Thoughts on Things and Stuff

Labels against ideological foes are a form of thought terminating cliche.

There are words with negative power. "Apostate" "Heathen" "anti" in the religious realm. "Bigot" "libtard" "fascist" "Woke" in the political/secular realm to name a few - but there are countless others.

They paint their target as the enemy without the need to investigate the legitimacy of the claim. They level all nuance and understanding to the binary of good/bad.

They are a short-cut to ingroup and outgroup distinction, and so, a shortcut to dehumanization.

There is a deeper power in play, however.

The way you *define* those negative labels is also part of the control.

Groups that exert undue influence will take great efforts to create proprietary definitions according to their own internal ideology which justifies using them against people opposed to the group or movement.

When you hear a claim supporting the use of such a label, don't just accept the headline - check the source and the context to make sure that you understand fully the reasons they are justified.
If you find yourself using these terms to describe someone you see as your ideological adversary - check to make sure that you understand why the label is being used, how you got the definition, and whether or not other people might define or understand the label differently and why.

Dehumanization takes a heavy toll on your conscience and on society. Be careful with it.

We who have studied cults have some familiarity with radicalization and how it distorts the way you see outsiders and opponents.

Celebrating or justifying the death of someone who speaks against our own values and principles is a sign of our own radicalization, if we find ourselves submitting to that impulse.

It's a tough thing to face and admit when its in our own heart. We all have this vulnerability, and so we should all approach it with some humility.

In this episode of Talk on Things and Stuff, Jon Streeter and Troy Levitt dive into the complexities of grappling with the flawed origins of religious and cultural figures.

They explore the question: what happens when a hero you’ve idealized turns out to be deeply problematic? Using "Lisa the Iconoclast" from The Simpsons as a key example, they delve into how mythologies can evolve to serve communities and how the values these myths promote can persist even when their historical origins are questionable.

It’s a thoughtful conversation on religion, morality, and the nuanced ways people reconcile truth with cultural heritage.

TOTAS: Lisa The Iconoclast! or Finding the Value in the Myth of an Ideal - With Troy Leavitt. In this episode of Talk on Things and Stuff, Jon Streeter and Troy Levitt dive into the complexities of grappling with the flawed origins of religious and cu...

Coming soon....

The Real Mormon Apology on Racism

The Real Mormon Apology for Racism (Given by the Prophet) In the documentary "Nobody Knows" Pastor Cecil "Chip" Murray tells the story of receiving a private personal acknowledgement and apology on racism from Presi...

It’s been 6 years. This week I sat down with the guys at Mormonism Live and did a retrospective on the fake apology on racism, the aftermath, and some things that have happened since then.

Jonathan Streeter & The Fake Race Apology [Mormonism Live 188] We sit down with Jon Streeter to revisit his "Race Apology" in 2018. The apology had the appearance of being officially from the Church even though it wasn'...

The Power of Narrative Pt. 2

A pre-existing narrative comes packaged with a moral framework that designates heroes and villains.

Usually, there are special terms used to quickly label and categorize the villain.

If you are taking in the narrative without examining the details, such labels allow you to quickly and easily put yourself in the role of "Hero" by plastering the labels reserved for villians all over anyone who doesn't appear to be subscribing to the narrative.

Some of these are very familiar to the post-religious crowd:

- Apostate
- Heretic
- Heathen
- Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
- Intellectual

If you are dealing with narratives outside the religious realm, then the terms get more interesting.

Remember that you can use the term without actually knowing or understanding what the term actually is referring to, what the person you are labeling actually thinks or even what the underlying issues that make up the narrative are really about. Even without understanding any of that - you can still paint yourself with the colors of the "Hero" by painting others with the labels of the "villain"

Many of these terms are taken from things almost everyone agrees are "bad" but the reasons they may be seen as universally bad in their normal context no longer really apply - because the narrative has infused new meaning into the concepts underlying their badness. The social stigma remains and people using the terms may not even realize that they have been given expanded definitions to support the narrative that employs them.

For example "white supremacist" is certainly bad - but that term is no longer reserved for people looking for "pure white blood" to maintain politcal and cultural dominance. Now you can use that term to stain the name of anyone who supports things like: merit, colorblindness in public policy and standardized tests. Many of the people throwing around the term now don't realize that it's been loaded with that baggage, but that doesn't matter - they get the thrill of being a "hero" through the simple act of "calling out" the villian and it doesn't require them to think about how the labels they are using might be so far removed from their origin that they are something new altogether.

