A Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan?

Joe Rogan is one of the top if not the top podcaster in the world today. He commands a huge audience. In the same way that being on Johnny Carson back in the day could make a career, so too is a spot on Rogan considered a golden ticket, especially in the comedy world. 

He also likes to talk about us. Like many people, he thinks we’re the nicest people in the world but our beliefs are super dumb and weird. Like with many religions he tends to garble his facts. I was particularly amused when, when interviewing  Ben Shapiro, he appeared to be oblivious to the fact that Jews do not worship Jesus, but more often than not his missteps have a kernel of truth around a warped interpretation. He had an interview where Whitney Cummings seemed completely oblivious to the difference between the FLDS and LDS, and was wondering why Salt Lake City wasn’t getting raided to rescue all the girls. In a recent episode with Mel Gibson Rogan said that Pope Benedict XVI was moving a priest around who abused deaf kids, when that’s not what happened (although Pope Benedict XVI may have been involved in an appeal regarding ecclesiastical penalties long after the priest in question had left active ministry). 

Anyway, in a recent episode he had an evangelical apologist on who took occasional potshots at us, some to greater effects than others (e.g. he brought up that we believe we can become Gods as if it would be scandalous, but Rogan just thought it was cool). This caused a bit of chatter in different places about how Rogan talks about us so much that he should at have one of us on, so it got me thinking about the different possibilities. Given that it’s Times and Seasons, I’m not including content producers who are predominantly pugilistic towards the Church. No offense to any others I may have missed. I’m sort of aware of this space, but not as much as I could be. 

President Nelson or another general authority

Some suggested the prophet himself. I think this would be a disaster. Rogan’s podcasts are famously extremely long (often 3+ hours) and President Nelson is quite old. Plus (and this goes for basically all the general authorities), debating about sensational, hot topics for a long period of time is not a muscle that Church leaders have had to develop. They obviously have a lot of other, more important things to do. 

Some of them are adept at the shorter-form interviews they’ve been involved in and could probably do okay–I thought President Holland did a good job with that BBC interview a while ago, and I assume Elder Kearon would do okay given his professional communications experience. Once again, a sensational debate requires its own skillset, and is quite distinct from actually making a good, logical argument. Christopher Hithchens, for example, was quite fun to watch even though his arguments, when distilled down to some kind of logic flowchart, made no sense (all the good things religion does doesn’t matter because non-religious people could possibly also do those things, check-mate! Also, “no man knows my name” is by far the best book on Mormon history). 

Also, media hot takes on the Church tend to be quite convoluted, and again may have a grain of truth but are presenting it in the worst possible light, or sometimes there are outright sensationalist fabrications. One calls to mind MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell’s on-air claim that Joseph Smith started Mormonism because his wife caught his cheating with the maid and he claimed that God told him to do it, essentially conflating aspects of Nauvoo-era polygamy with the origin story that is demonstrably false. He later apologized, sort of, but the damage had been done (and don’t even get me started about the “Under the Banner of Heaven” series with Brigham Young and Emma conspiring to kill Joseph–what the what?) 

While there are major, well-documented difficult issues that I assume Church leaders are reasonably aware of, there are also a thousand little, less-well documented claims (e.g. Joseph Smith worshipped Jupiter) and these have a tendency to get strung together into weird narratives where it’s hard to even know where to start, and if you don’t have a Johnny-on-the-spot answer then it just looks like you’re a simpleton Mormon who doesn’t know your own history. So if anybody does a longform interview defending the Church they would need to have a rather broad base of knowledge about the weird niche as well as big issues, and I don’t think Elder Kearon would have a quick answer about our secret pagan Jupiter worship (I mean, he’s a convert, maybe they haven’t told him yet…)

Don Bradley 

Independent researcher Don Bradley has that breadth of knowledge, plus he’s a nice guy who is one of the most open-minded researchers about talking to and being chill with people from all sorts of backgrounds, whether fundamentalists, anti-Mormons, or polygamy deniers. I think a Don Bradley/Elder Kearon tag team might be the dream team here. 

Ward Radio guys

Ward Radio has one of the largest audiences in the orthodox Mormon YouTube space. They also have that combination of experience with issues as well as the on-screen presence that would fit with a Rogan episode. In a way they’re actually the Joe Rogans of Mormonism; you feel like you’re sitting around a table having a beer with your buddies, and I’d put them in the top tier of who I would have on. 

My one complaint is that they occasionally have a demography expert on that has the YouTube charisma of a block of wood. 

Jacob Hansen

Like the Ward Radio guys, he also has that combination of knowledge and on-screen presence, plus he has experience doing long-form debates. I’d trust Jacob Hansen representing my faith.

Stephen Jones

I was only recently made aware of his channel, but it looks like he has a fairly significant subs base, plus he has the comedian background that could work on a Rogan podcast. 

Jasmin Rappleye

Produces very slick content for Scripture Central, but haven’t seen her in a potentially adversarial setting, but she also has the knowledge base. 

Saints Unscripted 

Less familiar with them, but they have a ton of subs so they’re probably do something right. 

