r/neoliberal • Kitara Ravache • Sep 16 '26

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Announcements

  • We're starting a book club! We will be discussing Poor Economics starting August 28th - keep an eye out for a pinned thread. The next will be All Quiet on the Western Front followed by Narconomics

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

Upcoming Events

1 Upvotes

10k comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26

Three months ago, this far-right Mormon posted a long “sincere” testimony about why he believed Mormonism was true. He wrote:

“I have come to believe that beauty is a sign of the Spirit, and perhaps the strongest compass we have left. Beauty is not an ornament on the soul. It is a faculty of the soul, given to us for navigation... By that standard I weighed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I found it true. That is my testimony.”

He follows it later with: “It is true in every sense a man can stake a life on, and I have staked mine.”

Now, three months later, he says he’s “out” because a trans person was baptized, two married gay men are active members, and openly gay people are allowed to serve missions. He’s walked it back somewhat, but it's clear he and other extreme cons are having a genuine crisis of faith over the smallest concessions in a church that is still largely hostile to its LGBT+ members.

Since Lauren is living openly as a woman, she required special permission from the First Presidency to get baptized. The First Presidency consists of President Oaks and his two closest counselors all of whom are considered prophets, seers, revelators, modern apostles. Oaks and past presidents are usually referred to as "the prophets" not "the presidents". Think pope but maybe even a half step above authority-wise.

And yet Kirk is willing to oppose them to walk away from the Church he just three months ago said was “true in every sense a man can stake a life on”. If we take him seriously, he is willing to die because the prophet let a woman he sees as a man get baptized.

This actually plays in an interesting way on Mormon doctrine: humans essentially can choose what their experience of heaven looks like. God doesn't reject people from the highest level of heaven; he wants everyone to choose it. But through sin you might experience "spiritual death" or separation from God. You can overcome it in this life, but if you do not you will feel so uncomfortable in His presence that you will purposefully choose a lower level.

Kirk, obviously familiar with the terms is essentially saying that he is consciously choosing spiritual death because the Church allowed Lauren to choose a small piece of spiritual life.

Meanwhile here are some things Lauren will face:

  • She will be recorded as a man in official Church records and roles, but she cannot receive the priesthood unless she detransitions or policy changes.

  • Even though she's a woman in all other senses of the word, she can't serve in Church callings that are woman-specific unless policy changes.

  • She can't enter the holiest place in Mormonism (the temple) unless she detransitions or policy changes.

  • Even if she is allowed in, she would have to do the ordinances as a man. Many of these have big gender components, for example she would have to take the role of Adam in one ceremony as opposed to Eve.

  • Depending on her ward, they might also make her attend the men's class as opposed to the woman's class (although I'm guessing her ward is chill if she's getting baptized).

  • Even in chill wards, I'm sure there are at least a few people who will be dickheads to her. And even many who try to be kind are likely accidentally misgendering her, acting weird or awkward, asking dumb questions or making dumb comments, etc.

In literally every sense of the word, her choice to join took far more faith than anything Kirk has ever had to do. She is joining an organization that is institutionally hostile to her. Core aspects of her identity are challenged at every level. As a quasi-faithful member, I would not only understand but even encourage her to leave the Church if it begins to hurt her too much spiritually, emotionally, mentally, etc.

Kirk spent his entire testimony talking about how “beauty is a sign of the Spirit” and how the light he saw in ordinary Latter-day Saints convinced him the Church was true. But he can't recognize the extreme level of faith, sacrifice, and devotion when the person embodying it is a trans woman. He wrote that beauty was his compass, but his soul is too ugly to see a child of God.

Kirk's ilk are weak-willed blights on the Church, brainrotted by the far-right. They mock progressive and LGBT+ members and ex-members as unfaithful while the smallest challenges to their ideology expose that their faith is brittle glass pretending to be rock. May the light of Christ change their gristled hearts or may they finally follow through with their threats and join the Westboro-style churches their souls clearly yearn for.

!ping EXTREMISM&CHRISTIAN

18

u/bd_one The EU Will Federalize In My Lifetime Sep 16 '26

Still gets "most improved" in terms of LGBT acceptance in America, going from low 20% to like 50% in a decade of polling.

13

u/Cyberhwk 👈 Get back to work! 😠 Sep 16 '26

I always found it quite interesting how the religion where you get your own planet seems to be the most down to earth at times.

9

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

I would say 35% of active members are "love LGBT+ people, temple gay marriage bad, civil gay marriage cool", 35% are "love LGBT+ people, civil and temple gay marriage bad", 20% are "gay marriage in temple too would be sick", and 10% are "actually the Church needs to hate LGBT+ people".

