I had the same thought. I eagerly read through the comments on the tweet, hoping to see a pithy rejoinder from a Zinn bot or alias (it couldn't be Zinn himself, since he passed in 2010).
I wonder if this applies mostly to people in academia or other similar institutions? The lefty people I know out in the real world seem blissfully blind to cancel culture and the excesses of the left. When I bring up extreme things that are pretty mainstream among elected Democrats they look at me like I'm crazy. I think they put climate and gender extremism and 1619 project stuff in the same category as crazy right wing theories about pizza shop pedo rings. But then who knows, maybe I'm the one in the bubble.
The lefties I know (middle class folks) support the kooky gender stuff and are against free speech. But they are Ivy League grads, so may not be typical.
Well, my experience of Facebook is pretty vicious on the political end, so I'm surprised that they don't have a lot of experience with the extremes. But maybe it's changed since I mostly left in 2016.
A hypothesis: Right wing craziness has captured a fraction of the grass roots, while left wing extremism has mostly captured institutions. Left wing extremism may be very powerful while seldom being parroted by average Joe liberals who are living mostly normal lives and aren't forcibly exposed to it. There is no real equivalent to right wing talk radio, and even if there was, gender ideology and other craziness isn't really intuitively appealing to anyone in the extreme form (I don't think?).
No, I think MSM downplays the (left) extremist views on things like race, gender and climate even though they are pervasive in some institutions and have captured the Democrat party.
> some of the most boring milquetoast technocratic leftist scholars have grimly foretold that somehow, someday, a mob of their own ideological persuasion will come for them.
Foretold? What foretold?! Those mobs are the history of Leftist dictatorships,eg, Soviet /Union, China, Cambodia, as the more consistent Leftists condemn the less consistent Leftists for ideological impurity. And consider the more consistent NYT Leftists harrassing the less consistent NYT Leftist, Bari Weiss, until she quit.
Timothy Leary advised leftists to drop out of groups that tried to control them. In those days, many leftists were genuine non- conformists that had actual debates. Now, things are the other way... it is “normies” that have actual debates and the “woke” that demand conformity. I saw the end of this transformation in San Francisco and Oakland and it was ugly and painful.
“In those days”: The 60s New Left quickly degenerated into various violent Marxist cults. Of course, they were a minority but they were more prominent. Obama had an association with one of these kooks.
The mormon church is very cult-like though, just descriptively.
- worship living people who have direct access to god
- access to the full doctrine is reserved for religious elites
- sacred text continues to be written and has updates
- if you leave the church you will be cut off from friends & family who remain
maybe I have this wrong, but seems like it checks a lot of the boxes. I agree is is the best cult (that I know of), and I have a positive impression of the Mormon church generally, but to say it’s *not* a cult seems like it needs a defense.
I guess I need a definition to respond to. You seem to have an implicit one that you're comparing your description of the church to, which is fine. On the specifics, I would object to your 1st point (no one worships church leaders, though objectively they are treated with a lot of deference) your 2nd point (maybe you're saying you can't enter the temple unless approved by a leader? But all that content is immediately available on request, or just on the internet, lol) and your 4th point (I have a bunch of friends and immediate family members who have left who I have decidedly not cut off (hi, if you're reading this!))
I’ll try to dig up the definition I’m using. Some sociologist put together a list of ten or so criteria that was like all religions have at least one, but if you have all ten then you’re a cult. The list was pretty solid imho and that has been my working definition of thinking about the religion / cult divide.
I wonder why your experience of remaining in communication with ex-mormon members seems to diverge from others’ experiences that you read about online (and personally heard first hand from an ex-mormon who claims to have been completely cut off from all contact with current members until she can beg for forgiveness and rejoin the church).
Also, isn’t it your belief that Russell M. Nelson is in actual communication with god? In the kind of direct communication that we are having, I mean. Not “god spoke to me” as a feeling or an abstract idea, but I mean in a very direct way such that he can literally write down the words that god spoke verbatim. If that isn’t the case then maybe I have a bunch of stuff wrong and I should stop saying this stuff :).
That seems like a good framework, I'd like to see it!
I obviously can't speak for others, but my experience has almost been the opposite - more of a "if we keep the relationship alive, maybe they'll come back!" That's certainly not the secular ideal of "they should accept my choices no matter what" but from a practical sense, it doesn't lead to shunning.
