site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32375 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's always immensely amusing to see the people crying about being persecuted and oppressed starting up their own Crusades and Inquisitions and heresy-hunts and witch-burnings for not falling in line with the new orthodoxy.

I mean given the examples you yourself invoked of what Christianity itself did I am not sure there is much of a leg to stand on. Christianity was the underdog and was persecuted, rose to power, did its own persecution in turn and now some of the groups it doesn't like/thinks are sinful have banded together and are repeating that cycle and doing something similar to it (though without yet launching actual crusades or priest burnings I suppose). I guess it's darkly amusing in a schadenfreude kind of way. Live by persecution, die by persecution?

In other words if a church says a group is sinful, they can't exactly be surprised when that group isn't well predisposed to them, and that if said groups gets the chance may well choose to try and reduce the power and influence of the church and its followers. Sure maybe in an ideal world LGBT groups and the like should take the high road and forgive and forget, but given Christianity itself struggles with getting its followers to do that, I'm not sure that is anything we should actually expect.

And specifically with Mormon's its not as if they didn't mostly do an about face on race:

"In 1978, apostle LeGrand Richards clarified that the curse of dark skin for wickedness and promise of white skin through righteousness only applied to Indians, and not to black people.[3]

In 2013, the LDS Church published an essay refuting these ideas, describing prior reasoning for the restriction as racial "folk beliefs", and teaching that blackness in Latter-day Saint theology is a symbol of disobedience to God and not necessarily a skin color."

So politically I think you could see the LDS reversing their stance on homosexuality at some point (assuming you think the racial reverse was done for pragmatic reasons and not because God told them to) so it makes sense to put pressure on them to become more "correct".

Live by persecution, die by persecution?

You are of course continuing this cycle, are you prepared for you turn?

Just to point out I am describing how people act not endorsing it. That's why I said in an ideal world the persecuted group would take the high road, but my experience with people over many years has made me feel that is exceptionally unlikely. So it goes.

In my particular case, my rural neighbors think I am a Christian and I no longer vote. I have largely opted out and live my life. I just like arguing on the internet. Though given I used to work in politics (in the UK) and have certainly explicitly pandered to various persecution beliefs in the messaging for my candidates, I think it is probably fair to say that I did at one point assist this cycle. But you know, that was part of the reason I retired from politics.

Also, I am not talking literally about living and dying by persecution, more in metaphor. Those you persecute will persecute you in turn should they get the power to do so, mostly nowadays through laws and cultural changes than actual murder or burning at the stake. So yes I am prepared for my turn, in some ways I am already living it. It's very Christian where I live and the expedient thing to do was to simply go along with that. It's not a big deal day to day. If the US becomes a literal Mormon Theocracy somehow I shall diligently don my sacred undergarments and take my turn in the temple. It will be ok. Likewise if Stalin reborn creates the United Soviet State of America, I shall embrace the hammer and sickle. I expect my day to day life won't change much either way.

Fair enough. You get that this is the end of Liberalism as a going concern, though, right? The arguments of the past that shaped our society presupposed that arguments like yours here would not be made. By making this argument, by cementing it in thought and deed, you preclude those previous arguments from being made again, no?

Liberalism is i think an illusion, it came from the see-saw of power tipping and for some amount of time being near equal.

Just to be clear I don't suppose wokism or whatever will be any better at not driving groups away and then getting opposed and the balance tipping back.

My view is that it being a cycle is ok. There will be times when one side is up and the other down (simplistically, i think there are actually multiple axes here) and times where they will be in transition and roughly balanced. The world got on ok when gays were forced into the closet and so on and it will get on ok if Christians have to go back to building priest holes or whatever. It is just not that big of a deal on a macro level. Now it is on an individual level, i understand why Christians or Gay people would be unhappy and push for change depending on circumstance.

My meta view is that it is ok for these cycles to go by. If Atheism is down, its ok, I can fake being a Christian if it gets so bad i am in danger and i can suck that up. There is no winning or losing, just how things are and how we need to navigate that. Sometimes our beliefs will not be shared no matter what we do. Ideologies and religions die out and are replaced and that is ok. It has to be ok, its the only real option, as there isn't any permanent victory coming that I can see.

In other words if a church says a group is sinful,

I think this is how it's perceived more broadly by non-Christians, but misses the specific point that (most?) Christian denominations believe everyone is sinful. If you described a group of devout Catholics as sinful, I suspect the response would be "yes we are," with some commentary about confession, forgiveness, and repentance.

I dunno, how does a gay person seek confession, forgiveness and repentance without giving up his identity as a gay person?

Isn't there a bit of a parallel here to offering Sanderson forgiveness if he gives up his identity as a Mormon?

I'm on Sanderson's side on this, to be clear. I really don't have a problem with the LDS church as a basic tenet of pluralism. They reciprocate, too: they supported the federal same-sex marriage law that was recently signed into law.

But I do think it's a bit obscurantist to claim that gay people are positioned similarly in the eyes of the LDS church to the rest of the faithful on the basis that sin is a feature of the human condition.

If a thief claims that kleptomania is a factual component of his identity, which of the steps of your comment apply, and which don't?

I mean, yeah, in that case the kleptomaniac 100% has to give up his identity to become right with society/god/etc., as he should.