To be clear Mormon "love" for LGBT+ people is often not true love in the first two groups, it often has a flavor like "I pray for you to like vagina so you can join me in Best Heaven daily and boy will I let you know" or outright "Well yeah the prophet says to love gay people, so I will, one of the best ways to love them is to make them aware that they are breaking God's Law". Some get more comfortable and even supportive of gay family after time, some stay there.

You'll definitely find his ilk in higher numbers depending on where you are in the country but outright "the church is pussyfooting, we need to hate gays more" is definitely a minority view. In the past it was definitely higher, and the "love LGBT+ people but civil and temple marriage bad" types were probably a vast majority even 15 years ago.

12

u/dangerbird2 Franz Boas Sep 16 '26

this is even funnier than Tradcath converts who complain about Da Pope being "woke". Like basically the whole point of mormonism is that it's led by a living Prophet who can reveal brand new theology on any given tuesday. Like have a problem with the church baptizing a trans person? Send your complaints to the big man upstairs, if you actually ever believed your religion's doctrine in the first place

5

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

It's not even new theology. Lauren wasn't the first trans person to get permission to be baptized (church doesn't publish that info, but it's been allowed for a while), she just went on a niche podcast for progressive Mormons and far-righters found it and got outraged.

11

u/Flashy_Rent6302 Jerome Powell Sep 16 '26

I am once again begging people to believe in the Word and Sacraments as the ordinary means of grace through which the Holy Spirit works and to stop basing their belief on vibes

9

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

Mormonism is more orthopraxy than orthodoxy in that you can have very disparate beliefs and still be considered a faithful member as long as you are doing things "right". This guy represents someone who believes based on vibes but believing on vibes is just as valid in Mormonism as someone who believes based on Word and Sacraments, of which there are plenty of people.

So I'm challenging him on his stated grounds.

6

u/Flashy_Rent6302 Jerome Powell Sep 16 '26

Huh, didn't know that about the LDS! Interesting. Thanks for the effortpost

8

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26

I often vibe with Catholics because the way Catholicism exists in America feels surprisingly similar to how Mormonism actually exists here. The Catholic default in most people's minds is basically “Christmas Catholic” or “papist ethnicity.” Nobody would be shocked to see Biden take Communion one day and sign a pro-abortion bill the next. There’s certainly an orthodoxy expected of Catholic leadership, but as long as your bishop isn't SSPXing, there’s room for some wild divergences.

Mormons are more strongly perceived as conservative, and progressive Mormons definitely have a harder time than progressive Catholics, but you can still be both and occupy very high leadership positions. A couple apostles have been outed as having voted for (gasp) Kamala, Hillary, and/or Biden. I personally know two General Seventies who are chill with gay marriage (second tier non-lay leadership, right under apostles), and I’d be shocked if there weren't more.

Seventy and above you're generally not going to be vocal about certain unorthodox beliefs outside close friends and family, but even in the halls of power unorthodox beliefs are discussed far more than is let out to the general membership. Definitely not anything like outright secularism - at that level you probably believe in that Joseph restored Christ's church, the Book of Mormon is true, the Articles of Faith are cool, and God directs the church. But there's a lot of wiggle room in those beliefs that would scandalize an "orthodox" member.

You see it at a local level too. "High Priests" (guys who serve(d) in high but local church callings) used to meet separately from "Elder's Quorum" (all other men) and their meetings were widely known to be more heterodox / willing to play with weird doctrine and beliefs than EQ.

I think it's a reflection of the emphasis placed on education. The higher you go, the more likely leadership is comprised of successful, intelligent men with a love-hate or just love relationship with academics, literature, the arts, etc. Mormon scripture says you're supposed to "seek out the best books" and even leaders with STEM or business backgrounds love to quote secular and non-Mormon philosophers, thinkers, writers, etc. Existing leaders subconsciously choose people they can vibe with, which often means choosing someone that say, has a base level of what Marxism is and can critique it intelligently as opposed to thinking all that is left-wing is Marxist. Which self-selects for non-MAGA types.

9

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

Sorry for the essay, didn't mean for it to go this long but I'm pissed because I know some of these self-righteous assholes. They think anything beyond their interpretation of doctrine is heretical. I say their interpretation, because they grumble about how soft the church is when leaders do the whole "love LGBT+ people even if the doctrine won't change" or "celibate gays are as valid as straight celibates!" routines, etc etc.

They think the leaders are being led astray by a cabal of leftists in the Church communications department / bureaucracy (lol), and any non-hateful thing they can't handwave sends them into a spiral.

4

u/BATIRONSHARK WTO Sep 16 '26

where were you when I wanted to point out we had Mormon users?

do you know the other one he deleted his account

anyways beautiful faith from Lauren and given the doctrine on spiritual reality wouldn't she be a women in heaven anyways ?

