Distilling Criticisms

[oliver_denom]

If we were to distill the criticisms we have of the church, then I think the list would look something like this:

1) It's neither democratic nor representative
2) Individuals have no rights within the system
3) Establishes an orthodoxy based on the literal historicity of its myths
4) Is secretive, not transparent, and obscures through propoganda
5) Enforces its power through shunning, shaming, guilt, coercion, cult of personality, and deception when deemed necessary
6) Provides no legitimate means for expressing dissent or disagreement

These are, I believe, the top six complaints against the organization without getting into very specific or individual cases. Is there a case that these don't cover?

[Emower]

If we were to distill the criticisms we have of the church, then I think the list would look something like this:

1) It's neither democratic nor representative
2) Individuals have no rights within the system
3) Establishes an orthodoxy based on the literal historicity of its myths
4) Is secretive, not transparent, and obscures through propoganda
5) Enforces its power through shunning, shaming, guilt, coercion, cult of personality, and deception when deemed necessary
6) Provides no legitimate means for expressing dissent or disagreement

These are, I believe, the top six complaints against the organization without getting into very specific or individual cases. Is there a case that these don't cover?

Distilling the answers:

1) Gods system never was or never was meant to be democratic
2) We have agency, which translates to rights
3) You shouldnt have a problem with the orthodoxy if you have sufficient faith
4) Sacred not secret, God doesnt need to be transparent -- He is God and you shouldnt be telling him what he needs to do---, and we dont use propaganda. We use faith promoting materials.
5) Gross mischaracterization, you heathen. Quit looking at porn and listening to NPR.
6) You shouldnt have disagreements, you heathen. Quit looking at porn and listening to NPR.

[wtfluff]

The organization and it's leaders are inherently dishonest.

Is that covered under number 4?

[oliver_denom]

The organization and it's leaders are inherently dishonest.

Is that covered under number 4?

Yes, and I think other issues like misogyny and bigotry are the results of 1,2, and 6.

[oliver_denom]

5) Gross mischaracterization, you heathen. Quit looking at porn and listening to NPR.
6) You shouldnt have disagreements, you heathen. Quit looking at porn and listening to NPR.

I had no idea NPR was causing these sorts of problems in my life. I blame you Ira Glass! No I won't participate in your pledge drive, nor give into the temptation of your promised tote bags. I need to pay my tithing.

[slavereeno]

I don't like having to wear polygamy panties, but I guess that falls under number 5
I don't like paying as much tithing as I do, but that falls under number 5 also, since nobody audits my financials
I don't like the way it pits its members against the rest of humanity creating an enmity through doctrine with people of other beliefs.

[oliver_denom]

I don't like the way it pits its members against the rest of humanity creating an enmity through doctrine with people of other beliefs.

We could add another one there:

7) Maintains a tribal identity and worldview by dividing humanity into three groups: members, enemies, and potential converts.

[LaMachina]

Much like Emower mentions (while certainly some tongue in cheek I find they do hit the mark) I can see the argument against your criticisms by a believer.

This can probably be folded in somewhere that you've already mentioned but I don't see it clearly stated. For me it gets distilled to:

The organization claims to nuture but clearly causes harm. That's abusive.

I've had people argue that the harm is "for our own good" or a result of "culture" but it is the one argument I've used that gets the least amount of push back.

[alas]

I think that the social issues such as homophobic and misogynist are much more significant and not the result of the others. So, I would put as

#1. Run by 15 old white cisgender men, which results in being 25-50 years behind the rest of the world in recognizing the full humanity of women, racial minorities and those who are other than cisgender. So, it is in favor of strict sexual regulation, strict gender roles, and racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry that we thought were overcome 50 years ago.

The abuse that LaMachina mentions falls under the very strict sexual regulations.

I think men who tend to leave the church for those reasons listed in the OP, see those reasons as most important and homophobia and sexism are contained in them. But women who tend to leave the church over social issues see those social issues as much more important than history, honesty, and bla bla bla. My two daughters would have stayed in the church if not for those social issues. My oldest saw them and left during high school, when the way the YM were treated was glaringly different than the way the YW were treated. My second daughter did not really leave over homophobia, because she left in college and found a religion that was not sexist, then she realized she was not attracted to men but was attracted to women. My oldest decided she did not want her children raised in a sexist environment, so married a nonmember and never had her children blessed. My second being lesbian has no children. My son is the only one to stay active. So, in my family four out of six females are out over sexism, and the two being raised in the church are just hitting the age where they begin to see the sexism. None of the males have left, but one was never a member of record. My two daughters are not even aware of the history problems or really anything on your list. They are out over the 15 old white cisgender men running the church 50 years behind the rest of the world.