I think that's really the point, though. LDS Church sees gays as morally on par with kleptomaniacs. And this whole thread is a complaint that some particularly strident trans SF/F author sees Mormons as morally on par with kleptomaniacs.

Ugh. This is getting combative. I truly hold no grudge against the LDS Church. They (now) walk the walk on pluralism. I am fine with them believing and even professing that gayness is sinful and bars one from Mormon Heaven. I don't think Mormons should suffer any retribution for their affiliation with the Church. This trans "filthcore" author is behaving badly.

All I want to insist upon, here, is that the LDS Church really does hold gays in lower esteem than the average person. That's their right and I'm totally fine with them doing so. But it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.

it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.

I don't see how that follows. I think they would say to the kleptomaniac, "Dude, we're all sinners. We all have our tests and trials. We all sometimes experience strong desires for things we know are wrong. [Young preacher adds in a story about having been an alcoholic or whatever.] But you can choose to embrace it and make it a core part of your identity... or you can choose to fight against it and reject it. That choice is what determines who you are."

What follows from that is that if they look around in the world and see that there is a group of out and proud kleptos, screaming about the importance of being sensitive to their identity, they're going to say, "Yeah, most of those people have been informed, and they've made their choice." I don't see how that somehow obviates a Morman belief that they're Imago Dei (do the Mormans hold this? is definitely valid for most other branches of Christianity) and equally possessing inherent human value. Most Christians (again, not as familiar with Mormans, specifically) would be the first to point out that if a klepto-prodigal son made a choice and a change, they'd be overjoyed, specifically because of the person's moral worth.

I don't see how that somehow obviates a Morman belief that they're Imago Dei (do the Mormans hold this? is definitely valid for most other branches of Christianity) and equally possessing inherent human value.

Mormons can still think gays and kleptomaniacs possess human value while still thinking less of them. I think that thinking less of kleptomaniacs is a good thing for society; theft is bad and we should try pretty hard to discourage it. I understand why Mormons think less of homosexuals, but ultimately disagree with their conclusion, and I think gays should be treated just as well as straights. To me, trying to discourage homosexuality is insulting and morally wrong*.

*I do think it's acceptable to discourage the encouragement of homosexuality. There's a big difference between telling your kid "Don't be gay" and telling your kid's elementary school not to be teaching intersectionality.

I'm not exactly sure what we're disagreeing about at this point. Is it that you think committed "out and proud" gays and committed "out and proud" kleptos are morally similar? Or that you think committed "out and proud" kleptos are in the same moral boat of basically good people who are nonetheless tempted to sin per the universal human condition? Both propositions seem pretty hard to defend, but perhaps I'm biased due to being gay.

Yes but they aren't disowning their kids for existing in a state of sin in general. In theory you may be correct, in practice it leads to discriminatory behavior against certain groups for very human reasons.

So if those groups are able to assemble coalitions to gain power then its likely to have a goal of stopping that happening.

With the caveat that disowning of children is a fringe practice in any case, Christians have in fact disowned their children for rejecting their parents rules and embracing a sinful lifestyle in other ways, from heterosexual fornication to drug use.

from heterosexual fornication to drug use.

Yes and arguably that's now part of the same anti-Christian coalition, no? It's not coincidence that the coalition includes gay people, pro choice, pro-divorce etc. etc. Gay people are an example but they're not the whole enchilada. It's particular sins that beget particular groups which beget particular platforms.

Yes, but the thing is, these are the people who will on the one hand unironically go on about the crusades and witch burnings and what have you, then in the next paragraph demand crusades and witch burnings themselves.

"Well the Christians were just as bad" is not Le Epic Own you think it is. If group A (be they atheists, trans activists, or crochet enthusiasts) have been denouncing Dem Horbul Kristians for doing awful things, going on and doing the same awful things is not a good look.

I would point out again Sanderson isn't actually being burned at the stake. So i think the argument that they are just as bad right now is not proven.

And again if Bob punches Joe, even if people think punching people is wrong they are usually ok with Joe punching back. The Church has no-one to blame for this other than itself (or God I suppose). Reaping what ye sow and all that.

If you push enough groups of people to the fringe such that the fringe becomes another power centre in and of itself, this is what will happen if they can rally enough support against the prior "evil" empire.

Now I heavily suspect this lesson will not be learned and things will flip once more, but we aren't anywhere near the worst previous excesses, so religous complaints right now just sound like a case of sour grapes to me.

Wokism will I think schism and shatter like Christianity did, though its less centralized so how that looks may well be different. And probably for the same reasons, corruption, power grabs and over reaching.

The relevant groups are still fringe in important ways, in that for many of them being fringe is an important part of their identity.

Sure, and part of that is because we are only part way through a transition, where I live gay people are still going to be fringe. In San Francisco less so. But they are overall less fringe than they were 60 years ago I think, and I think that is likely to continue. The other part is that the fringe/center is simplistic, there are really multiple centers and different levels of fringe and so on.

So I agree it would be great if we could not get anywhere near the Troubles or anything worse. And I really hope we do not. However the side that was (to return to a metaphor I have used before) just punching someone in the face, complaining when the other person is now about to swing at them, is unlikely to get much charity from the person with the bloody nose. I have mentioned before about the idea that in a good old fashioned man on man fight both sides have to get their licks in and can then shake hands, having both given as good as they have gotten. That they can reconcile because it feels fair. Whether that is good or bad I don't know, but I think that some measure of either justice or revenge has to be seen to be delivered. Simply returning to the status quo leaves one side feeling a victim not a competitor.

