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 -
I feel like I'd also apply this criticism to Mormons: the origin story is, to put it kindly, a bit hokey. That said, the organization as a whole seems to produce members that are, at least when I've crossed paths with them, consistently reasonable people. Clearly it's at least possible for an organized group to transcend the "quality" of its founding documents, even though I think they still believe them earnestly.
Mormons do not believe the same things as Joseph Smith.
As very much an outsider, would you be willing to elaborate? Do you mean the ways, as the musical put it, "That the current President of the church, Thomas Monson [not the current President anymore], speaks directly to God", or something else?
The early mormon church believed in a kind of communal ownership(to fund its scams), polygamy, had a racial dynamic the quorum and president try to downplay, claimed its scriptures were actually the ancient egyptian for mormon stories, etc. Early mormonism was much weirder than today's version.
What scams? Joseph Smith lost friends, faced life threatening scenarios, mortgaged his farm, and saw little profit that one would expect form a supposed conman. I would think that for a scammer, the opportunity cost to undergo such afflictions would not be justified.
It was a temporary practice that was limited to approved individuals and consensual. Joseph Smith's plural marriages were never consummated.
Pray tell? I assume you are refering to the priesthood ban imposed against individuals of African descent. Joseph Smith has ordained black people to the priesthood prior to its imposition, and Brigham Young has stated that it shall be temporary and a day will come when it is lifted. The rationale behind it is not known to the general public, but the most compelling theory in my view is that this is akin to Jesus commanding his disciples to prioritize their ministry to the Pharisees before expanding to other demographics. Since the lifting of the ban in 1978, missionary work has skyrocketed in Africa to an extent that French is on track to become the most widely spoken language in the Church in about 10 years or so. That kind of success would have not been possible under a colonized or pre-colonial Africa, and it was not financially viable prior to the pivotal Church finance reforms that were undertaken in the 1970s, and church converts in Africa and Latin America were typically destitute. A racial dynamic fails to explain why such restrictions didn't apply to e.g. Polynesians of an equally dark skintone.
The scriptures were written in a script referred to as Reformed Egyptian by scholars, which are simply characters derived from the ancient Egyptian writing system, which have been altered and condensed. Corroborated examples of this phenomenon include Demotic, Meroitic, the writing in Papyrus Amherst 63 and the Elephantine Papyri, or most notably Coptic.
More options
Context Copy link
It remains LDS dogma that the accounts of pre-Colombian white-looking Christians in America in the Book of Mormon are a historically accurate account of events that happened somewhere in the Americas (LDS archaeologists think that Central America is the best candidate, and Google AI suggests that Joseph Smith came to this conclusion himself as soon as he bothered to read up on pre-Colombian America) in the 1st millenium AD, and that Joseph Smith translated the book from the plates. One minor change is that the LDS Church is now willing to be explicit that the English-language Book of Mormon was an inspired translation made with the aid of seer stones, rather than the result of careful academic study of the inscriptions on the plates, but this isn't a change in dogma - just putting a stop to a bad practice of the early Church endorsing children's picture books which showed Joseph Smith working by candlelight with the plates and a notebook.
There appears to be an active programme of LDS-funded archaeology looking for evidence of Nephite and Lamanite settlements in Central America, which (depending on how serious and well-funded it is) implies that true believing Mormons actually believe this stuff.
I don't think Mormonism needs a historically accurate Book of Mormon - in the same way that Christianity doesn't need a historically accurate Old Testament. The power of mainstream Christianity comes from the Cross and Resurrection, and the distinctive power of Mormonism comes from the restored Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods conferred on Joseph Smith by angels claiming to be John the Baptist and various Biblical apostles respectively. Whether the prequel material is historically accurate or divinely-inspired myth doesn't affect the end result.
It would not be particularly surprising (although I wouldn't bet on it at evens) that after another 100 years of archaeologists not finding the Nephites and Lamanites that LDS Church abandons the literal truth of the Book of Mormon via progressive revelation.
Mormonism doesn't actually need the plates - given that they now openly admit that Joseph Smith didn't rely on the Egyptian text on the plates to prepare his translation, they could pivot to "the Book of Mormon is a modern divinely inspired account of (real or mythological) events in pre-Colombian America that God gave to Joseph Smith through the medium of the seer stones". But I would eat my hat with a seer stone in it if the LDS authorities ever accepted that.
White is not used as a physical descriptor anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
At most 3% of ancient Mayan civillization has been unearthed by archeologists to date. There have been roughly 200 alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon since its publication in 1830, with 70% having been corroborated today. Anthropologist John Sorenson wrote a book named Mormon's Codex which explores the authentic Mesoamerican correspondences in detail.
