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.