So if we accept that Christianity got a few licks in against gay people (not necessarily actual violence, shaming, conversion attempts, forcing them to stay in the closet etc.) for that to be resolved Christianity must then suffer something. And it has to be something they don't like, so if they taught kids it was bad to be gay, now their kids must be taught that is good to be gay for example. Whether they like that or not. Otherwise they are (seen to be) being let off the hook. They never took a punch to the jaw. It's easier to forgive an opponent you fought with than a person who victimized you with no consequences.

This is I would argue an explanation for why groups have been victimized do what they do and is a pretty good fit for what we see around us.

Again for the record, I think the world would be a better place if this were not the case, but I think the number of people who actually are really willing to turn the other cheek is pretty tiny and this applies to groups as well as to individuals. So its a balance, and a difficult one because it is also human nature to keep throwing punches at the person who hurt us. And we don't have an uninvolved bouncer to drag us apart once one side goes too far.

I think it becomes a see-saw of ups and downs and maybe over time the oscillations get less severe, but that may just be the optimist in me talking.

So your enemies have permission to torture the shit out of you, all they have to do is take power? And you think it will get less severe?

If they take power then they won't need my permission. That's one of the side effects of taking power.

If you push enough groups of people to the fringe such that the fringe becomes another power centre in and of itself,

This is why the left stranglehold over education, finance, media, and the deep state is so important. It used to be that to become a power center you could just get a lot of people together. This is no longer true. If the fringe can only communicate by telephone calls, and they can't raise money, and they all get fired from their jobs, and if the government freezes all their bank accounts when they march in the streets, they don't get to become a power center.

I still think it is true pretty much. British politicians jumped really high when they got a lot of heat on not locking down like other countries. Politicians are really really dependent on voters. Biden only just won in 2020 and the next election can very easily go the other way.

The bigger issue is this, assuming you think Scott's Red Tribe/Blue Tribe carves reality at the joint (or even close to the joint) then Red Tribe is going to struggle to dominate those areas. Because the kind of people who want to do that are not Red Tribe and Red Tribers who do want it, may well cease to be Red Tribe - See politicians who go to DC and become "swampy".

Most Blue Tribers are never going to be farmers or truck drivers because they don't want to be, they don't value it. And likewise there is a reason that most recent conservative victories have come from dissident Blue Tribers. McConnell arguably is responsible for Republicans getting a big SCOTUS majority more than Trump given how he took the risk with Garland. Kavanaugh - Catholic - father was a lawyer from DC, went to Yale - Blue Tribe through and through. Coney Barrett - Catholic, father was an attorney, went to Rhodes and Notre Dame - Blue Tribe through and through. Gorsuch - raised Catholic - both parents were lawyers, went to Georgetown Prep, and Harvard, Blue Tribe once more. Even Tucker Carlson went to boarding school in Switzerland and Trinity College in Connecticut and was described as "an important voice of the intelligentsia" in the early 2000's. And as our esteemed ex mod might say, while they are conservative, they are conservative through a Blue lens.

The core issue then is that there aren't enough Blue Tribe conservatives or Red Tribe people who want to do it to allow the right to have domination in those spheres. Just as there aren't enough Red Tribe progressive or Blue Tribe people who want to be farmers to ever flip those percentages.

The LDS church’s single biggest exodus was after their lifting the priesthood ban, and they seem to have learned the lesson of not actually changing doctrines in visible ways.

To be fair, it was actually two about faces. The early church (while Joseph Smith was alive) was far better (if still bad) about these things than the church from then up until the 70's.

We'd be remiss not to mention the church's banning of polygamy as well, which was more clearly "the doctrine is still the same, but we've been told not to practice it anymore."

A reversal on homosexuality would be a far bigger change and would probably lead to a schism in the church, assuming the church is still lively enough to have people that care about these things. Doctrines about gender, marriage, etc. are infinitely more central to its core beliefs.

So politically I think you could see the LDS reversing their stance on homosexuality at some point (assuming you think the racial reverse was done for pragmatic reasons and not because God told them to) so it makes sense to put pressure on them to become more "correct".

Hey now, lets not exclude the idea of God buckling under the social pressure to become more "correct".

That seems unlikely but I suppose isn't impossible.

Why does Cthulu swim left? Because God is a progressive?

Does Cthulu swim left or do we just call its swimming "leftwards"? Seems to me like we essentially label all past political movements as right-wing, given enough time. Even communism was intensely "right-wing" in its treatment of racial and sexual minorities.

Sure, i am not a great supporter of the Cthulu swims leftwards idea anyway. I think there are definitely cycles and as you say there is much more nuance than that.

Low-effort swipe.

I don't think this will convince you, but when Brigham Young started that policy he explicitly stated that at some point it would end.

I don't think this will convince you, but when Brigham Young started that policy he explicitly stated that at some point it would end.

He did. Specifically, he stated this:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

Young and subsequent prophets treated it as if the doctrine had been established by Joseph Smith. From George Q. Cannon:

I had a conversation very early in life with President John Taylor, who told me what the Prophet Joseph had said upon this subject.