There have been 11 witnesses of the golden plates who have maintained their accounts to be true even after personal rifts have led to some of them no longer affirming Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a prophet, believing that he has lost his divine providence.
The Mesoamerican model is in fact the one that is nearly universally accepted by serious scholars for several reasons.
The Book of Mormon described Captain Moroni using his "coat" as the "Title of Liberty" rather than a document, ring, necklace, or tattoo that would indicate his title. Title and status being denoted one's cloak/cape that they wore is unique to Mesoamerican cultures to my knowledge. When Cortes first arrived in Tenochtitlan and met emissaries on one of the causeways to the city, one of the first things he was given was a cloak denoting his status as a diplomat, in recognition of him being the King of Spain.
Teancum assassinated Amalickiah on New Year's Eve. The Mayans expect the head of state, as the representative of his subjects to the gods, to resist and battle the underworld deities, as they were believed to be at their strongest at the turn of a calendar year. The Lamanites awake to their protector being deceased, and enter a state of profuse panic due to the cosmological significance,
The huge uptick in brutal warfare towards the closing chapters of the BoM is in line with the late Mayan preclassic period where Teotihuacan sought to establish influence and dominance over the entire Mayan region (who were at their strongest at around 450AD, roughly when the Book of Mormon ends). Hagoth's expedition, which abruptly interrupts the narrative in Moroni's writings, is likely describing Teotihuacan, indicating the Nephites turning to Teotihuacan.
And none of those accounts establish a causal link between the inscriptions on the plates and the English urtext of the Book of Mormon revealed to Joseph Smith through the use of the seer stones. That is what I mean by Mormonism not needing the plates.
More options
Context Copy link
My understanding is that cloaks were used as status symbols in Masonry during Smith's time.
I detect cope in at least one sense of the word.
Interesting question, if someone in 1820s America would be more likely to be familiar with Masonic or Catholic regalia. I would guess the former, with the caveat that it would depend on their geographic location.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Care to elaborate?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mormons have a central authority that can quickly creatively reinterpret the doctrine when threatened by the American government. Splinter groups that rejected the new interpretations are small and practically powerless. Conversely, Muslims have no single recognized leader since the death of Ali and live in multiple countries.
A country less scrupulous about the whole "freedom of religion" thing could insist on recognizing a single, "traditional" form of Islam in its borders and demand it had a legible leadership hierarchy it could bully into submission (pun intended). The US, with its dozens or hundreds of bottom-up Christian denominations, doesn't have the institutional knowledge to do this, and was lucky Mormons were so centralized.
More options
Context Copy link
I would agree that the Mormon origin story is, like you said, "hokey." Or even just straight-up BS. That one book review on ACX pretty thoroughly eviscerated it, IMO.
That said, I like Mormons. They seem like genuinely nice people, with some good moral values, even though I disagree with them on a lot of things. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of my favorite sci-fi authors are Mormon.
I can't say the same for Islam. I feel like the so-called "Islamic golden age" was mostly just leftover Greek knowledge mixing with Persian culture and the silk road at a time when Islam hadn't yet fully dug in its claws.
Likeable and actually useful members of society. Like the Amish but less strange.
Although I've joked I want to become 2005 Amish (cell phones and internet but no smartphones or modern social media). If someone starts that society sign me up.
You can just live that lifestyle at the cost of personal friction
More options
Context Copy link
You could become a drug dealer, they still use flip phones and avoid advertising on social media...
If only that were true (perhaps it's true for successful ones). For the kind who get assigned a public defender when they get caught and charged, it is certainly not true. They love long text conversations full of "code" that wouldn't fool a 6th grader, and they never delete text chains. They are also very active on social media since it's not like they have anything better to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would you call them Joshepites, like you would Mohammadeans?
Pre-Script, when I searched Mohammed to see if that was first or last name, before I even got there, I read this:
Learn about the career of Muhammad. Genuine miracles, guaranteed. Oh by the way, he's messenger of God. What the fuck is the blurb, this summary, and where does it come from?
/images/17896195321742878.webp
No, because 'Josephite' is already term in recognized but fairly uncommon religious use in the Christian tradition.
Mormon is, technically, the name of an angel who appears in the LDS tradition but not other ones; it would be the equivalent of referring to Catholics as 'Raphaelans' because protestants don't believe in that particular archangel, and actual LDS do not prefer it. 'Mormon' is already the equivalent of calling mussulman 'mohammedans'.
Technically-technically, Mormon was an editor and prophet, not an angel. The angel was his son "Moroni".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link