So, put that as your number one and see if any of the others fall under it.

[1smartdodog]

I think the fact it is not remotely what it claims and is based on fiction sums it all up.

[Jeffret]

Whenever someone tries to distill something as complex down to such a limited set of factors it will of necessity be a flawed and biased collection. The author will distill out the aspects that they find the most important and will diminish other points, which others might find more essential. All taxonomies suffer from this problem. Ultimately it comes down to whether they are useful rather than whether they are correct. A widely known quote, often attributed to Miles Kington, explains, "“Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that a tomato doesn’t belong in a fruit salad.” The issue here is having two different taxonomies, one the Linnaean-based taxonomy used by botanists and the other based upon how we prepare and serve food. There is also a legal-based taxonomy in which a tomato is a vegetable (at least in the U.S.A.).

Or to look at it from a mathematical perspective, what you're trying to do is to create the projection of an n-dimensional object into an m-dimensional space, where m < n (actually much less). It's true that if you spin it around, you can kind of say that aspects of the n-dimensional source are covered by the m-dimensional simplification as long as those aspects that aren't covered aren't important. Figuring out which ones are important, though, is based upon biases, particularly in something as fuzzy as human society and religion.

It's also fundamentally an instance of the elephant problem, not the one in the room but the one with the blind men. No one of us understands fully everything about the Church. The Church doesn't mean quite the same thing to all of us, because we each have different interactions with it, depending upon our family, place, sex, and many other things. For some, the biggest criticism might be that it is long, strong, and moving. For others, it might be that it is immovable. For some it might be that it is hard, smooth, and pointed. For others, that it is wrinkled and rough.

When I first saw this collection, my first thought was, "Hmmm... this seems like a typically male-oriented (biased) viewpoint. I'll have to examine it carefully." I'm definitely male and recognize I have a number of male-oriented biases but I also recognize that my criticisms of the Church align more strongly with what I've observed to be more commonly female perspectives. In re-reading it more carefully, I find the distillation is indeed based upon more typically male experiences and ideas. Item #3, "Establishes an orthodoxy based on the literal historicity of its myths", is more strongly male-oriented and is explicitly called out, but no corresponding typically female oriented item gets a specific call-out. It is possible to claim that a female-oriented item, such as alas expresses, is contained within the presented distillation, but that does violence to the female perspective, subsuming it entirely under the male. Of course it is really more complicated than that because there isn't a single female or male perspective, but there are some strong differences that I've long observed in the typical experience.

It's not a bad distillation, as long as we recognize its limitations. As with all such things it doesn't so much fully describe reality as it condenses down one person's experience and perspective. There may be others who agree with the presentation as well. The biggest danger resides in trying to mandate such a list as true and useful for everyone, which is indeed one of my biggest criticisms of the Church and isn't spelled out well in the list.

I think that the social issues such as homophobic and misogynist are much more significant and not the result of the others. So, I would put as

#1. Run by 15 old white cisgender men, which results in being 25-50 years behind the rest of the world in recognizing the full humanity of women, racial minorities and those who are other than cisgender. So, it is in favor of strict sexual regulation, strict gender roles, and racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry that we thought were overcome 50 years ago.
...
So, put that as your number one and see if any of the others fall under it.

alas lays out some of my criticisms, of the Church and the list, quite well.

[Just This Guy]

One edit:

If we were to distill the criticisms we have of the church, then I think the list would look something like this:

1) It's neither democratic nor representative despite being specifically setup that way in D&C 20.

Addtoionally, how do you include using doctrine to justify hate and fear based persecution of various minorities?

[Reuben]

Or to look at it from a mathematical perspective, what you're trying to do is to create the projection of an n-dimensional object into an m-dimensional space, where m < n (actually much less). It's true that if you spin it around, you can kind of say that aspects of the n-dimensional source are covered by the m-dimensional simplification as long as those aspects that aren't covered aren't important. Figuring out which ones are important, though, is based upon biases, particularly in something as fuzzy as human society and religion.

Jeffret, I... I think I love you.

[Jeffret]

Jeffret, I... I think I love you.

Well ... uh ... thank you ... but I'm already spoken for.

[moksha]

Is there a case that these don't cover?

Maybe. I don't see any of those points covering the concern that the Church is not living up to its potential to do good in the world.

[oliver_denom]

It's not a bad distillation, as long as we recognize its limitations. As with all such things it doesn't so much fully describe reality as it condenses down one person's experience and perspective. There may be others who agree with the presentation as well. The biggest danger resides in trying to mandate such a list as true and useful for everyone, which is indeed one of my biggest criticisms of the Church and isn't spelled out well in the list.