I related it to-day to the Council. He told him that the seed of Cain could not hold the priesthood, and that they would be debarred from the priesthood until Abel should have seed who could come forward and receive the priesthood. Cain had killed Abel, and he had died childless.

And from Joseph Fielding Smith:

Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been 'despised among all people.' This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith .... we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood. -The Way to Perfection, pages 110-111

This is not to claim that Smith was the actual originator of the doctrine—he made a few statements that could be interpreted that way, but the best-supported historical view indicates a shift from neutrality on slavery to an anti-abolitionist stance around 1836, followed by a firm commitment against slavery from 1842 to his death in 1844, with a few ordinations of black people to the Priesthood during that time. Rather, the point is that the question was treated by 19th and 20th century LDS leaders as settled doctrine, established by Joseph Smith and not to be undone until perhaps the Millennium.

Church leaders after Young treated it as settled and unambiguous doctrine well into the 20th century, most memorably during this 1947 exchange with Dr. Lowry Nelson, signed by the entire First Presidency of the church:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogenous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine .

While I don't disagree that an about-face on homosexuality would be a more difficult change to fit within LDS theology, my impression is that active members tend to understate the apparent permanence and seriousness of the doctrine banning black people from temple ordinances and the Priesthood and the significance of the 1978 reversal. It was much more than a simple, expected policy shift.

Sure, there's quite a lot of nuance to it which I didn't really want to get into with somebody who may not put any effort into the conversation. I'll start with some apologetics, but note that what I'm trying to do is not cast your statements into doubt, but rather try to establish that this really wasn't that large of a policy change for the church, especially compared to something like homosexuality. Feel free to skip them entirely; I'm sure you especially have read a lot of this stuff before.

Begin time-wasting apologetics

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

Worth noting that this is near-certainly not actually a direct quote, though it was at least accurate enough to not (as far as I am aware) have been called out as inaccurate. There were at least three transcription process involved:

  1. From the speech to shorthand notes

  2. From shorthand notes back to a full transcription

  3. From there to a published version

I don't expect much (or really any) inaccuracies from #3, but #1 could have enormous inaccuracies and I'd expect #2 to at least get a few words and wordings wrong. The reason I bring this up is because small differences in wording can (from our modern perspective) drastically alter the meaning of the text in ways that may not have been caught by contemporaries. As is, it essentially implies that every single non-black man must receive the priesthood before a single black man can. With small differences to the wording, it could easily mean something like "each other race will receive the priesthood before the black race" which essentially matches what actually happened. In other speeches Brigham Young mentions Abel's children, so either he's contradicting himself or the transcription is incorrect in one place or the other.

Of course, Brigham Young (probably) said plenty of other things along those lines, so I'd not be surprised if the wording was essentially correct.

I had a conversation very early in life with President John Taylor, who told me what the Prophet Joseph had said upon this subject.

I related it to-day to the Council. He told him that the seed of Cain could not hold the priesthood, and that they would be debarred from the priesthood until Abel should have seed who could come forward and receive the priesthood. Cain had killed Abel, and he had died childless.

Not only is this fourthhand (Joseph => John Taylor => George Q Cannon => us and the council), but it directly contradicts some of Smith's other actions and contemporary church doctrine. Either Smith contradicted his own teachings by ordaining black men with the priesthood, or he taught about that after making those "mistakes". The former obviously doesn't make sense, and the latter doesn't either, given his actions towards the end of his life. Also, D&C138:40 and 51 essentially outright states that Abel was resurrected 2000 years ago, so if anything it is highly unlikely that he hasn't yet had any children.

End time-wasting apologetics

While I don't disagree that an about-face on homosexuality would be a more difficult change to fit within LDS theology, my impression is that active members tend to understate the apparent permanence and seriousness of the doctrine banning black people from temple ordinances and the Priesthood and the significance of the 1978 reversal. It was much more than a simple, expected policy shift.

Does it matter how permanent and serious those doctrines appeared, or how serious they actually were? We could argue in circles forever about public opinion towards those matters, but I think it's clear that policy had been moving in that direction for decades. In 1954 President McKay created a special committee of the 12 to study the issue, and they concluded that it had no scriptural basis. That same year he began to loosen restrictions--starting with making it so white South Africans didn't have to prove their lineage, and ending in 1965 with applying that same principle to black people in Brazil. At some point McKay apparently became convinced that the matter was policy rather than doctrine, and thus could be changed with the appropriate revelation. The church statement released in '69 implied that the policy was subject to change with wordings like "Until God reveals His will in this matter."

I don't claim it was just a simple, expected policy shift, but at that point it really should have been. If church members and leaders had been educated on their own doctrine, not only would the change have been expected but it probably would have happened years earlier. Heck, just look at actual church policy in places like Brazil and you can see the change coming.

Not only is this fourthhand (Joseph => John Taylor => George Q Cannon => us and the council), but it directly contradicts some of Smith's other actions and contemporary church doctrine.

Like I said, my point in mentioning it was not to present it as evidence for Smith's actual actions and beliefs, but to indicate how church leaders thought about the doctrine at the time.