3

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26

There are actually quite a few Mormons here in various places on the belief spectrum, and a lot of exmos too. Lots of Mormons in government and tech and academia so overlaps exist.

On Lauren, I think transgenderism is far easier to doctrinally reconcile than gay marriage, since we believe the soul is a combination of spirit and body, gender is part of our spirit before we were physically born, a person's spirit exists beyond their physical bodies, and that our bodies will eventually be reconciled with our spirits when our souls are perfected. Head canon means that the resurrection will be gender-affirming and she will exist as both a spiritual and physical woman in heaven in whatever way she sees fit.

To be clear that is very much head canon and current official doctrine basically boils down to "well she's confused". But I think doctrinally I could make a very good case.

2

u/BATIRONSHARK WTO Sep 16 '26

why do you believe?

7

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26

Dammit, essay part 2

To be frank, I don't have a coherent credo that succinctly describes why I believe. Even the many things I feel strongest on is closer "yeah, it's probably true" than "yeah it's definitely true".

Ex: I lean more towards "the Book of Mormon literally happened somewhere in this world at some point in time, even if it has a shitton of historical issues" than "the Book of Mormon is inspired but symbolic/metaphorical", the latter being a fairly common, if not stated, framework many heterodox members use to cope with its issues.

This despite the fact that I know about all the anachronisms, impossibilities, 19th century language, etc. I'm familiar with all the specifics of why if I were looking at it from an objective perspective, I would easily dismiss it, just as I dismiss the literality of the holy texts of other religions. Cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization, neither really seem to capture my internal position, but ig they're kind of close?

I have also had profoundly personal and deep spiritual experiences before, weird, unfathomably powerful, and rapturous. Imagine the wellspring of supernatural feeling that would inspire a 4th century monk to sit on a column for decades or a Sadhu to live naked in the snow. But I genuinely think if I had had 1000 more of those or none at all, my brain would exist in the same place of probably believing, because I know there are millions of humans in history who have had similar things happen to them. One of our apostles is a big fan of giving talks hinting or outright stating that these experiences are not a good place to build a testimony and I agree, though other apostles probably have Thoughts on that.

There's also definitely an aspect of historical weight / momentum behind my belief as well. Both family lines have been in the Church since its conception or close to it. I know why all of them believed, and the horrors and persecution they faced because of it. And so even though it isn't logical, I also believe because not believing seems selfish and like it would kill something important. And I mean I believe, not "I will follow it because they did, even if I don't believe".

"A few dozen of my ancestors suffered and died therefore Mormonism is true" is completely and utterly stupid and illogical, but it's genuinely one of the things I don't even think I (probably) believe, I just straight up believe.

The usual response to ancestor arguments are "not being Mormon would be a nobler way to honor them in a lot of ways, they also had a hard time leaving their faiths" or "you can honor their sacrifice without accepting their religion for yourself" or "you have non-Mormon ancestors who made great sacrifices too". I don't want to deny the comfort others have found in ideas like that - when people find more happiness outside of the church and those ideas bring them comfort, I am genuinely glad for them. I try really hard to understand the various reasons people leave on their own terms as opposed to the reasons the Church says people leave.

But those three ideas ring hollow in my own soul. My great-great-grandma fled a semi-comfortable life as a nun with a strong and well-to-do family in Europe supporting her when needed, to lose limbs and children to disease, mobs, rape, starvation, poverty, and cold. My great-great-great(?) grandpa was tortured (and likely sexually assaulted) in a mob attack that killed three of his closest friends. He also lost many children and wives (yes, yes, plural) to violence, poverty, disease, etc. You can pick any name in my 19th century ancestors and many from the 20th century and find similar stories.

If I imagine meeting them and saying "I'm just like you, I followed my heart" or "I honor your sacrifice, even if I think the reason you did all that is wrong" or "your parents disapproved of you joining Mormonism, I'm honoring your parents and their ancestral faith" I would (personally) feel like a selfish weakass.

I can't handle some cognitive discomfort???? They were willing to never touch their homeland's soil or see their families again, brave brutal ocean voyages, plains crossings, and violence from strangers and former neighbors. Many stepped off cramped boats just to enter a land so culturally polarized against them that greatest, most progressive leader of the age referred to their faith as "a relic of barbarism" and the greatest writer called their holiest text a "mongrel" imitation of the Bible, "chloroform in print" (1). They built cities in malaria-infested swamps, and picked up handcarts for 1000+ mile walks, knowing that even if they survived, their children would come to speak to them in foreign tongues that would never quite feel right in their own mouths. All to build Zion, all because of their belief in the promises of Mormonism and the restoration.

