site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   3335 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 21, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was thinking of this when I wrote the post, but I wasn't sure how the Mormon community operationally does this. It seems like it is more of a social norm to shun/socially-stigmatize ex-members than it being an explicit code of conduct that is causing this.

I'm wondering if you could explicitly achieve this legally with a financially incentivized code of conduct that all members agree to (as opposed to being an unwritten social norm).

Then I'm wondering if you could legally use a code of conduct like this in a secular community. People just want to agree to shared moral values and exclude people who don't agree with those values, without needing to have any shared religious beliefs.

Our code of conduct is basically:

  1. Keep the law of chastity (sex only within heterosexual marriage, no porn, etc.)
  2. Keep the word of wisdom (no beer, recreational drugs, coffee, tea)
  3. Tithe (10% of income)
  4. Generally don't do big evil things such as murder, abuse, or fraud
  5. Generally, believe in God and keep the commandments, of course.

There are 2 levels of violation. If you do something minor like swear, lie, slack off, insult someone, etc., you're fine. The least bad thing that will lead to consequences is generally a violation of the law of chastity, meaning you looked at porn and then confessed this to the bishop. This may, but usually doesn't, lead to certain consequences for a few weeks, which we call disfellowship. Despite the name, it's a private matter, but while disfellowshipped you're not supposed to take the sacrament (our name for what Catholics call the communion), give talks in church, exercise the priesthood (for example by giving someone a blessing), or go to the temple. Recurring drug or porn use will probably get you disfellowshipped, fornication almost certainly will.

Excommunication is the more serious level, reserved for things like adultery and murder. It's much the same as disfellowshipping except that your membership in the church is formally revoked and you need to get rebaptized to get your privileges back.

I honestly don't think there's much of a norm to shun ex-members. Most of my best friends are not members, and I am probably more devout than the average member.

This code of conduct is not really comparable to a secular version though. There's virtually no secular benefit to keeping the code of conduct, and the only enforcement mechanism for all but the most serious sins is one's own conscience. There's not really any realistic way to force people to be honest about private matters, so any attempt to create a financially incentivized code of conduct will explicitly pit people's honesty against money. I doubt it lasts long against bad actors. There's no shortcut to creating a healthy culture, nor is any method guaranteed to produce one.

The knights of Columbus manage to maintain honesty with (fairly minor) financial benefits, but granted, most of what they would kick you out over is either public record or unhideable.

  1. Check. Hmm, probably mostly.
  2. Annd I'm out
  3. Well I'm already out, so.
  4. Check
  5. Hmm

Is this Mormon? JW? I know only superficially anything about either. You needn't answer, of course.

Mormon

The Mormons totally have an explicit code of conduct enforced by church disciplinary structures, and I believe we have some mormons and ex-mormons who can explain in further detail.

In general lacking the ability to participate in a high demand religion seems like it operationally breaks social bonds with membership of that high demand religion, so the shunning is part and parcel of the whole thing.

For another religious example, the knights of Columbus offer very cheap life insurance for members and require members to live a lifestyle in accordance with all of the rules of the Catholic church. They will totally kick members out for not really going to church anymore, remarriage after divorce, etc. It's not entirely clear that the knights of Columbus couldn't expand their offerings, but for now the only benefits are minor or community based.

As far as a secular example, I know of a country club which is only open to white men or married women, no gays, de-facto income requirement, no drug use. I'm not clear what non-community based benefits they offered. Greek life(fraternity/sorority) also routinely requires things like church attendance and moral character, and does offer benefits to members. I think owning a chic-fil-a franchise requires joining a private club with conditions similar to what you describe, as well.

Technically it's legal to have a private club with whatever requirements you want. Minimum social credit score private clubs offering large benefits to membership seem like a potential growth market if the trust/coordination problems can be resolved.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats