LDS Church announces new thing

New Thing Better, Stronger Than Older Thing

A new thing has been announced by the LDS Church, to be implemented in January 20Whenever.  This thing replaces the older thing, which although revealed by revelation to the Revelator, has been since rendered ineffective due to some bad things in the world.

“This is yet again proof that the Lord’s Anointed Mouthpiece,” said Elder Whatever, “leads this Church through the Lord who stands at its head.  We are very excited for this new thing.”  Families are to be strengthened by the new thing, which has been designed, according to some guy, “according to the Savior’s principles of teaching families Faith strengthening principles.”

Another guy said he was “pretty anxious to get cracking” at the new thing, although some Mormons remain nostalgic about the older thing, one tweeting, “#oldthing was awesoem but #newthing is rrrrevvvelation.”  Testimonies are sure to be solidified, hardened, cemented, ossified, or otherwise rendered from liquid into solid state, while belief in the Savior will be, one LDS figure announced, better, harder, stronger, faster, or otherwise comparatively more of whatever was there before.

The new thing, according to internal documents, cost an estimated $18 million dollars.   The fact that the new thing merely re-arranges the old thing, and has more photos, does not, one LDS spokesperson insisted, mean that the LDS Church is basically irrelevant, and incapable of teaching, saying, doing, or making anything remotely interesting, significant, or life-changing for its “members.”  “Just because we are counting on those perennial suckers, the 15-to-19-year old audience, to fall in love with our new thing,” Elder Whatever declared fervently, “this does not mean that religious freedom should be curtailed.”

“We are not merely vulgar, inane life-sucking parasites slowly destroying the work of Joseph Smith,” Elder Whats-his-name scowled during the latest Generic Conference.  “Hear the flapping of my jowls, and see the pink lipstick I wear, the wires behind my ears that download MyProgram2.0, for they individually witness of the Savior’s need to be loved by us individually, and we provide that need,” he said, blubbering incoherently into non sequitor, “wah wah wah,” at the conclusion of a slobbering denunciation of bad things.  Some people in white shirts and floral print dresses stood up and waved at him, and a large group of obese men and women then yelled out a nineteenth century hymn written by a dead guy with some actual creativity, to be sung by Methodist churches, as the LDS Church concluded yet another new thing.


  1. I am deeply disturbed (no sarcasm intended) by your writings of late (figuratively speaking, as I move through your blog, oldest to newest). You have come out in clear denunciation of the president of the LDS Church, Thomas Monson, and denigrated his counselors and Elder Packer, holding them up to the vilest ridicule.

    The vilest ridicule.

    It is one thing to disagree with, to poke fun at, to highlight the human frailty (in good humor) we share in common But you have positively caricatured LDS leaders as evil, vacuous, wanton and self-serving. You have come out in open opposition to them. You have, in a word, spoken evil of the Lord’s anointed (assuming, as most LDS do, these people are “the Lord’s anointed”…which clearly you don’t).

    It is counter-intuitive, painful and unsettling for me to countenance this. It just seems “wrong”. And, yet, I don’t hold back when I denounce Obama and his ilk for the wanton miscreants that they are. So why should I show deference to others just because they claim to speak in the name of the Lord and claim to be, as you wrote, “touched by some guy” a long time ago.

    I wish I could denounce you entirely, but I can’t. Our Lord was given to this same farcical, humorous, wicked denunciation of hypocrites who sit in high places and glut themselves on the widow’s mite. The people loved Him. But others — especially the most “religious” — hated Him for it.

    But did He speak the truth? Yes, of course He did.

    Do you speak the truth? Do you know whereof you speak?

    That is the most unsettling proposition of all. Has my “faith” been hijacked by jackals? Do these men I love and revere — by custom, culture and personal association — represent “the false robes of an apostate priesthood” that Nibley so courageously denounced, looking elsewhere?

    Is my boredom and revulsion at the vacuity of un-Christ-centered “Mormonism” indicative of the truthfulness of your words?

    You’ve unsettled me.

    Thanks for waking me up. Maybe I’ll even open my eyes now.

    1. Your Good Will is humbling. You ask if I know whereof I speak, and I would say, I speak from what I believe, and try to make what I believe really connected to reality. As you surmise, I don’t believe the Apostles are the Lord’s Anointed, at least, not these apostles. Why not? What are the fruits of their witnesses? What are their witnesses? Do they speak of Christ, from a personal knowledge, the way one might speak of a brother, from a personal knowledge (and not just because you heard someone talking about him)? The fruits of the apostleship in Mormonism I have explored, in sometimes heartbreaking detail, in Vol.2 of the cultural history. While we would be blessed to have apostles who know Jesus personally, and who could teach from his wisdom, the opposite happens (a cursing) when we follow apostles who know not whereof they speak, but who hint and wink at things they refuse to state clearly: Have they had the revelation of Jesus? That phrase, “revelation of God,” was said by Rigdon to be the deciding factor in an apostle; it meant, “a vision of God, of his revelation to Man,” and not, “a statement beyond doubt because of its speaker’s authority.” Only by that revelation could one be an apostle. A very different priesthood emerges, when they have direct knowledge of God, from one that claims merely to speak and act for God, yet cannot honestly say they have the revelation of God. Has God turned over his powers to man, as Nephi worried some might say?
      If I engage in ridicule, it is because I am often small–minded, and resort to that sort of trick to ease my discomfort, and in a desperate attempt to show Mormons what those claiming to speak for God might actually be nearer to. I am not always small-minded and petty, but sometimes it is a source of humor to me. At this time in my life, I’m content to leave them be, although I find their posturing mostly repulsive, when it isn’t laughable. I don’t think I ever spoke evil of them, however. Never have I accused them of evil, but instead I have attempted to show that their claims don’t match the evidence or the fruits. Thank you for your honesty and continued searching, it gives me encouragement to keep searching as well.

Comments are closed.