White Male Supremacy is alive and well at General Conference

[Physics Guy]

This is another one of those threads, which seem to keep coming up, that make me wonder how amenable Mormonism really is to any kind of significant change. Such a large proportion of what is distinctive in Mormonism seems to be specifically about the Mormon church itself, and in particular about how it is directly guided by God. I think it may be harder to water down, downplay, or dilute a belief of that particular kind than it is to move away from other kinds of beliefs.

It seems as though it would be like Mensa deciding that IQ tests aren’t meaningful after all, so they were never really all that smart, and from now on they’re going to be a cooking club.

[Imwashingmypirate]

... how it is directly guided by God. I think it may be harder to water down, downplay, or dilute a belief of that particular kind than it is to move away from other kinds of beliefs.

It seems as though it would be like Mensa deciding that IQ tests aren’t meaningful after all, so they were never really all that smart, and from now on they’re going to be a cooking club.

I agree. They'd have to adjust the entire belief system to make big changes.

[I Have Questions]

... how it is directly guided by God. I think it may be harder to water down, downplay, or dilute a belief of that particular kind than it is to move away from other kinds of beliefs.

It seems as though it would be like Mensa deciding that IQ tests aren’t meaningful after all, so they were never really all that smart, and from now on they’re going to be a cooking club.

I agree. They'd have to adjust the entire belief system to make big changes.

It would be easier in the more gender equal societies of Europe, for instance.

[Physics Guy]

Are European societies more gender-equal? I only really know my little world, in which there are female professors and department chairs, on the one hand, but on the other hand they are a distinct minority. I suppose it might be more nearly uniform in Europe to believe in the principle that men and women should be equally eligible for leadership, whatever happens in practice.

The reason why I think Mormon reformation may be especially difficult isn't about Mormon culture, actually, but just about the fact that beliefs about the Mormon church make up such a large component of the distinctive beliefs of the Mormon church.

Some sets of beliefs and principles leave you a lot of wiggle room to redefine your group. I think the main mechanism for flexibility is to have a mixture of abstraction and concreteness. You can then get away with changing concrete details by insisting that you are maintaining the fundamental abstraction, like a Lutheran deciding that papal authority was only a failed attempt at implementing the Scriptural requirement for order and decency in the church. Or on the other hand you can revise your abstract concepts, which are inherently vague, while keeping concrete things the same, like rejecting Transubstantiation while keeping the same bread and wine.

The flexibility that lets a system survive change probably makes it bad for maintaining control, though. All the possible new forms into which your system could evolve next are present, now, as potential alternatives. The more plausibly legitimate they will be, if your system ends up going that way, the more dangerous they are now as rivals to the main party line. So it's not an accident that authoritarian organisations adopt rigid belief systems. Rigidity is what authority needs.

The authority of the LDS church structure seems to be a huge part of what the LDS church is all about. The prophethoods of Joseph Smith and his successors are not just unimportant details in how we got the earth-shattering revelation of the Book of Mormon. It's the other way round. The only really important thing about the Book of Mormon is that it makes Joseph Smith and his successors into prophets.

The content of the distinctive Mormon revelation seems to be all about Mormon priesthood and ordinances. The LDS church doesn't seem to be much of a vehicle for anything else. The message is that we have a message. We're the church of being the church.

The only distinctive abstract principle of Mormonism seems to be that the concrete facts of the Mormon church structure are super important. This isn't really having distinct abstract and concrete layers; it's a degenerate, one-layer structure that only refers to itself. This seems to eliminate the balance between abstract and concrete that lets a belief system stand on one leg while swinging the other. Mormonism seems so self-referentially monopedal, I'm not sure how it can move.

[Philo Sofee]

Are European societies more gender-equal? I only really know my little world, in which there are female professors and department chairs, on the one hand, but on the other hand they are a distinct minority. I suppose it might be more nearly uniform in Europe to believe in the principle that men and women should be equally eligible for leadership, whatever happens in practice.

The reason why I think Mormon reformation may be especially difficult isn't about Mormon culture, actually, but just about the fact that beliefs about the Mormon church make up such a large component of the distinctive beliefs of the Mormon church.

Some sets of beliefs and principles leave you a lot of wiggle room to redefine your group. I think the main mechanism for flexibility is to have a mixture of abstraction and concreteness. You can then get away with changing concrete details by insisting that you are maintaining the fundamental abstraction, like a Lutheran deciding that papal authority was only a failed attempt at implementing the Scriptural requirement for order and decency in the church. Or on the other hand you can revise your abstract concepts, which are inherently vague, while keeping concrete things the same, like rejecting Transubstantiation while keeping the same bread and wine.

The flexibility that lets a system survive change probably makes it bad for maintaining control, though. All the possible new forms into which your system could evolve next are present, now, as potential alternatives. The more plausibly legitimate they will be, if your system ends up going that way, the more dangerous they are now as rivals to the main party line. So it's not an accident that authoritarian organisations adopt rigid belief systems. Rigidity is what authority needs.

The authority of the LDS church structure seems to be a huge part of what the LDS church is all about. The prophethoods of Joseph Smith and his successors are not just unimportant details in how we got the earth-shattering revelation of the Book of Mormon. It's the other way round. The only really important thing about the Book of Mormon is that it makes Joseph Smith and his successors into prophets.

The content of the distinctive Mormon revelation seems to be all about Mormon priesthood and ordinances. The LDS church doesn't seem to be much of a vehicle for anything else. The message is that we have a message. We're the church of being the church.