Peggy Fletcher Stack

She is more of a print journalist, but she does do podcasts on “Mormonland.” However, she has a particular niche, think of your aunt who lives in the Avenues that subscribes to Dialogue, for a particular set of issues that she addresses in a particular way, which is fine for her audience, but I’m not sure it would translate to the Rogan Bros. I don’t think he cares about female representation in ward councils. 

Dan McLellan

Biblical scholar with a popular YouTube channel who sometimes, kind of, sort of defends the Church because he gets attacked for his Mormon background by Evangelical Christian types that hate him, but he also goes on the attack sometimes and it’s clear he’s not a believer (also, as a former Church employee is one exhibit for why the temple recommend questions tell you hardly anything about what anybody actually believes, not that I have a good replacement). However, he is left wing enough I doubt he’d go on Rogan on principle. 

Blair Hodges

Former Maxwell Institute podcaster who’s gone on to do his own thing with the podcasts “Fireside” and “Family Proclamations.” Polished interviewer, but I also doubt he’d go on Rogan on principle, and probably more interested in social issues than in defending or refuting the idea that Joseph Smith was on ayahuasca, so again maybe not a great fit for the Rogan Bros. 

John Bytheway and Hank Smith

One of the more popular super-orthodox podcasters, but like a lot of the content producers coming out of the religion department at BYU I don’t think they mud wrestle enough (probably to their credit) to handle a non-LDS podcast that might have some adversarial notes. (Although I vaguely recall a BYU religion professor being involved in a debate with freethinker atheist types in Salt Lake, but I can’t remember the particulars). 

Ryan Hamilton

My understanding is that he has left Church involvement, but as probably the most successful Mormon-background comedian (excepting Rosanne Barr) he’d present a cool, easy-going face to cultural Mormonism, but probably wouldn’t push back too much on any historical or theological attacks.


Comments

17 responses to “A Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan?”

  1. Don Bradley would be great.

    Out of interest, what makes you think Dan McLellan is not a believer? I always found him pretty circumspect about what he actually believes, tending to focus on where he thinks the data point without publicly declaring what he believes. But I haven’t listened to any of his stuff in a while so curious if he’s changed in this regard.

  2. Not a Cougar

    Stephen, I think you would want someone with a military and/or outdoors background to go on the podcast as Joe loves to talk about military and hunting experiences. While he might wander into LDS topics with such a guest now and then, I think they would be general enough for a layman somewhat familiar with the apologetics landscape to handle.

  3. Referring to Dan McClellan as “not a believer” has Clark Gilbert energy.

  4. Gomez: There was one video I saw where he seemed to lose it after being accused for the umpteenth time of being a Mormon stooge by his conservative Protestant detractors because of his background, and made it clear that he thought “the data” contradicts the idea that Joseph Smith or any of the Latter-day Saint prophets were inspired.

    Not a Cougar: That’s a good point. Obviously he’s also into fighting, and as a people we punch above our weight with wrestling (Rulon Gardner, Cael Sanderson, that Mark Schultz, although the latter was a convert and has since left), and with boxing we of course have the original, now-deceased Jack Mormon Jack Dempsey, but I’m not aware of any international-caliber Mormon or Mormon background MMA fighters, but I probably wouldn’t know.

    C-dubs: Thanks for the compliment.

  5. Articulate, reasonable, thoughtful, knowledgeable:
    Ron Barney
    Bryan Buchanan
    Richard Bushman
    Josh Coates
    Robin Jensen
    Patrick Mason
    Reid Neilson
    Ben Park
    Taylor Petrey
    Greg Prince
    Jana Riess
    Elder Steven Snow
    Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  6. Mark Ashurst-McGee

    Articulate, reasonable, thoughtful, knowledgeable:
    Gary Bergera

  7. Not a Cougar

    Stephen, oh I think Joe would love having Rulon come on the podcast. I’ve never heard Rulon speak so I don’t know if he has the personality for a three-hour discussion wandering from topic to topic, but Joe would love talking about his wrestling experiences.

  8. Why not invite David Bednar so he can throw one of his capital-T Temper Tantrums and the whole world can see what an arrogant SOB he is?

  9. I think NYAnn would do rather poorly on Rogan.

    Anywaaaaaaays, what about Brandon Flowers? Lead singer of the Killers would obviously be interesting, definite media presence. I thought I heard somewhere he had it out with Christopher Hitchens at something or other back in the day, though that is only a vague recollection and I will not stand by it if pressed.

    Jared Birchall is one of Elon Musk’s longstanding associates, CEO of Neuralink and on the board of a bunch of Musk’s companies, and is a practicing Latter-day Saint per Wikipedia. Honestly just based on his involvement with the Musk empire he might end up on Rogan one of these days.

  10. I’d vote for Dan Peterson. Brilliant, funny, devout, and wouldn’t flinch at Rogen’s many F-bombs.

  11. Oops. Rogan–not Rogen.

  12. @Gary Bergera: Great list. There are a lot of names on that list that I’ve read but have never seen, but yes, I suspect Laurel Thatcher Ulrich among others would be fascinating on Rogan.