I specifically didn't contest what you said about direct access to God. The assertion is that Russell Nelson acts in a similar capacity to Moses or Peter, and that the experiences they're reported to have in the Bible (voices from heaven, prophetic dreams, burning bushes, lol) should be possible today. So, it takes what most Abrahamic religions believe in and simply brings it into the present day. That's admittedly really hard to believe in, but it's actually more internally consistent (IMO) than believing there's something different about the modern era that disqualifies stuff that used to happen. Ofc, most rational-focused folks reject that kind of thing in both time periods.
Do you delineate between worshiping the leader as a deity and believing him to have direct access to god?
I may need to think about this more but it seems to get real fuzzy if someone can talk to god, get advice and whatnot, but not *be* a god in some sense. In a practical sense is “God” and “Plenipotentiary of God” distinct?
The thing on those leaving the church is interesting. I will update my beliefs to (at a minimum) incorporate a much greater sense of the diversity of belief among Mormons.
Yeah, the Mormon conception of God is actually a really interesting topic, and it's the main reason for antipathy towards Mormons from other devout Christians in the American context. Our rejection of the Trinity, the assertion that humans can progress into Godhood after this life, our belief in a Heavenly Mother, all these wackier beliefs about divinity have been cause for American evangelicals in particular to try and carve us out as a non-Christian cult. It's ironic (to me, at least) that a lot of the anti-Mormon rhetoric that now gets used by your run-of-the-mill Reddit atheist actually originated with evangelicals.
But that's not your actual question, which is about how we feel about the prophet. Your philosophical point is interesting, but not how any active, believing Mormon would conceive of the prophet. We're big on fallibility. At least on paper, we think the prophet is more fallible than Catholics think the pope is. You know, take the story of Jonah from the Bible. God talked to him, he behaved badly, ran away, etc. But when he got to Ninevah, he was still acting in the role of a prophet when he preached there. And they believed, repented, good outcomes from God's perspective. Then afterwards, he behaves badly again, is sad with the outcome. That kind of "God works through this person, but they're still just a flawed person" paradigm totally jives with the Mormon attitude towards leaders.
The polls aren't the most informative since they measure perception, not behaviors or outcomes. Even so I agree with the advice. A good poll could also be to ask how many stay within their affiliated group(s) out of loneliness, fear or laziness in finding another group rather than the strength of their beliefs.
I'm doubtful it's worth it to upend your social life to be able to freely express your views with your friends. If you hold some views that are outside the Overton Window in your milieu, what's the alternative to just accepting you have to wear a mask? Make new friends? Sure, if you're content with your entire social life being on the internet. This is a bit (not totally, but a bit) like telling an atheist in medieval Europe to disassociate from the intolerant Catholic cult and go befriend open-minded people, as if such people could readily be found in such a setting.
I don't think the way you phrased the poll question taps into personal anecdotes. When you ask people about people they often don't answer from their experiences, but from their sense of it often based on their media feed.
I think for reference they honestly could consider the rift among libertarians. The Cato-Mises feud comes to mind, then there are folks like Dr. Caplan who have done mostly their own thing (while he disagrees with the Mises folks, he is always civil and you do see his name in the QJAE). This always confused me, as I think the Austrians have something interesting to say with business cycle theory and economic socialism; but I feel like the praxeological method is overextended and when we have nothing else econometrics is > anecdotes, news articles, ect (this is glaringly obvious on their strange turn in favor of immigration). Being middle of the road on this I cannot for the life of me understand the religious reaction I get sometimes for not picking a side.
“Why consort with ‘friends’ who use anger to keep me living in fear?” The answer is obvious: making them think I am their friend will make them (somewhat) more reluctant to attack me when I commit the inevitable misstep. If, instead, I acted stand-offish around them, they would see that I am not one of them—they would see me as an enemy, to be attacked as soon as possible. (Of course, my pacifistic “strategic surrender,” like other instances of pacifism, might not work.)
Edit needed: “Nor do you don’t need a precise answer to the question, “Why aren’t kooky right-wing people scared of each other?” to know that fear of one’s political “allies” is not universal.”
I think the Howard Zinn link is incorrect. It just leads to the tweet about making friends.
I had the same thought. I eagerly read through the comments on the tweet, hoping to see a pithy rejoinder from a Zinn bot or alias (it couldn't be Zinn himself, since he passed in 2010).
Probably what Bryan meant to refer to was this: https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/you-cant-be-neutral-autobiography/
I wonder if this applies mostly to people in academia or other similar institutions? The lefty people I know out in the real world seem blissfully blind to cancel culture and the excesses of the left. When I bring up extreme things that are pretty mainstream among elected Democrats they look at me like I'm crazy. I think they put climate and gender extremism and 1619 project stuff in the same category as crazy right wing theories about pizza shop pedo rings. But then who knows, maybe I'm the one in the bubble.