It's easy in retrospect to conclude that the doctrines weren't actually as serious as they appeared, but the argument proves too much. While the ordinance/priesthood ban was in place, everyone understood the scriptural basis—including McKay:

“I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest, that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life” (The Church and the Negro, 91)

It was referenced regularly by LDS apostles and seventies in that context. From the 1948 Pearl of Great Price commentary:

“But the greatest curse of all that came upon Cain and his descendants was that they were “cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood,” that is, the entire lineage “could not have the right of Priesthood” (verses 26-27). From the foregoing scripture we learn that Ham, the son of Noah, preserved the curses of Cain in the land. Since Ham was a son of Noah, it is quite definite that he did not have a black skin and was not a descendant of Cain. But the scripture seems to indicate that the wife of Ham was a descendant of Cain and through her the curses were preserved (verses 21-25).

It was serious enough as doctrine that church leaders at the highest level were unified in reprimanding members like Nelson for considering interracial marriage or the notion of racial equality ("We should like to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God.")

As social and political pressures mounted, as with polygamy, the leaders saw increasing reason to reexamine their views and shift doctrine. But it was a shift: it wasn't a sudden discovery that the view had no scriptural basis and that it was simple policy, but a gradual change of rhetoric and emphasis that culminated in the reversal of what had been seen as firm doctrine "never questioned by any of the Church leaders [...] from the days of the Prophet Joseph." The task was not to educate church leaders on their own doctrine but to build a new doctrinal framework that allowed something that had been overwhelmingly seen as repugnant, but which society's views were rapidly shifting on, to be overturned. The 1954 committee, 1965 shift in Brazil, and 1969 statement were all part of this gradual process of framework-building.

It's not my business anymore what the LDS church does with homosexuality. I recognized no personal interest in men at any point while I believed, and during that time I supported its stance on the matter and saw an unambiguous difference between the overturn of the temple/priesthood ban + intermarriage revulsion for black people and a theoretical reversal of doctrine on gay marriage. Now, from an outside view, I find the difference less persuasive. I wouldn't say it's probable, exactly, but it seems wholly plausible to me that as the views of members change and as social pressure mounts, a gradual work of framework-building will begin that culminates in a situation where something like... was it Tom Christofferson who tried to theorize that gay people might enter the second degree of glory in the Celestial kingdom? Where something like that becomes consensus.

This will only be intensified by the growth of new technologies like IVG, with potential to allow gay couples to have natal offspring. LDS theology as it stands is poorly equipped to handle the prospect of a child who genetically has two fathers or two mothers. In the past, as social views have shifted and new technology has entered the arena, the faith has gradually shifted. Changes in the rhetoric and understood etiology around homosexuality have shifted from the unambiguous and harsh language of Kimball and Packer in the 70s and 80s to more cautious and conciliatory words from modern leaders. I have no idea where it will end, and like I said, it's not my business. But the priesthood/temple/intermarriage change was a serious doctrinal shift that had cautious groundwork laid for it over the course of more than thirty years, and the church has taken that approach enough that I don't discount the possibility that it will happen again.

I agree completely with the facts in all but your last two paragraphs. You say a lot of things that are technically true, but together paint IMO a very misleading picture of the history of the change. Stuff like this:

But it was a shift: it wasn't a sudden discovery that the view had no scriptural basis and that it was simple policy, but a gradual change of rhetoric and emphasis that culminated in the reversal of what had been seen as firm doctrine

honestly strikes me as manipulative rhetoric. Firstly, because I just argued that it took place over the course of decades, and here you imply that I claimed it was a sudden discovery. Secondly, because "a gradual change of rhetoric and emphasis" is the natural result of a gradual shift in leaders' opinions, but here you insinuate that it was more of a tactic by church leaders to soften the blow when the doctrine was changed. If you truly believe that church leaders' beliefs shifted over time, then their rhetoric and emphasis should naturally shift at about the same rate. In the following sentence you practically confirm this take:

The task was not to educate church leaders on their own doctrine but to build a new doctrinal framework that allowed something that had been overwhelmingly seen as repugnant, but which society's views were rapidly shifting on, to be overturned.

This is a natural result of the process of educating church leaders (including the prophet) on their own doctrine. Or, if you don't think this was always the doctrine, how do you explain the black members who were ordained with the priesthood? If you do think this was always the doctrine, and Young essentially reversed it, then church leaders must necessarily "build a new doctrinal framework" as part of their education process because clearly their old one was flawed. It didn't account for things like prophets making mistakes, or policy changes, though the Bible and early church history are replete with examples of both of these.

Similarly, your sentence:

As social and political pressures mounted, as with polygamy, the leaders saw increasing reason to reexamine their views and shift doctrine

places the blame for the change on social pressures, when they had already been shifting doctrine in that direction for decades due to other important factors, such as the difficulty of verifying one's genealogy and the lack of eligible church leadership in many developing countries. So again, I think this statement is technically true, but somewhat misleading.

I think there are essentially three positions you can take here:

  1. The church is not true

  2. Young made a mistake instituting the priesthood ban

  3. Young was correct to institute the priesthood ban, meaning that Smith was wrong to ordain black people

I suppose there are other positions but we won't waste time with them. I hope you'd agree with me that church leaders earnestly believe in their faith and must choose between #2 and #3. However, no matter which option they go with, one of their beloved prophets made a pretty big mistake. Our own doctrine has forever been very clear about the importance of continued revelation, but they seemed reluctant to accept that, which is why I frame the gradual process they go through as their own education.

