What about NewNameNoah?

[Hagoth]

Mike seems to feel compelled by his personal moral compass to do what he does. He compares it to a burning building. Do you sneak out quietly or do you run down the hall pounding of every door and shouting, and then stand outside and make sure nobody goes back in?

I liked his story about when he was trying to decide about going on a mission but realized he wasn't even certain he believed in God, so he went to his bishop for counseling. The bishop said, "I think you need to get your endowment. That will give you a testimony of God." So he whipped out his recommend book and started asking the questions. Mike didn't get a recommend that day because he failed the first question about his faith in God.

Whether or not that story is entirely true, it's still a wonderful little parable.

[Hagoth]

I didn't watch it for the purpose of figuring out how to judge Mike. I'm not sure what that would accomplish.I don't think that would make any difference to Mike or cause him to change what he does. I don't know that judging Mike would be productive for me, either.

I agree. Mike is fascinating to me because his actions cross all kinds of barriers of relative ethics. As you mentioned, Savannah is a great example. What Mike did was highly moral in my opinion, but I imagine the guy who ordered the microphone switched off would feel differently. You could argue the same, and he does, with his reasons for exposing the temple ceremonies. Is it really sacred or merely secret? Or both? It depends on your relationship with the church and to loved ones who hold it sacred. His justification is that he is only telling the truth that potential temple goers really need to know before they commit, and if telling the truth is damaging to an organization it's the organization that's in the wrong, not the teller of the truth.

In the third episode (which I still haven't finished listening to!) Dehlin plays a pretty heavy-handed devil's advocate regarding whether Mike's actions have done more good than bad and he evokes the backlash effect, but in episode two he points out that external irritation has done more to actually bring about significant change in the church. He credits Ed Decker for being the catalyst for the removal of endowment penalties and he has Jesse Stay explain how Mike's videos are the direct cause of the church admitting that garments are neither magical or protective. It seems like embarrassment is a huge motivator for The Brethren.

Dehlin kind of trips Mike up when he asks him why he can't be onboard with a version of the church that accepts everyone, that doesn't claim to be TheOneAndOnly, and that accepts the scriptures as metaphorical. The problem is that isn't the church that Mike is fighting that's John Dehlin's fantasy Church of the Future, and it's an organization that might only be possible if people like Mike keep pulling back the curtain.

As to backlash effect, I don't think Mike's target audience is the heavily entrenched Mormons who know about all of this stuff and are already able to rationalize masonic rituals, child brides and bogus translations. He's trying to prevent people from getting their heads that far into the sand.

I'm with you, Jeffret, in that I can't make a yes/no judgement about this. Whatever you think of him, you have to admire, or at least admit, that Mike has outsmarted the COB over and over and has taken a pretty huge chunk out of the credibility of the power of discernment.

I can't help but enjoy a good David vs. Goliath story.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

I can't decide what to think about this, either.

The temple was very meaningful to me for about 25 years. Towards the end I just started getting bored when I went, but for a long time it was a restful sanctuary where I really felt like I was on sacred ground. I went through the temple a bare year after joining though, and I was in sort of a honeymoon phase where I just accepted everything that came my way. I was offended when I saw pictures of protesters on temple square wearing the clothing. I would still be offended if someone were mocking the sacred garments of another faith -- the Muslim hijab or a yarmulke for example. It smacks of bigotry.

On the other hand, I keep thinking of the comment Mike shared on Reddit, where a young person commented on one of his YouTube videos that this was obviously a fake NOT the LDS church. That says so much!! This young person had no idea what goes on in the temple except that they've been taught their whole lives that it's sacred and beautiful. None of us knew before we went, and since I left I have more and more of a problem with that. Not necessarily with the signs and tokens, but with having had to make extremely serious promises under extreme social pressure, and with no warning beforehand what they would be. That's not fair or reasonable in any universe. It's even worse when you realize that the whole performance came about to accommodate JS's need to swear his accomplices in polygamy to secrecy.

I think I end up with -- it's not right to mock someone else's sacred rituals . . . but what TSCC is doing is probably worse. Probably. I wouldn't do it, but I think I'm glad somebody is doing it so that fewer members are going in blind.

[Jeffret]

In the third episode (which I still haven't finished listening to!) Dehlin plays a pretty heavy-handed devil's advocate regarding whether Mike's actions have done more good than bad and he evokes the backlash effect, but in episode two he points out that external irritation has done more to actually bring about significant change in the church.

I also found that portion kind of tedious but interesting. John really wanted to get Mike to answer that question and Mike really wanted to share more anecdotes and stories. John kept persevering and eventually got Mike to say that he really didn't know. He's confident it did good for some people but doesn't know about his overall impact. Then John admitted that he really didn't know either. The same question exists about John's activities. Ultimately, I don't think the question is answerable.

Speaking pragmatically and generally, a successful activist movement requires a variety of different approaches. Some need to be more extreme and edgy and others need to be kind of stodgy and respectable. You've got to have ACT UP and F*CK HATE, along with HRC and GLAAD. Feminism requires the National Organization for women, the League of Women Voters, and FEMEN. Anti-racism activists needed a wide range, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Without the extremists, the dignified activists are easily ignored. The extremists are dismissed and attacked, but in a weird twist they provide legitimacy to the organized, cooperative activists. There are lots of nuances here on how these all fit together. I'm also not saying I approve of all of the extremist actions.