    Not a Cougar: Plus he was on Biggest Loser and lost his toe in a freak snowmobiling accident after surviving overnight in subfreezing weather.

    NYAnn: Whatever your opinion about Elder Bednar, I have a hard time seeing him losing his cool. He’s more of the quiet, serious football coach than the one who gets ejected from the game for yelling at the ref.

    Hoosier: Ah yes, good choice. That was Richard Dawkins actually. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-pr2PL-e9Y. I thought he handled it well.

    I have the vibe (not sure what it’s based on) that Jared Birchall is the quiet guy in the background that slits throats for his Godfather; besides, I doubt Elon would brook sharing any attention (I say this as somebody who is, on the whole, an Elon fan).

    @Jack: Ha, yes. Dan Peterson on Rogan would be a hoot. He could go deep into all of Rogan’s little theories about psychedelics and religion.

  13. Grizzerbear

    The LDS Church has cooked up it’s own stew; and is quite deserving of critique and takedown from any number of angles. Rogan would absolutely destroy any of the people you’ve mentioned.

  14. This one really has called out the peanut gallery, huh.

  15. “Rogan would absolutely destroy any of the people you’ve mentioned.”

    Do you think he’d destroy it as bad as he destroyed the COVID 19 vaccination rates in my state?

  16. Jimbo (not jimbob)

    “Rogan would absolutely destroy any of the people you’ve mentioned.”
    Our good man Grizzerbear being the only exception. The staggeringly based powers emanating from him would overwhelm and own Rogan. Who here can speak or comprehend the awesomeness of the one we call Grizzerbear? I say unto you, no one can. Who can know of the Grizz’s debating abilities? I say unto you again, no one.
    And lo, in the land of the Discourse, there arose a man mighty in spirit and resolute in his ways. His name was Grizzerbear, for he was as steadfast as the oak and as unyielding as the mountain, whose roots go deep into the soil of Logic. And the bloggernacle marveled, saying, “Behold, this man is based!”

    And it came to pass that Grizzerbear did wander into the blogs of the wise, where all manner of discourse and argument did rage. And lo, the challengers arose, one by one, to debate with him, for they had heard tales of his based wit and his razor-sharp tongue.

    First, there came Bergera, who spoketh as to set forth many candidates. He said, “Surely, Grizzerbear, thou must knoweth of the merit of these candidates!
    But Grizzerbear, with a single raised eyebrow, did respond, “My friend, thou art but a child playing with words. For in the end, none of these are fit.” And the Bergera was silenced, for his arguments melted like wax before the fire of Grizzerbear’s basedness.

    Next, there came the McGee, who was in agreement with Bergera in all that was said and doubted all that was true. “Surely,” he scoffed, “you must know Bergera is the only one fit, Grizzerbear! All others melt as wax in the sun!”

    But Grizzerbear, with a mighty chuckle, did reply, “Ah, McGee, thou hast lost thy way in the fog of thy own surety. For Bergera is not the blazing sun but a shadow, yet I reveal the light!” And McGee, seeing the flame of certainty in Grizzerbear’s eyes, was struck dumb and departed, his doubts left to wither in the dust.

    And lo, after many hours, a Challenge appeared, the most fearsome of all – the Jack/Hoosier, who spoke of others unqualified. “Grizzerbear,” they boomed, “thou shalt not win this debate! I shall give candidates unto thee until thy mind doth implode!”

    But Grizzerbear, undaunted, did smile and speak, “Ah, my friend, you may speak of endless men, but none are fit to stand before Rogan! Yet I only may stand against Rogan, and be not owned!” And with a single pointed argument, Grizzerbear cut through the names, and the Jack/Hoosier was left speechless, his propositions unraveling before the sheer force of Grizzerbear’s basedness and logic, like unto a garment in a hot furnace.

    And the people rejoiced, for none could stand against him. They cried out, “Behold, Grizzerbear! The Based One! He who debates with wisdom, and crushes falsehood beneath his feet! The only one fit to stand against the Rogan! Lisan-Al-Gaib!”

    And Grizzerbear, with humility in his heart and laughter in his soul, did say unto them, “It is not I who triumphs, but the basedness which shines through. For I am but a humble servant of reason, and with it, all bros can be owned.”

    And so, Grizzerbear was known throughout the land, and his legend grew, for he could debate anyone, even Rogan, and crush them, not with force, but with the unassailable power of being based.

  17. Ian Fillmore

    I don’t think Joe Rogan would spend a lot of time on theological details. That’s not really his style. He might be interested in some 30,000 foot theology, but I predict the conversation would quickly move into the psychology and sociology of the Church and its members.

    Also, Rogan is generally a gracious host. He doesn’t try to embarrass his guests. So I don’t think he would pepper them with lots of anti-Mormon claims. He might very well ask about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but I suspect he would more or less accept whatever answer was given in response and move on. Ditto for polygamy, Word of Wisdom, etc. But I also expect him to ask something like “Why do so many people have it out for you guys?” And I think he would be interested to learn about how global Church membership has become and what that transition has been like.

    This is all to say, it would probably be a terrific interview/conversation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.