So, I also agree that they had to "build a new doctrinal framework", but it was their own framework they were building, and one which had been present in the church from the beginning. They weren't developing some new rhetorical strategy to manipulate members into sticking with the church as culture changed around them, as you imply (but never state). TL;DR: An implication that the church is inventing a new doctrine to stick with the times must address the fact that the doctrine was practiced in the early church, and you've failed to do so. I apologize if I'm being a bit hostile here, but you're a better writer than I am, and these implications (which may come across as charitable to you) come across as subtle, tricky rhetoric to me.

was it Tom Christofferson who tried to theorize that gay people might enter the second degree of glory in the Celestial kingdom? Where something like that becomes consensus.

I assume you mean practicing gay people here, since gay people can achieve that and exaltation. I'd prefer to frame this differently though, since we really don't know all that much about the different degrees of glory. Will the church ever come out and say that homosexual behavior is not a sin? I think not, and I'd be willing to bet on it, but I don't imagine you'd be willing to bet on a statement like that resolving within our lifetimes. I'd take a bet giving it 1% odds of happening within the next 50 years, but then all my money is locked up the entire time for a 1% reward. I find it more likely that the church undergoes some kind of hostile takeover than that they do that of their own accord.

At best, they could maybe de-emphasize how much of a sin it is and focus on compassion, a process they've already undertaken and which is complete for similar situations (such as people who never marry).

This will only be intensified by the growth of new technologies like IVG, with potential to allow gay couples to have natal offspring. LDS theology as it stands is poorly equipped to handle the prospect of a child who genetically has two fathers or two mothers

Is it? I feel like any doctrine that would have a hard time dealing with this would have a harder time with basic adoption.

Anyways, I've spent this whole time responding to you rather than making my own points, and I recognize that that can be pretty exhausting to deal with. Suffice to say that commonly-reviled policy changes such as polygamy and the reversal of the priesthood ban IMO have quite good scriptural and doctrinal support, and did long before they happened too. I find that discussion much more useful than arguing over what church members of the time thought, because I also believe that the idea that "church leaders and members can be misled" is quite well-supported doctrinally as well.

Edit: I apologize, I think I've been uncharitable here. I just think the "church leaders bent to the public will" theory needs to grapple with the inconvenient fact that their decision genuinely seems to be the correct one based on contemporary doctrine alone.

Thanks for the thoughtful response and for your willingness to engage! I know it can be tricky to speak across the divide of belief, and I appreciate your openness. I'm not aiming to be rhetorically deceptive in any sense, though I'll certainly cop to choosing my words with an eye towards persuasive effect.

Firstly, because I just argued that it took place over the course of decades, and here you imply that I claimed it was a sudden discovery.

To clarify, with the "suddenly" I was referring primarily to the 1954 committee. I broadly reject the notion that they re-examined the scriptures and concluded there was no scriptural basis after having defended it on a scriptural and doctrinal basis for years before that point. From my angle, it's more accurate to conceive of their conclusion not as "we learned there was no scriptural basis" but as "we would like to move away from our prior emphasis on the scriptural basis for this ban". I do think their opinions gradually changed; we agree on that point. I do not agree (and, to be clear, do not assert you believe) that any new doctrinal information emerged between 1947 and 1979 that would have given them doctrinal cause to reassess; rather, I think their social conditions changed such as to provide strong cultural motive to reassess, and they altered the doctrine as a result.

I also wouldn't present any of this as simple rhetorical strategy. I don't take a particularly cynical view of their beliefs; I think most or all who reach the core leadership of Mormonism are true believers. I think leadership most likely genuinely changed their minds over time, but the proximate cause for that change was not divine guidance that happened to coincide with major social upheavals, but the upheavals themselves, bringing with them increased salience of those issues and sociocultural pressure.

I do take your point in terms of addressing differences between Smith's and Young's practices of ordination. I won't quibble about that difference: while there is a degree of ambiguity in Smith's views and he made enough claims about racial inequality for Young and others to build on, his actions absolutely made the mid-20th-century doctrinal shift simpler. That's a clear difference between the doctrinal shift on interracial marriage and ordinances for black members and a theoretical shift for gay members. My claim is both that they adapted doctrine to stick with the times in response to social and cultural pressure, and that Smith's actions made that change easier to enact.

I think "Young made a mistake" is the most comfortable answer for modern LDS members, but would argue that it mostly falls apart once the record is clear that it was seen as unambiguous and lasting doctrine, not as temporary policy: claims like Woodruff's "the prophet will never lead the church astray" are compatible with many errors, but I do not believe they can comfortably be made compatible with virtually every leader in the church for more than a century being in apostasy on questions of racial equality, marriage, and salvation. When someone's framework contains the belief that virtually every leader in the church was in apostasy on those questions for more than a century, I don't find "...and they continue to be in apostasy on <pet issue here>" to be a serious stretch. The doctrine of continuing revelation and "he will yet reveal many great and important truths" provides serious leeway for ambitious/creative theologians. The language against interracial marriage during that time was every bit as clear as language against gay relationships is today.