The lefties I know (middle class folks) support the kooky gender stuff and are against free speech. But they are Ivy League grads, so may not be typical.
How online are your lefty friends?
I think mostly MSM plus perhaps Facebook. The latter consisting of old friends, some of whom are Trumpers or right wing talk radio types.
Well, my experience of Facebook is pretty vicious on the political end, so I'm surprised that they don't have a lot of experience with the extremes. But maybe it's changed since I mostly left in 2016.
A hypothesis: Right wing craziness has captured a fraction of the grass roots, while left wing extremism has mostly captured institutions. Left wing extremism may be very powerful while seldom being parroted by average Joe liberals who are living mostly normal lives and aren't forcibly exposed to it. There is no real equivalent to right wing talk radio, and even if there was, gender ideology and other craziness isn't really intuitively appealing to anyone in the extreme form (I don't think?).
You think right wing talk radio has more penetration into "normie" life than tv news?
No, I think MSM downplays the (left) extremist views on things like race, gender and climate even though they are pervasive in some institutions and have captured the Democrat party.
What is right-wing craziness? What does that entail?
> some of the most boring milquetoast technocratic leftist scholars have grimly foretold that somehow, someday, a mob of their own ideological persuasion will come for them.
Foretold? What foretold?! Those mobs are the history of Leftist dictatorships,eg, Soviet /Union, China, Cambodia, as the more consistent Leftists condemn the less consistent Leftists for ideological impurity. And consider the more consistent NYT Leftists harrassing the less consistent NYT Leftist, Bari Weiss, until she quit.
Timothy Leary advised leftists to drop out of groups that tried to control them. In those days, many leftists were genuine non- conformists that had actual debates. Now, things are the other way... it is “normies” that have actual debates and the “woke” that demand conformity. I saw the end of this transformation in San Francisco and Oakland and it was ugly and painful.
“In those days”: The 60s New Left quickly degenerated into various violent Marxist cults. Of course, they were a minority but they were more prominent. Obama had an association with one of these kooks.
Seen this one?
https://compactmag.com/article/a-black-professor-trapped-in-anti-racist-hell
From a professional academic leftist. Scary.
Ironically, that black professor is also insufferably woke himself--he just experienced a more virulent woke personality.
Being slave to ideology might bring you to sacrifice even your best friends...as history taught us many times
Don't love the insinuation that choosing to be/remain a Mormon means you're in a cult.
The mormon church is very cult-like though, just descriptively.
- worship living people who have direct access to god
- access to the full doctrine is reserved for religious elites
- sacred text continues to be written and has updates
- if you leave the church you will be cut off from friends & family who remain
maybe I have this wrong, but seems like it checks a lot of the boxes. I agree is is the best cult (that I know of), and I have a positive impression of the Mormon church generally, but to say it’s *not* a cult seems like it needs a defense.
Not a Mormon here, but a friend is. From experience, your last point is not true. Ostracism doesn’t seem to be a common thing for them.
Mormonism feels like the midpoint between a mainstream religion and a cult.
I guess I need a definition to respond to. You seem to have an implicit one that you're comparing your description of the church to, which is fine. On the specifics, I would object to your 1st point (no one worships church leaders, though objectively they are treated with a lot of deference) your 2nd point (maybe you're saying you can't enter the temple unless approved by a leader? But all that content is immediately available on request, or just on the internet, lol) and your 4th point (I have a bunch of friends and immediate family members who have left who I have decidedly not cut off (hi, if you're reading this!))
I’ll try to dig up the definition I’m using. Some sociologist put together a list of ten or so criteria that was like all religions have at least one, but if you have all ten then you’re a cult. The list was pretty solid imho and that has been my working definition of thinking about the religion / cult divide.
I wonder why your experience of remaining in communication with ex-mormon members seems to diverge from others’ experiences that you read about online (and personally heard first hand from an ex-mormon who claims to have been completely cut off from all contact with current members until she can beg for forgiveness and rejoin the church).
Also, isn’t it your belief that Russell M. Nelson is in actual communication with god? In the kind of direct communication that we are having, I mean. Not “god spoke to me” as a feeling or an abstract idea, but I mean in a very direct way such that he can literally write down the words that god spoke verbatim. If that isn’t the case then maybe I have a bunch of stuff wrong and I should stop saying this stuff :).
That seems like a good framework, I'd like to see it!
I obviously can't speak for others, but my experience has almost been the opposite - more of a "if we keep the relationship alive, maybe they'll come back!" That's certainly not the secular ideal of "they should accept my choices no matter what" but from a practical sense, it doesn't lead to shunning.
