site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 5, 2025

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The best claim to Mormons being Christian is the everyday practical reality of being Mormon. At night you pray to “God the Father”. You ask for forgiveness of sins, something you believe is only possible through the sacrifice of “Jesus Christ”, and a request you believe is mandatory to receive “salvation”. I mean if you had to pick like ONE thing that defines Christianity, wouldn’t you say that it’s more or less exactly this thing? Either you think Jesus died for your sins, or not?

Also, gosh, you can go to the literal official website, not even the one dedicated to explaining our beliefs, and whaddaya know, right there on the front page is a section "What We Believe", with the first link in the section "Learn About Jesus Christ". Clicking this link contains such totally heretical (/s) topics such as:

  • Jesus’s Divine Mission

  • His Ministry Gave Us the Perfect Example

  • His Teachings Show Us the Way to Salvation

  • His Sacrifice Means You Can Live with God

  • Jesus Made Forgiveness Possible

  • Because of Jesus We Will Live Again Someday

  • You Can Follow Jesus

If you wanted details, although it's dated in a literal sense, Joseph Smith wrote out exactly an answer to this question ("What do you believe?") in 1842 and we call them today the Articles of Faith which are relatively succinct and also has the advantage of doubling as a primary source.

On a more practical level, i.e. wondering what modern practice is like, I would direct you toward the resource Gospel Principles which has 47 chapters and honestly? Having both read through it and taught lessons from it, I personally consider it the perfect balance of succinct and descriptive for probably 95% of all purposes, as well as quite honest. I'd be extremely surprised it if missed even a single notable modern doctrine or practice, because for many years it was the basis for the first year of lessons for recent converts, so there's obviously not much reason to "hide" anything there, because most of the people using the book were already baptized members. The book is also extremely careful of its wording, and contains some handy scripture (Bible and otherwise) references that offers some further clarification

What do you think Lehi did in approximate 600BC?

What do you think Joseph smith did in approximately 1830?

Who is Moroni? What did Moroni do in relation to Joseph smith?

What did Jesus do after his resurrection? Did he come to America? Who did he interact with here?

Who are the nephites? Who are the Lamanites?

Who wrote the narrative in the Book of Mormon? Who wrote the pearl of great price?

The reason that Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian, the reason that Mormons try to hide their beliefs, and the reason for things like trying to rename the church, or imply some sort of “latter day saints movement”, instead of just another example of the charismatic religious movement (there were MANY of these in the 1800s), is revealed in the answers to these questions.

Mormons should do whatever they want, I don’t have a problem with them, my frustration is the linguistic poisoning at the center of the religion. If Mormons were simply honest and upfront about what they believe, then cool, but they aren’t. It’s the same as men insisting they’re woman and instead of saying “I am a man who dresses and acts like a woman”, they say that they are women, and try to poison the language.

And I’m not saying that Christian beliefs aren’t also strange to an outsider. “I believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago” probably sounds just as crazy to a non Christian as “I believe a lost tribe of Israel sailed to America in 600BC, then hid some golden plates in up state New York, and eventually revealed them to a guy named Joseph Smith in 1830 who used them to make himself the central figure of a new religions”.

The difference is that Christians don’t try to hide this stuff. Mormons aren’t Christians in the same way that Muslims aren’t Christians and Christians aren’t Jews. The fact that Mormons are campaigning to convince people to call them “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” instead of “Mormons” is dishonest on its face.

All you’ve done is mistake familiarity with openness, and mistake newness with secrecy. They are not the same. Obviously if I were to convert to Islam, I would have more homework and research to do than if I were to become a Southern Baptist, but that doesn’t somehow mean that Islam is a secretive religion trying to hide things from you…

Ironically, the push to call ourselves by the mouthful “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” was prompted by a desire to be more transparent, not less. The reason being that sometimes people thought we worshipped a god named Mormon. That’s not linguistic poisoning. It’s accuracy. Our church’s name has been identical since 1838 (first 8 years had a few variations, but never Mormon, not internally, though Smith was known to use the phrase “Mormonism” from time to time.) A fact that is betrayed by your own words (!): Joseph Smith is not “the” central figure. It’s still Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is by our own doctrine like, maybe third at best? Joseph Smith to Mormons is definitely a weaker link than Muhammad to Muslims, for example.