There are other terms that have been so significantly distorted:

- Bigot
- Fascist
- N**i
- Racist
- anything ending with "-phobe"

There are certainly right leaning labels that serve the same function from that side of the divide

- Marxist / neo-marxist / cultural marxist
- Communist or Socialist
- Liberal
- Groomer

I'm sure you could identify more. This is not to say that those terms don't have any use - but rather, if you are going to use them, make sure that you have examined what new definitions they may be loaded with, where those definitions came from, what narratives you may unwittingly be serving by employing them and whether or not you have listened to and considered the perspectives of the "villains" to determine that they deserve the label.

You still get to be the hero either way, but at least you can be a hero for a narrative you understand and accept, rather than just a pawn in someone else's narrative.

A shortcut to avoid all of this is to set the bar quite high for someone to earn you painting them with the stain of a villain. It makes it harder for you to signal your virtue as a hero, but at least you are less likely to have your name and reputation exploited for someone else's game.

The power of narrative...

"One of us always tells the truth - the other always lies! You may ask one question to choose the safe door to go through."

The rules are set. You know who you are and what you must do. You immediately start running through logical permutations of potential questions to ask - Should you ask one soldier what door the other would choose? or maybe you should ask one soldier if the other soldier is the one who always lies?

You can be really clever at this and find some intricate convoluted question that gives you safe passage...

But...

You might also want to step back and consider that you are operating under a narrative that was handed to you with a built in problem that served as a distraction and misdirection from what is really going on. Or maybe not. The point is - if you never question that, then your analysis is incomplete.

Who told you that one always lies and one always tells the truth? Who told you that one door is safe rather than both leading to doom - or both being safe - or that the door is the path you must take at all? If you already accept that one of these characters is unreliable, then how do you know the rules of the whole situation are reliable?

In the movie Labyrinth, Sarah is confronted with this riddle and solves it correctly, but she still falls - The goblin king made sure she would fail, despite her efforts. He setup a false narrative to give her the illusion of agency and distract her from his manipulations.

Now what's the lesson here?

What narratives have you been handed that you take as given, don't question, and gladly step through the door they point you to?

Profiles of the Restoration: William Marks

William Marks was an early member of the Church and became Stake President in Kirtland, Ohio. When the Church moved into Nauvoo, he was Stake President and also the President of the High Council. One of the highest-ranking Latter Day Saint leaders alive at the time, was widely respected and possessed a demeanor that the people of Nauvoo looked to for stability.

As early as 1835, Joseph Smith had revealed that the High Council, equal in authority to both the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, was for the “cornerstone of Zion,” while the Twelve were a “traveling high council.” The standing High Council was to succeed Smith “if he should now be taken away.” According to published church doctrine, then, Marks presided in Nauvoo, and the Apostles only in areas that had not been organized into stakes.

Further, Marks was the first non-Smith to receive his second anointing and be ordained as Prophet, Priest, and King on October 22, 1843, under the hands of Joseph Smith. By contrast, Brigham Young received this ordination from Hyrum Smith on November 22, 1843, and Young then ordained the rest of the Twelve.

Additionally, Marks was the tenth most senior member of the Council of Fifty, outranking both Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon.

Thus, at the death of Joseph Smith, some members, including Emma Smith herself, believed that William Marks should have taken Joseph’s place as leader of the Church upon his decease. When Brigham Young and the Twelve took leadership of the Church, tensions between them and Marks led him to leave Nauvoo.

William Marks spent time in several of the other Restoration movements, including those of James Strang and Charles B. Thompson. In his later years, he was instrumental in bringing Joseph Smith III to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and ordaining Smith as president of this Church. He served as young Joseph’s first and only Counselor until the end of his life.

William Marks was an important leader in the early Church and his role has been downplayed ever since Brigham Young and the Twelve succeeded Joseph Smith. It is unfortunate that more people do not know about his life and influence.

Credits:

Profile: Cheryl Bruno
Photo recreation: Jonathan Streeter

"A Brief History of Transgender Medicine and the Early Days of WPATH"

A visually annotated reading of a section from the WPATH Files report.

If it is an issue that is important to you, looking into the WPATH files leak and report is essential to understanding the medical, scientific and ethical background.

This small section from the report lays out the history of WPATH, which is at the center of the issue.

"A Brief History of Transgender Medicine and the Early Days of WPATH" A visually annotated reading of a section from the WPATH Files report.See the full report at: https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-filesCHAPTERS:...

Jane Manning James was an early convert to the Mormon church. During her time in Nauvoo she was welcomed into the house of the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. and had close ties with the Smith family, ultimately following the Saints west to Utah.

This is a recreation of the sole portrait photograph of Jane held in the Church History archives.

Read more about her life here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/jane-elizabeth-manning-james?lang=eng