This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is that so accessible, though?
You don't need to read the entire bible and all of the fan fictions to figure what Christians believe.
I doubt most people, even people who know lots of mormons know that "We actually think that Jesus came to America, and that there were several large lost civilizations of Jews who sailed here in 500BC" is what The Book of Mormon is actually about.
You kind of do, though, to some extent, at least for the kind of standards you're hinting at.
I mean, since we're already talking about Catholics, you could plausibly say the same thing there, no? Maybe less so for non-denominationals, but most churches have some history or niche beliefs that might be relevant to "actual beliefs". It's my understanding that a potential Catholic convert (who, by your own standards, would need to spend years of time on historical research to find out what they "really believe") is expected to spend about six months going through a catechumen. That doesn't sound too crazy or too unusual. LDS baptismal standards vary across region, but the overall new convert experience from baptism to what you might call a "full member" is mandated to last at least one full year.
And if you read the Book of Mormon, which is basically mandatory for those wanting to be baptized, exactly what you describe is found in the Introduction right in front of you... where even a quick skim would quickly demonstrate several factual errors in your summarization. I mean, if you call the literal introduction to a mandatory and fundamental text of the entire religion "hidden" I have no idea what to tell you other than that's not what the word means.
More options
Context Copy link
I didn’t need to read the entire Book Of Mormon to know that, either. You can even read just some small selections of it to get the gist of their theology, much as you can with the Bible.
Like, all of this is Google-able, Wiki-able, etc. Unless there’s some secret esoteric Mormonism going on in deep catacombs hidden not only from the public but also from run-of-the-mill members of the church — which I suppose we can’t rule out — none of the important doctrines of the church are remotely hidden from any curious outsider who is curious enough to access them. (Plus, you know, the church famously sends thousands of missionaries to publicly proselytize the faith.)
To the extent that most non-Mormons know almost nothing about the church’s theological claims is simply downstream of the fact that most human beings are profoundly incurious about other religions — particularly ones which they perceive as low-status. Hindus aren’t secretive about their beliefs, either, it’s just that almost no non-Hindus ever ask them about it, and would find a brief description befuddling.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the LDS church if one is so inclined, but “they’re hiding their beliefs from the public” is not one of them.
There's a little bit of esoteric Mormonism hidden from members, but the trick is that the hiding spot isn't "underground", it's "the past". E.g. run-of-the-mill members of the church mostly eventually get to see the (officially-)secret present-day temple ceremonies, but their only access to previous ceremony versions is via the same "look at leaked copies or recordings" (or a wiki summary?) method as any member of the general public.
Well, the hiding spot is "the past" for most members, at least. I'd presume that at some level non-run-of-the-mill members get to see official records of previous ceremony versions, but that's just me trying to be charitable, because alternatives like "the Prophet isn't supposed to see all his church's past" or "he's just supposed to trust Wikipedia if he gets curious" would seem worse.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with you on the temple ceremony thing (though very specifically for members who have already experienced the modern version), and have been censored on faithful reddit forums for even suggesting faithful members consider looking at them. That could plausibly change in the future, but who knows. At that point anyways it's a little... I mean I dunno, almost not a big deal however, in the sense that assuming for a second the LDS faith is true, then the most one would gain from looking at the past would be more insights for the present? And if you believe, then doctrine says the most recent version is all you really need for salvation and exaltation, so there's no major downside.
In a more general sense of talking about the past, although the LDS faith did go through a low-key phase of "don't talk about it", the Joseph Smith Papers Project has done a pretty excellent job of surfacing plenty of stuff for interested members and non-members alike in the historical record, credit where credit is due.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link