The only distinctive abstract principle of Mormonism seems to be that the concrete facts of the Mormon church structure are super important. This isn't really having distinct abstract and concrete layers; it's a degenerate, one-layer structure that only refers to itself. This seems to eliminate the balance between abstract and concrete that lets a belief system stand on one leg while swinging the other. Mormonism seems so self-referentially monopedal, I'm not sure how it can move.

This is actually seriously insightful PG! I would add that their emphasis on belief in belief is also paramount. Because so few actually believe what they teach, even themselves, but the principle of belief? Oh why yes, believe in that! Or again, to have faith in faith and not doubt. No one has faith, but the principle is critical for salvation so have faith that faith and belief are important.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Are European societies more gender-equal? I only really know my little world, in which there are female professors and department chairs, on the one hand, but on the other hand they are a distinct minority. I suppose it might be more nearly uniform in Europe to believe in the principle that men and women should be equally eligible for leadership, whatever happens in practice.

The reason why I think Mormon reformation may be especially difficult isn't about Mormon culture, actually, but just about the fact that beliefs about the Mormon church make up such a large component of the distinctive beliefs of the Mormon church.

Some sets of beliefs and principles leave you a lot of wiggle room to redefine your group. I think the main mechanism for flexibility is to have a mixture of abstraction and concreteness. You can then get away with changing concrete details by insisting that you are maintaining the fundamental abstraction, like a Lutheran deciding that papal authority was only a failed attempt at implementing the Scriptural requirement for order and decency in the church. Or on the other hand you can revise your abstract concepts, which are inherently vague, while keeping concrete things the same, like rejecting Transubstantiation while keeping the same bread and wine.

The flexibility that lets a system survive change probably makes it bad for maintaining control, though. All the possible new forms into which your system could evolve next are present, now, as potential alternatives. The more plausibly legitimate they will be, if your system ends up going that way, the more dangerous they are now as rivals to the main party line. So it's not an accident that authoritarian organisations adopt rigid belief systems. Rigidity is what authority needs.

The authority of the LDS church structure seems to be a huge part of what the LDS church is all about. The prophethoods of Joseph Smith and his successors are not just unimportant details in how we got the earth-shattering revelation of the Book of Mormon. It's the other way round. The only really important thing about the Book of Mormon is that it makes Joseph Smith and his successors into prophets.

The content of the distinctive Mormon revelation seems to be all about Mormon priesthood and ordinances. The LDS church doesn't seem to be much of a vehicle for anything else. The message is that we have a message. We're the church of being the church.

The only distinctive abstract principle of Mormonism seems to be that the concrete facts of the Mormon church structure are super important. This isn't really having distinct abstract and concrete layers; it's a degenerate, one-layer structure that only refers to itself. This seems to eliminate the balance between abstract and concrete that lets a belief system stand on one leg while swinging the other. Mormonism seems so self-referentially monopedal, I'm not sure how it can move.

Hehe. I've had too much wine to process this. Lol

[Physics Guy]

Hey, I've been there. I'll be happy to hear any comments you have.

I should say that my calling LDS beliefs a "degenerate" structure was an awkward bit of physics jargon. I didn't mean that they were just somehow bad or immoral. "Degenerate" is a technical term in physics for a situation in which two things that are usually distinct have become indistinguishable. It's a literal interpretation of the Latin root of the word: things have lost their distinctive character. So what I meant is that whereas in general you can distinguish abstract principles from concrete practices, a fair number of Mormon abstract principles and concrete practices seem to be one and the same, in that the only abstract principle is just the principle that these concrete practices are important. Two levels have merged, and that's all I meant by "degenerate".

[Res Ipsa]

Hey, I've been there. I'll be happy to hear any comments you have.

I should say that my calling LDS beliefs a "degenerate" structure was an awkward bit of physics jargon. I didn't mean that they were just somehow bad or immoral. "Degenerate" is a technical term in physics for a situation in which two things that are usually distinct have become indistinguishable. It's a literal interpretation of the Latin root of the word: things have lost their distinctive character. So what I meant is that whereas in general you can distinguish abstract principles from concrete practices, a fair number of Mormon abstract principles and concrete practices seem to be one and the same, in that the only abstract principle is just the principle that these concrete practices are important. Two levels have merged, and that's all I meant by "degenerate".

Thanks for the clarification. I was puzzled by your use of the word. Now I get it. Thanks also for your analysis. I think you have some interesting and useful insights.

[High Spy]

Hey, I've been there. I'll be happy to hear any comments you have.

I should say that my calling LDS beliefs a "degenerate" structure was an awkward bit of physics jargon. I didn't mean that they were just somehow bad or immoral. "Degenerate" is a technical term in physics for a situation in which two things that are usually distinct have become indistinguishable. It's a literal interpretation of the Latin root of the word: things have lost their distinctive character. So what I meant is that whereas in general you can distinguish abstract principles from concrete practices, a fair number of Mormon abstract principles and concrete practices seem to be one and the same, in that the only abstract principle is just the principle that these concrete practices are important. Two levels have merged, and that's all I meant by "degenerate".

Thanks for the clarification. I was puzzled by your use of the word. Now I get it. Thanks also for your analysis. I think you have some interesting and useful insights.

Maybe that works for people whose cousins are also their genetic half-siblings.

[slskipper]

They are all white because they are all related. There are a few outliers, but as we all know, all of the Select Spirits seem to come from the same three families.