The precise degree of and debate over what doctrines are essential and core vs merely informative is common to all religions, but it seems surprising to me that you think you are better suited to answer this than an actual member?

Funny enough, unlike many other religions, we do actually have a standardized “worthiness interview” that asks about basic questions of faith. You can look them up. They are quite simple and are, generally, yes/no. On that basis I’d argue we are MORE transparent than other religions, where beliefs vary widely within a congregation (let alone sect or branch) even on self-admitted core topics with little to no effort at correction, and where most members wouldn’t even know where to look to find, for example, what makes a Baptist a Baptist and not a Methodist instead (at least that’s my personal experience).

It’s a motte and Bailey (the namesake of this website).

Motte: were Christians just like the ones you’ve heard of or maybe grew up as.

Bailey: we believe Christianity is actually incomplete until a man named Joseph Smith completed it in the 1830s.

So you’re right, “secretive” or “hiding” aren’t perfect words to describe Mormonism, a better word would be deceptive or dishonest (I don’t think that Mormonism would have many converts if they were more honest about their beliefs, and apparently neither do they, which is why teach their missionaries “milk before meat”, or more in the parlance of this website: motte before Bailey.

To be fair, this is basically how it went between Jews and early Christians.

Perhaps! And if Christians referred to themselves as “Jews” and intentionally tried to create confusion about their beliefs, I would have a similar criticism of them.

I think that’s a good point btw. Mormons see themselves as something that should replace (or in their framing: fix) Christianity, not as Christians themselves.

In fact, if you follow through with their logic, it’s basically: “we’re Christians, and you’re not.”

In fact, if you follow through with their logic, it’s basically: “we’re Christians, and you’re not.”

Correct. And in fact, this is exactly what you're saying to them.

Correct. I do not think that Mormons are Christians, and neither do most (all?) Christians. The only (practically) people who think of Mormons as Christian are Mormons who are being dishonest (hence: the motte and Bailey).

I won’t be deceptive about my belief that Mormons are not Christian. There is no hidden “meat” (to use their “milk and meat” framing) coming next.

The only (practically) people who think of Mormons as Christian are Mormons who are being dishonest (hence: the motte and Bailey).

No. Most people in the world, non-christians, think mormons are christians. It's difficult to tell them apart if you're not in it. They fit in the broad category "christians".

More comments

I won’t be deceptive about my belief that Mormons are not Christian. There is no hidden “meat” (to use their “milk and meat” framing) coming next.

Unfortunately, "milk before meat" is just a common feature of religious apologetics in general. Actually, it's a part of persuasion more generally -- you get people to agree on common ground before you talk about things they might find objectionable. Just like you probably shouldn't begin a first date by talking about your worst traits.

And there is a dishonesty about it, and I have been personally affected by it before and felt betrayed, but it's a practice that everyone does. There is nothing really unique in the way the LDS church does it. Christians do it to each other all the time; Catholic apologists do it to Protestants, Protestant missionaries do it to Catholics, Baptists do it to Lutherans, Lutherans do it to Calvinists. Everyone wants to persuade.

It's notable that you're saying "general consent" is the definition of who gets to use the term "Christian" -- because I can present to you many Protestants, and many more in the past, who said that Roman Catholics should not be described with the term "Christian." They set a defininition -- "Christians are people who believe justification is by faith alone" -- and then they applied it. You're doing that, too, but with a slightly more expansive definition.

And so that's the fundamental problem I have about your point of view -- you're saying that the definition of "Christian" you use is the true one, that all others are simply false scotsmen, and in so doing you're fighting over words instead of doctrines. But we cannot know what is the true Christianity a priori. We have to, as the apostle wrote, "test everything; hold fast what is good."

I even see in the Mormon faith things to praise, things to find common ground with, things that could lead to an actually fruitful discussion where we both come away with a greater respect for each other -- which, if you believe someone should convert to your religion, is the only way to begin. Milk and meat, and all that. It is for this reason that when St. Paul went to the areopagus, he began his preaching by praising the Greek pagans: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious."

More comments