Has anyone read *Xenocide* by Orson Scott Card?

[Fifi de la Vergne]

I’m re-reading it, and all I can see/think about as I read through it this time is that the whole plot with the people of Path and their genetically programmed “god-spoken” (brilliant people whose thoughts are controlled by genetically engineered, extreme, OCD that kicks in whenever their thoughts threaten to veer off the path of obedience) – is a powerful and not-too-subtle allegory for the way Mormon doctrine and leadership controls the members. The compulsive behavior as a show of obedience definitely correlates to the scrupulosity that so many members exhibit. It's shown in the book as a negative -- and yet, everything I’ve read about OSC would indicate that he’s dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue TBM.

For those of you who’ve read this book in particular, or know anything about him personally, what do you think? It’s really got me wondering.

[Corsair]

I read and enjoyed "Xenocide". Orson Scott Card is quite a devout LDS believer. He is not necessarily an orthodox believer, but he is faithful and a bit nuanced in a few areas. He has written a few apologetic essays, but most of his writings lean towards political opinion. I do recommend his official website for a broader review of his essays and commentary.

When I last checked, Card was a registered Democrat mainly to counter some of the more pernicious Republican elements where he lives in North Carolina. But most of his political ideas are pretty conservative. He strikes me as fiscally liberal but socially conservative which must drive a lot his fans crazy across the political spectrum. Card opposes marriage equality while supporting much stronger social safety nets.

The world of Path was fascinating and I can understand why you might see parallels with LDS belief and testimony. I suspect that Card would disagree with your assessment because this kind of OCD aversion training has far broader applicability for tyrannical belief systems in general. It's not Mormons exclusively. Card probably sees it as more broadly political. He has endured some rhetorical opposition from the heavily left-leaning Science Fiction Writers Association. At the same time, most of us have family members that simply do not, or can not, or will not see our point of view. To be fair, they probably feel that way about us apostates also. I think of it like philosophical impasse that most of us reach with apologists. The same evidence that leads to many people leaving the LDS church can also lead to a more mature faith for an apologist.

The recent Greg Prince interview on Mormon Stories (episodes 658-660) is a good example of this. Greg's doctrinal and spiritual focus has led him towards much greater faith. Contrast this with one of the earliest Mormons Stories interviews with John Lynch of FairMormon (episodes 007-009). Brother Lynch expresses some concern over the portrayal of David O. McKay in Greg Prince's award winning biography. Brother Lynch is not exuberant about average members seeing the profoundly human David O. McKay since it might lead some people to have less faith. A mature way of dealing with the challenges of LDS history has not been standardized.

Every savant on "Path" had their individual OCD hang ups. Perhaps this can be paralleled with how both Greg Prince and John Lynch have approached the challenges of LDS history. But it might also be paralleled with how every apostate can have a different item be the "shelf breaker". The architects of Path absolutely and overtly wanted the savants controlled with their OCD restrictions. I cannot honestly identify that kind of malice in LDS leadership. We might disagree with the apostles, but viewing them as objectively evil or amoral as the architects of Path can blind apostates to empathy with the believers in their lives.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

The world of Path was fascinating and I can understand why you might see parallels with LDS belief and testimony. I suspect that Card would disagree with your assessment because this kind of OCD aversion training has far broader applicability for tyrannical belief systems in general. . . . The architects of Path absolutely and overtly wanted the savants controlled with their OCD restrictions. I cannot honestly identify that kind of malice in LDS leadership. We might disagree with the apostles, but viewing them as objectively evil or amoral as the architects of Path can blind apostates to empathy with the believers in their lives.

It's a great analysis, Corsair, more thoughtful than the cursory one I was giving it.

I was thinking more in terms of how obsessing over scrupulous observance of fairly trivial rules (like WoW, Sabbath day restrictions, exacting recital of ordinances) can inhibit critical thought. Not only does a pharisaical preoccupation with these things keep members from thinking critically about them, it's also the prescribed remedy for unworthiness: more praying, more meetings, more fasting, etc. etc. The compulsive behaviors of the godspoken that they needed for purification are, to my mind, the equivalent of a TBM doubling down on their religious observance to quell the scary moments of cognitive dissonance and doubt.

OSC may very well have been thinking in broader political terms -- but there was certainly a conflation of and emphasis on how the religion had been co-opted by Starways Congress to harness and control the people of Path . . . as an allegory for TCoJCoLDS's methods of control of members it couldn't be much better. And to clarify my own position: I don't think the mormon leadership is evil either; I just think they absolutely believe they know and have the right to relay the mind and will of God to the membership. In both cases it's a recipe for corruption and misuse of power.

[Corsair]

OSC may very well have been thinking in broader political terms -- but there was certainly a conflation of and emphasis on how the religion had been co-opted by Starways Congress to harness and control the people of Path . . . as an allegory for TCoJCoLDS's methods of control of members it couldn't be much better. And to clarify my own position: I don't think the mormon leadership is evil either; I just think they absolutely believe they know and have the right to relay the mind and will of God to the membership. In both cases it's a recipe for corruption and misuse of power.

They truly believe that their ideas are the best and "where will you possibly go?" is their basic philosophy. I think that any Mormon that does not come to the same conclusion will very naturally and passively be removed from the pool of leadership. Senior LDS leadership has evolved a filter of thought that will not process any particularly challenging ideas. While I am aware that there are disagreements with the Q15, the basic conservative line of thinking remains present.

I really love seeing some sincere empathy from the pastoral apologists like Tyrell Givens, Richard Bushman, Patrick Mason, and Greg Prince. They don't want to see anyone leave and don't entirely value such a decision. But the understanding is certainly present when someone is troubled by the challenging aspects of a faith crisis. However, notice that these guys are not going into senior leadership. They won't be talking in general conference and my faithful friends and family members won't usually be hearing their ideas. But they all heard Ballard incredulously asking "where will you go?" and never comprehending the existence of thousands of great answers to that question.