Will the church ever come out and say that homosexual behavior is not a sin? I think not, and I'd be willing to bet on it, but I don't imagine you'd be willing to bet on a statement like that resolving within our lifetimes.

If reasonable terms could be arranged, I would take a bet at around 25% odds that the institutional LDS church will come out and say that homosexual behavior within the bounds of committed monogamous partnerships is not a sin within our lifetimes, whether via an overt institutional shift or via a schism. I think it's more likely than not that the shift does not occur, but that 1% is much too low.

I respect your preference for scripture/doctrine over beliefs over time, but I believe both are important to understanding religious evolution and the bounds of what is possible. As far as scriptural/doctrinal support goes, I think the wide range of beliefs among Christian denominations serves as a good sanity check for just what people can be convinced has serious scriptural support. Joseph Smith, so far as I am aware, never said a word about homosexuality in the works of scripture he dictated, his sermons, or otherwise. That is: setting aside the words of recent prophets (which can be done! As the Lowry Nelson letter indicates, unanimous written consent of the first presidency at any given time is not sufficient to determine doctrine), the LDS church relies strictly on the Bible for its doctrine on homosexuality.

While Paul's statements on the matter are unambiguous, the church has been shifting temple ordinances and other words/actions away from similarly unambiguous statements of his (eg women covering their heads) in accordance with modern social instincts. To go further back... well, let me quote a Catholic writer (from what is probably the most honest, perceptive Catholic argument for a shift on doctrine around homosexuality I know of):

During the 1850s, arguments raged over the morality of slave-holding, and the exegesis of Scripture played a key role in those debates. The exegetical battles were one-sided: all abolitionists could point to was Galatians 3:28 and the Letter of Philemon, while slave owners had the rest of the Old and New Testaments, which gave every indication that slaveholding was a legitimate, indeed God-ordained social arrangement, one to which neither Moses nor Jesus nor Paul raised a fundamental objection. So how is it that now, in the early twenty-first century, the authority of the scriptural texts on slavery and the arguments made on their basis appear to all of us, without exception, as completely beside the point and deeply wrong?

The answer is that over time the human experience of slavery and its horror came home to the popular conscience. [...] once that experience of their full humanity and the evil of their bondage reached a stage of critical consciousness, this nation could neither turn back to the practice of slavery nor ever read the Bible in the same way again.

None of this is to say that such a shift around homosexuality is likely. But I hope that helps explain why I don't wholly discount it as a possibility, despite its obvious tension with the LDS framework. Stranger things have happened.

Well this is all very fair, and thank you for your engagement too.

I do not agree (and, to be clear, do not assert you believe) that any new doctrinal information emerged between 1947 and 1979 that would have given them doctrinal cause to reassess; rather, I think their social conditions changed such as to provide strong cultural motive to reassess, and they altered the doctrine as a result.

I tend to agree, but I think there's at least a possibility that new information emerged. The leaders of the time strike me as somewhat ignorant of church history.

When someone's framework contains the belief that virtually every leader in the church was in apostasy on those questions for more than a century, I don't find "...and they continue to be in apostasy on " to be a serious stretch.

That's totally fair. For what it's worth, I don't either, but I generally think people should continue with prophetic counsel in the meantime. This is difficult to reconcile with things like activism, which seem somewhat likely to have influenced the church's policy change.

The language against interracial marriage during that time was every bit as clear as language against gay relationships is today.

In one sense, sure. Brigham Young even stated things like "God's punishment for interracial marriage is and always will be death." I don't think the doctrinal support was at the same level though, and I think if homosexuality had been the prominent topic of the time then Young would have said as bad or worse things about that. But who knows, the guy really seemed to care a lot about race. Still, we already have an example in the past of the priesthood being restricted to not just a certain race, but a small subset of them. I don't think his actions were doctrinally justified but they weren't super out of left field the way that I think an endorsement of monogamous, committed homosexuality would be.

That is: setting aside the words of recent prophets (which can be done! As the Lowry Nelson letter indicates, unanimous written consent of the first presidency at any given time is not sufficient to determine doctrine), the LDS church relies strictly on the Bible for its doctrine on homosexuality.

Sure, but to me that's like saying "set aside one foot and you only have the other to walk on." The only time you should really be choosing between them is when one conflicts with the other. The Lowry Nelson letter, for instance, conflicted with not only a scriptural basis but also with what we now know to be established fact in both Smith and Young's times. Additionally, I think you're giving it a little too much emphasis since the letter itself doesn't claim to be doctrine but rather to interpret doctrine.

If reasonable terms could be arranged, I would take a bet at around 25% odds that the institutional LDS church will come out and say that homosexual behavior within the bounds of committed monogamous partnerships is not a sin within our lifetimes, whether via an overt institutional shift or via a schism. I think it's more likely than not that the shift does not occur, but that 1% is much too low.

I have heard rumors that the reason church policy changed to allow civil marriage + immediate temple sealings was so that we could easily pivot to doing ONLY sealings in the temple. The worry is that we'll be forced to conduct gay temple sealings. No idea whether that rumor is true (i.e. accurately describes the motive behind the change) or is just conspiracy theorists looking for people who agree with them. Like I said, I think the odds of a schism are much higher than the odds of this happening, so if we include schisms then really I'm just betting on the odds of a church schism within the next 50 years or so.