I specifically didn't contest what you said about direct access to God. The assertion is that Russell Nelson acts in a similar capacity to Moses or Peter, and that the experiences they're reported to have in the Bible (voices from heaven, prophetic dreams, burning bushes, lol) should be possible today. So, it takes what most Abrahamic religions believe in and simply brings it into the present day. That's admittedly really hard to believe in, but it's actually more internally consistent (IMO) than believing there's something different about the modern era that disqualifies stuff that used to happen. Ofc, most rational-focused folks reject that kind of thing in both time periods.
Do you delineate between worshiping the leader as a deity and believing him to have direct access to god?
I may need to think about this more but it seems to get real fuzzy if someone can talk to god, get advice and whatnot, but not *be* a god in some sense. In a practical sense is “God” and “Plenipotentiary of God” distinct?
The thing on those leaving the church is interesting. I will update my beliefs to (at a minimum) incorporate a much greater sense of the diversity of belief among Mormons.
Yeah, the Mormon conception of God is actually a really interesting topic, and it's the main reason for antipathy towards Mormons from other devout Christians in the American context. Our rejection of the Trinity, the assertion that humans can progress into Godhood after this life, our belief in a Heavenly Mother, all these wackier beliefs about divinity have been cause for American evangelicals in particular to try and carve us out as a non-Christian cult. It's ironic (to me, at least) that a lot of the anti-Mormon rhetoric that now gets used by your run-of-the-mill Reddit atheist actually originated with evangelicals.
But that's not your actual question, which is about how we feel about the prophet. Your philosophical point is interesting, but not how any active, believing Mormon would conceive of the prophet. We're big on fallibility. At least on paper, we think the prophet is more fallible than Catholics think the pope is. You know, take the story of Jonah from the Bible. God talked to him, he behaved badly, ran away, etc. But when he got to Ninevah, he was still acting in the role of a prophet when he preached there. And they believed, repented, good outcomes from God's perspective. Then afterwards, he behaves badly again, is sad with the outcome. That kind of "God works through this person, but they're still just a flawed person" paradigm totally jives with the Mormon attitude towards leaders.
Times have changed. That statement was extremely mainstream in the 90s.
The polls aren't the most informative since they measure perception, not behaviors or outcomes. Even so I agree with the advice. A good poll could also be to ask how many stay within their affiliated group(s) out of loneliness, fear or laziness in finding another group rather than the strength of their beliefs.
I'm doubtful it's worth it to upend your social life to be able to freely express your views with your friends. If you hold some views that are outside the Overton Window in your milieu, what's the alternative to just accepting you have to wear a mask? Make new friends? Sure, if you're content with your entire social life being on the internet. This is a bit (not totally, but a bit) like telling an atheist in medieval Europe to disassociate from the intolerant Catholic cult and go befriend open-minded people, as if such people could readily be found in such a setting.
Good post.
I don't think the way you phrased the poll question taps into personal anecdotes. When you ask people about people they often don't answer from their experiences, but from their sense of it often based on their media feed.
This might be my favorite post of yours yet, Bryan.
My take on veganism and climate catastrophism (as laid out in https://www.losingmyreligions.net/ ) has brought down the wrath of both groups.
It is hard to differ from your friends.
Unfortunately, I think the word "cult" in the first line makes this text very unlikely to appeal to anyone it claims to try to reach.
No one thinks of themselves as a "cult" member, and it's more a slur than a factual term.
I think for reference they honestly could consider the rift among libertarians. The Cato-Mises feud comes to mind, then there are folks like Dr. Caplan who have done mostly their own thing (while he disagrees with the Mises folks, he is always civil and you do see his name in the QJAE). This always confused me, as I think the Austrians have something interesting to say with business cycle theory and economic socialism; but I feel like the praxeological method is overextended and when we have nothing else econometrics is > anecdotes, news articles, ect (this is glaringly obvious on their strange turn in favor of immigration). Being middle of the road on this I cannot for the life of me understand the religious reaction I get sometimes for not picking a side.
“Why consort with ‘friends’ who use anger to keep me living in fear?” The answer is obvious: making them think I am their friend will make them (somewhat) more reluctant to attack me when I commit the inevitable misstep. If, instead, I acted stand-offish around them, they would see that I am not one of them—they would see me as an enemy, to be attacked as soon as possible. (Of course, my pacifistic “strategic surrender,” like other instances of pacifism, might not work.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
Beware.
Edit needed: “Nor do you don’t need a precise answer to the question, “Why aren’t kooky right-wing people scared of each other?” to know that fear of one’s political “allies” is not universal.”