I think that the social issues such as homophobic and misogynist are much more significant and not the result of the others. So, I would put as

#1. Run by 15 old white cisgender men, which results in being 25-50 years behind the rest of the world in recognizing the full humanity of women, racial minorities and those who are other than cisgender. So, it is in favor of strict sexual regulation, strict gender roles, and racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry that we thought were overcome 50 years ago.
...
So, put that as your number one and see if any of the others fall under it.

alas lays out some of my criticisms, of the Church and the list, quite well.

That's the purpose of putting ideas like this onto a forum, asking for additions, perspectives, and feedback. I think it's a mistake to see something in writing and assume it represents a closed or complete thought. It may be the case that all taxonomy suffers from an inability to capture all experience from every point of view, but that's a limitation of thought in general. Our experience is subjective and the best we can do is put ideas out into the world and then see how others react to them.

There's nothing inherently hostile or exclusionary about that activity when we're all here as equals and there isn't an orthodoxy. We could perhaps create a taxonomy where all things become subcategories of gender and sexual orientation, but I'd have to read someone else's work on the subject. The impression I'm getting is that this line of thought is somehow inappropriate because it lacks a female perspective. It's a criticism I can't really deny because I don't have a female perspective, but I'm doing the best I can.

[Jeffret]

oliver_denom, much of my response concerned this last sentence in your original post, "Is there a case that these don't cover?" As always I was writing more to increase my own understanding than anything else, exploring that question. My conclusion so far is, "Absolutely. No matter what we might do, there will always be things that aren't covered." As you note, it's a fundamental limitation of thought. Or understanding. Or humanity. Or reality. It's well that we understand clearly the limitations of such an endeavor.

Later on, you commented, "I think other issues like misogyny and bigotry are the results of 1,2, and 6." I don't think those aspects are sufficiently covered under those points. I don't think alas does either.

Would you be willing to accept alas's suggestion, along with a few others and revise the list this way?

1) Run by 15 old white cisgender men, which results in being 25-50 years behind the rest of the world in recognizing the full humanity of women, racial minorities and those who are other than cisgender. So, it is in favor of strict sexual regulation, strict gender roles, and racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry that we thought were overcome 50 years ago.
2) Insists on a uniformity of experience, behavior, and interests for everyone, based upon the roles assigned to each individual by the institution.
3) The organization claims to nurture but clearly causes harm. That's abusive.
4) Enforces its power through shunning, shaming, guilt, coercion, cult of personality, and deception when deemed necessary
5) Erases reasonable boundaries
6) Instills poor and harmful social interactions
7) Teaches that humans are inherently sinful and broken
8) Enforces shame for non-harmful, natural human behaviors
9) Teaches people to rely on fallible leaders
10) Pretends to have an ability of discernment, to know things that they clearly do not
11) Depresses and reduces critical thinking
12) The organization and it's leaders are inherently dishonest.
13) Is secretive, not transparent, and obscures through propoganda
14) Maintains a tribal identity and worldview by dividing humanity into three groups: members, enemies, and potential converts.
15) It's neither democratic nor representative
16) Individuals have no rights within the system
17) Provides no legitimate means for expressing dissent or disagreement
18) Establishes an orthodoxy based on the literal historicity of its myths

(I intended to present fewer points, but once I got started, I realized I had more. I'm unable to single out any that I would remove.)

The impression I'm getting is that this line of thought is somehow inappropriate because it lacks a female perspective. It's a criticism I can't really deny because I don't have a female perspective, but I'm doing the best I can.

No, it's certainly not inappropriate. It is limited, though. And not universal. Even if we could manage to come up with a list we all could agree on, it would still be limited according to the perspective of those who participate on NOM, excluding the perspectives of others who wouldn't find NOM a suitable or interesting place. Neither alas nor I are saying the list is inappropriate, but that as initially expressed it is lacking important perspectives.

[Jeffret]

I apologize if my initial response used more colorful or critical phrasing than was useful.

[oliver_denom]

I apologize if my initial response used more colorful or critical phrasing than was useful.

It's fine. I'm being sensitive and moody today. It's one of those weeks where life seems to be in upheaval and I'm looking for normality. I think I read somewhere that when people feel unsure or are reminded of their mortality that they shift toward conservative and linear thought. It's an attempt to bring order to things that aren't.

[Jeffret]

It's fine. I'm being sensitive and moody today. It's one of those weeks where life seems to be in upheaval and I'm looking for normality. I think I read somewhere that when people feel unsure or are reminded of their mortality that they shift toward conservative and linear thought. It's an attempt to bring order to things that aren't.

That makes sense.