Given these complex interactions, it's impossible to know Mike's full impact. Mike's edgier, more confrontational, more subversive approach gives legitimacy to John's more measured one. John's interviewing of Mike gives legitimacy and voice to Mike's activities. And the actions of everyone else, both inside and outside the Church, play into the impact.

[slavereeno]

I too found this interview really interesting. I am not sure what to think of Mike Norton, except to say I found the human side of him to be different maybe than I had expected from the guy responsible for "behind the veil"

I kept thinking, this guy is the "Porter Rockwell" of the ex-mos

[Hagoth]

I see that the NewNameNoah youtube channel just exceeded 5 million views. Mike says he's getting ready to drop a bombshell that will double that number in 2018. I have this weird feeling that it will happen in October.

He has hinted that he still might release his video of Mitt Romney in the temple at some point, but I'm not sure anyone really cares that much anymore unless Mitt makes another run for the White House.

[Just This Guy]

One thing I don't get with Mr. Norton is his obsession with Mitt Romney. I know some people can take politics personally, but I wonder why he is so against him. One politician is as bad as another, no matter what letter is next to their name and the US government is setup to limit the impact any single person can have on the system as a whole.

If Mitt were to get elected, he was be as ineffective as any other president in last few decades.

[RubinHighlander]

I think it's very brash and unethical to single out someone like Romney and film him in the temple; in that regard I think NNN is over the top. As far as insider video of the super sacred weird ceremonies, that's not a big deal to me. I found full text of them on the early internet in the 90's. Also finding they were mostly plagiarized from Masons and such, just wasn't a big deal to me anymore. When I ditched the underwear and went NOM I used them to change the oil in the car, there was no more magic or voodoo, just a bunch of money I'd wasted on some silly crap. If the ceremonies included some really bad things like animal sacrifice or debauchery, then I don't have a problem with someone blowing the lid on that.

[wtfluff]

One thing I don't get with Mr. Norton is his obsession with Mitt Romney.

I think it's very brash and unethical to single out someone like Romney and film him in the temple;

Mike's reasoning for singling out Romney is that Mike doesn't want the POTUS, the "Ruler Of The Free World" to be someone who's pantomimed their own murder, and promised to give up "even their life" to The Corporation of the President™.

Though Mike is over the top with his "shock and awe" campaign, I do agree with him somewhat; Even with the checks and balances in place, I don't think I want the Q-15 Bigots in downtown SLC thinking that they can pull the puppet-strings of the POTUS. The Q-15 pretty much have their own theocracy in Utah, I personally don't want that expanded.

[Hagoth]

One thing I don't get with Mr. Norton is his obsession with Mitt Romney.

I think it's very brash and unethical to single out someone like Romney and film him in the temple;

Mike's reasoning for singling out Romney is that Mike doesn't want the POTUS, the "Ruler Of The Free World" to be someone who's pantomimed their own murder, and promised to give up "even their life" to The Corporation of the President™.

Though Mike is over the top with his "shock and awe" campaign, I do agree with him somewhat; Even with the checks and balances in place, I don't think I want the Q-15 Bigots in downtown SLC thinking that they can pull the puppet-strings of the POTUS. The Q-15 pretty much have their own theocracy in Utah, I personally don't want that expanded.

Mike assumes that a politician who has taken the oath has no option but to obey the commands of the Q15 in all things. It might be that Romney feel compelled to demonstrate that he's not a puppet of the COB and follow his father's example when he continued to support civil rights in direct opposition to the veiled threats of the MHRVT(Men in the High Red Velvet Thrones).

[alas]

One thing I don't get with Mr. Norton is his obsession with Mitt Romney.

I think it's very brash and unethical to single out someone like Romney and film him in the temple;

Mike's reasoning for singling out Romney is that Mike doesn't want the POTUS, the "Ruler Of The Free World" to be someone who's pantomimed their own murder, and promised to give up "even their life" to The Corporation of the President™.

Though Mike is over the top with his "shock and awe" campaign, I do agree with him somewhat; Even with the checks and balances in place, I don't think I want the Q-15 Bigots in downtown SLC thinking that they can pull the puppet-strings of the POTUS. The Q-15 pretty much have their own theocracy in Utah, I personally don't want that expanded.

Mike assumes that a politician who has taken the oath has no option but to obey the commands of the Q15 in all things. It might be that Romney feel compelled to demonstrate that he's not a puppet of the COB and follow his father's example when he continued to support civil rights in direct opposition to the veiled threats of the MHRVT(Men in the High Red Velvet Thrones).

Besides, there is an oath of office that POTUS takes that is also sworn before God, to uphold the constitution, which has this first amendment thing that says no church gets to dictate to the government. And isn't there an article of faith that says we believe in being subject to....an honoring and obeying the law, and back to the first amendment--that is the law. Then there was what Romney himself said about he would sustain the constitution and not obey his church leaders if there was ever a choice. Not that I voted for Romney, mind you, just that THAT was not my reason for voting for someone else. I had zero fear that Romney would obey church leaders as far as running the country goes, because he said that would not be the case and I trust him at least that much.

[Hagoth]

Besides, there is an oath of office that POTUS takes that is also sworn before God, to uphold the constitution, which has this first amendment thing that says no church gets to dictate to the government.

Constitutional God vs. Mormon God... Let's get ready to rumble!