Anyways, how about something like the following:

  1. I will give you a VTI share if the bet resolves in your favor. Otherwise, you'll give me 1/10th of a VTI share. We have a gentleman's agreement not to really worry about payment if one of us is in poverty or dealing with cancer bills or something, though the winner is still free to crow about it on TheMotte or whatever survives of our community at that point.

  2. If the church undergoes a major schism, each side of the schism with at least one former apostle and 10% of the other side's members, it resolves as invalid unless either side would resolve in the same direction. In other words if there's a schism and it's possible that either side of the schism could be the "true" church, and the two sides disagree on this issue, I don't think either of us win.

  3. If one or more of a, b, or c happen before 2050, the bet resolves in your favor. Otherwise it resolves in mine.

a) The church creates another document like the Family Proclamation meaningfully changing something inside the Family Proclamation, such as the claim that gender is eternal or that marriage is meant to be between husband and wife. Restarting polygamy or endorsing adoption won't count here.

b) The church updates policy to allow non-heterosexual couples to be sealed in the temple, and it's not immediately obvious they were forced to do so. This still resolves positively if they're just sealed for time and not eternity.

c) The church updates policy (and the policy stands for at least 1 year) and says that practicing homosexuals in married monogamous relationships can get temple recommends.

Alternatively I'd be fine with us both agreeing that we WOULD agree to this bet, just so that we don't have to remember to resolve it in 30 years. I think there's a small but tangible mental cost to just leaving these things stewing in the background, needing to be remembered, and the stocks managed (or at least not sold). I was an active stock trader in the past, and probably will be again, so even just having a single stock sitting around for decades in my account is a bit of a cognitive burden. I'd probably create a new account just to store it so I wouldn't have to think about it.

More comments

Well, it's funny what rabbit holes you end up going down! I was trying to see if there was anything in the Summa concerning the various races of mankind, then I went on to the samples of the Church Fathers, and for some reason stumbled upon this by someone I never heard of, one Bardaisan, entitled "Book of the Laws of Countries" with this little nugget embedded within:

But in the North, and in the country of the Gauls and their neighbours, such youths among them as are handsome the men take as wives, and they even have feasts on the occasion; and it is not considered by them as a disgrace, nor as a reproach, because of the law which prevails among them. But it is a thing impossible that all those in Gaul who are branded with this disgrace should at their Nativities have had Mercury posited with Venus in the house of Saturn, and within the limits of Mars, and in the signs of the zodiac to the west. For, concerning such men as are born under these conditions, it is written that they are branded with infamy, as being like women.

The text seems to be damaged in places, and there is bitter controversy over what the Greek word here means:

Laws in Hatra. — There is a law in force in Hatra, that whosoever steals any little thing, even though it were worthless as water, shall be stoned. Among the Cashani, on the contrary, if any one commits such a theft as this, they merely spit in his face. Among the Romans, too, he that commits a small theft is scourged and sent about his business. On the other side of the Euphrates, and as you go eastward, he that is stigmatized as either a thief or a murderer does not much resent it; but, if a man be stigmatized as an arsenocœte[either "homosexual" or "male prostitute" depending on what side you take], he will avenge himself even to the extent of killing his accuser.

Laws....— Among. ..boys...to us, and are not...Again, in all the region of the East, if any persons are thus stigmatized, and are known to be guilty, their own fathers and brothers put them to death; and very often they do not even make known the graves where they are buried.

The speaker is tying in astrological influences and human actions, and giving various examples of how behaviour in one land is praised or condemned in another, and it can't be said that every person who does X was born under the same astrological conditions, so that rules astrology out as an explanation for human behaviour.

So who is this Bardaisan?

The Book of the Laws of Countries (henceforth referred to as the BLC) is best described as a philosophical dialogue in defense of free will that aims to set definite limits on the scope of the power of astral determinism. The principal speaker is Bardaisan of Edessa (154-222), the “Aramaic philosopher” who propounded his own unique form of Christianity at the court of King Abgar VIII of Edessa.

So wider point - some places and times approved of, or were neutral towards, homosexuality while others strongly condemned it. This has been a long-running debate and we're not going to solve it here.

A cure for dysphoria?

In Syria and in Edessa men used to part with their manhood in honour of Tharatha; but, when King Abgar became a believer he commanded that every one that did so should have his hand cut off, and from that day until now no one does so in the country of Edessa.

An implication that the church is inventing a new doctrine to stick with the times must address the fact that the doctrine was practiced in the early church, and you've failed to do so.

The answer to this is that pretty much any religion that's been around for a while is going to have a minority arguing for pretty much anything. If it doesn't count as the religion changing their doctrine because a minority in the past already had that position, nothing will ever count as a change in doctrine at all.

Or to put it another way: If "no polygamy" doesn't count because there was always an anti-polygamy faction, could the church change back to polygamy, and that still wouldn't count, because there was always a pro-polygamy faction too?

IDK where your talk about minorities is coming from. When I say the early church I mean the entire early church, including its founder.

Polygamy is less of a mess than the race and the priesthood issue because the church has never said it was wrong or that any doctrine has changed, just that the commandment is now to not practice it. AFAIK it was (and was always presented as) an explicitly pragmatic move so that the church wasn't destroyed.

More comments

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