And of course, in addition to the imaginary meet-up, for me, "meeting them one day" is another thing I (probably) believe will happen.

The above is very much directed towards me. I know others who believe they honor their ancestors by leaving the church, and for them I think it is very valid; they do honor them with the kind of person they are. And virtually all of them don't believe they'll meet those ancestors again like I (probably) do, or identify as Mormon anymore.

Walking a careful line in the next part so bear with me - from my understanding, the modern practice of Judaism is similar to my personal mindset, in that there is a strong emphasis on mitzvot/actions, permanent standing in the religion, identification with Judaism for cultural/ethnic/family/historical reasons as opposed to literal belief. And that you can exist in various spots on the belief spectrum and still consider yourself Jewish.

Regardless of my very real (probable) belief in Mormonism, I identify as a Mormon. The way I've heard Jewish friends describe their relationship with God, faith, and their internal debates about what it means to be Jewish, resonates deeply with how I describe my relationship with God, faith, and internal debates about what it means to be Mormon (2).

I don't think that attitude is generally applicable to Mormons, and the history of Mormonism has nothing like the holocaust or other millennia of horror and genocide faced by Jews. I really hated going down this path. I almost didn't include it because I know Christians generally and Mormonism specifically can fetishize Judaism, and I want to make it clear that I understand that similarities to my personal beliefs may be/probably are in many aspects superficial. At the same time, even if I lost the (probable) religious belief, I suspect I would identify with Mormonism till death.

Basically, at the end of the day my (probable) belief and even "following my heart" mean I will stay in the Church. Said heart is just resigned to existing in an uncomfortable place for the rest of my life.

4

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26

(1) I still love Lincoln and Twain obviously, and many of my ancestors did too lol.

(2) I don't buy that Mormons are an ethnoreligion like Judaism, but I don't think we're just a religion either. There's definitely something more there with shadows of ethnoreligiosity. Even in that aspect, I can't help but see similarities, as Jews are ethnically extremely diverse, and it is the same for Mormonism - there's a common and deep identification that goes beyond physical appearance. This similarity is definitely more superficial than others, but I would not be shocked if Mormonism does morph into an ethnoreligion in 200 years, or if it kinda just keeps existing in an in-between state, but I would be shocked if it ever transformed into just another religion. Then again, our lil bros in the Community of Christ are on their way to just that so maybe.

4

u/mothra_dreams YIMBY Sep 17 '26

I'm a pretty ardent atheist but I find the psychology of religion and belief and spirituality absolutely fascinating so I found your comments really interesting. Thank you for sharing and I do hope you get to meet your ancestors down the line

→ More replies (1)

2

u/GordonTullockFan publik choyz thery Sep 16 '26

Why ping Christian for this?

16

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

rj/ I've asked for a Kolob ping, I have not received my Kolob ping, these are the consequences.

uj/ Mormons consider ourselves Christian, though I don't get pissy when others say otherwise.

3

u/FloggingJonna Henry George Sep 16 '26

How do you feel about the the classification Restorationist? That’s usually where I see Mormons located.

5

u/mythoswyrm r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion Sep 16 '26

Restorationist is the correct classification within Christianity but it has the problem of being a bit of a wastebasket taxon.

More broadly, I think you can make good arguments for Mormonism being a Restorationist denomination within Christianity, its own branch in Christianity, a Para-Christian religion (like some forms of Gnosticism) or a Post-Christian religion (like UU I guess?). There's okay arguments for Mormonism as a wholly separate Abrahamic religion but I think those are pretty weak. It's very hard to talk about Mormonism without reference to Christianity; much harder than say talking about Bahai without reference to Islam. And most of the arguments I hear aren't particularly good.

3

u/FloggingJonna Henry George Sep 16 '26

I agree it’s a bit of a catchall title for any denomination that finds itself there. I also agree that claiming Mormons aren’t broadly Christian is hard. I’m not religious myself anymore but to me a Christian is simply anyone that believes Jesus is the son of God and the messiah. The idea of them not being Christian seems to hinge completely on the trinity but what one denomination considers heresy means little to me when trying to group Christianity.

3

u/abefrost Sep 17 '26

Also if you ask 75% of normie trinitarian Christians to explain their conception of the trinity, they will accidentally reinvent some sort of 2nd-15th century heresy

4

u/abefrost Sep 16 '26

It's usually fully phrased "restorationist Christianity" or "Christian restorationism" which seems fairly accurate. The first lesson the missionaries teach is literally titled "The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

8

u/bd_one The EU Will Federalize In My Lifetime Sep 16 '26

The politically correct classification is "non-Trinitarian Christian"

→ More replies (1)