesus for two years, and that was meant to be a vehicle for others to see and possibly follow. So, I feel like you are talking around the subject more than actually discussing the hearts changed, moved, or affected, perhaps for the longer term, outside of yourself. Full disclosure: my parents are converts, perhaps unlike yours, and the conversion process and growth and identity of the faith is part and parcel to what I know and I have witnessed in this belief system. This Gospel, as we refer to it, the Gathering of Israel is another reference, is more about Jesus and others than it is about us. But, I get it. This article ends up having to be about "us".

I feel like you described a night out at a dinner but left some important things off the table, metaphorically. Nice analogy, huh? Even though my criticism may be misguided and wrong... I am not beyond criticism myself. I missed some good eats from your mission, I suppose I am trying to say. Unless there truly were none, which I find hard to believe.

Criticism # 3 Politics. Neutrality.

It's 2020; is hard to believe that we can separate our identities from our political, and let me say, domestic or CONUS (Continental United States) lives and cultures, as opposed to OCONUS (Outside the Continental 48 States and the District of Colombia).

I know that our current and most Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ have been U.S. citizens; their understanding and points of view, their culture and mentality has been largely informed by the country of their origin, plainly. However, most of them have lived abroad and visited non-U.S. places, and they all purport to be prophets, seers, and revelators for the whole world. 

McKay does an ample job of discussing U.S. perceptions of the Church (of Jesus Christ, not Mormon, not Moses) within the States by Americans. And yes, the actual title of the piece is the "Most American Religion". But I think that a lot of the point of this faith lies outside the confines of CONUS, and therefore Mr. Coppins is missing a large part of the mark.

Yes, Joseph Smith was an American man (white, non-slave owner, grew up pretty poor), and the subsequent leaders have all been American born minus John Taylor, of England and later Canada, but many of them are more than only Americans: they are world figures, they think of themselves as international, they speak multiple languages and consider dozens and dozens of other countries and cultures when considering and determining Church policies and how doctrines are taught, disseminated, and applied. So, what point am I making? While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT,🅡) is based in the United States, and is largely composed of US citizens and is "American" in many senses of the word, and even weighs in on U.S. standards and laws and debates, like gay marriage or MX missiles or other topics which it considers non-partisan and moral more than political, the status of the Church is not simply an American thing.

Well over a million members in Mexico. Closer to 1.5 million in Brazil. Going on a million in Philippines. Millions throughout the rest of Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa is exploding.

As much as Mitt Romney, or the Winter Olympics, or a few others have either defined or highlighted the faith in the grand ole U.S. of A., this faith is bigger than a presidential candidate or a sports event in Utah. The faith is definitely more than Utah, or North America, or the Western Hemisphere.

As American as the faith of the Mormons (yes, shout out to us, you, them, ease of the printed word) is, the Church of Jesus Christ is more than just an American religion.

It is a world faith. And more importantly to those who believe in its teachings, doctrine, authority, and destiny, it is the vehicle that is meant to fill the earth in the last days.

That global concept and presence, to me, goes beyond politics in our fine nation. Beyond Democrat, Independent, or Republican, beyond pro-unification with China in Taiwan, beyond the disputes between the European Union or the United Nations and the Israeli and Palestinians, but this Church is bigger than all those things.

Look to the One in charge, the Master in the tempest.

But I could be wrong.

One last note, simply reviewing the title in the link below: you do a good job of figuring out and laying forth a lot of the history, identity, and struggle of the faith in our country and as American Latter-day Saints. Thanks for the good work.

Blog it. Blog on. Stay in the fight.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Cited below is the original article referred to by McKay, and a response to it below that, by Hal Boyd.

How Mormons Became American - The Atlantic

Hal Boyd: The Atlantic interviewed the prophet. Here’s what it got right - Deseret News