Brandon Sanderson goes full woke and betrays gospel values?

[zil2]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, but: 

- I'm supposed to love my neighbor, so we need to plan for them and take care of them and make sure they are never in want or need.  We can tax the rich to pay for it because they have plenty.

- I'm supposed to love my neighbor, so I'm a strong believer in individual liberty and not getting in the way of people planning for themselves and those within their stewardship.  Experiencing the natural consequences of your actions, be they positive or negative, is something that shouldn't be impeded.  And taking money from someone who isn't me, to give it to other people who are also not me, is often unjust.

My intent was to say that I am coming at this question of Sanderson's LGBTQ+ views and actions from the perspective of a faithful member, not from the perspective of politics.

[Vort]

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

Sure you can look at it that way.

On the other hand, Who did Jesus reject?  Who did Jesus seek out?

Jesus rejected the hypocrites and sought out the repentant.

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

(Edit: I was trying ty be funny snarky here. I realized it might come across as just rude. I don't mean it to be... just funny snarky sarcasm. So don't take it too seriously. )

Ok, I guess I won't.

I'll take your word for it. But TBH, I think that either you or I need to work on that.  I read it again and I still couldn't see the snark.  It seems pretty flat to me.  But I'll take your word for it.

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Okay. Very helpful. Clearly you know what my intentions are better than me. Very, very useful. The discussion is much better now than it would otherwise be. 

I have no way of truly knowing what you "intended."  All I can do is read and interpret (hopefully correctly) what you actually wrote.  As I did so, I got the impression you were trying to backpedal. So, I revisited your actual words.

If it was simply a matter of taking a middle road, sorry I didn't pick up on that.

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's in the title.

Ok, missed that.

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Annoying is subjective, I think.

Of course it is.  Are you interpreting my words any differently?

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know now that you don't consider the books woke. Thanks. Please stop telling me what I think though. 😉

I wasn't telling you what you think.  I was telling you my reaction vis-a-vis what I "believed" you wrote.  Again, I can't read your mind.  I can only read your words.

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't post to argue.

If you post a critical position and wish to discuss it, then some elements of argumentation will naturally arise.   That's what makes it a dialogue.  If you don't want to have a dialogue about these ideas, why did you post about it?

Edited January 13 by Carborendum

[CV75]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This is your question?  Could you clarify and restate it?  I've tried 3 times and simply can't understand what you're asking.

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience (as the OP suggests), is this similar to someone working in or profiting from certain aspects of the gaming/hospitality industry, for example, in Las Vegas: gambling, "adult-oriented" entertainment, providing alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, low-proof beer etc. in hotels/motels for the sake of meeting a demand? is it similar to playing or watching professional sports on Sundays?

It does not matter whether someone does these things to make a living or profit or not (allowing for those who enjoy these activities as an avocation or as a mans to promote their social cause).

[NeuroTypical]

Cool, I got it now, thanks.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience

I guess it depends on what you mean by "promotes".  There's no such thing as good fiction without sin or bad things happening.  Having main characters struggle with defects and fallen nature and whatnot, is one of the secret ingredients in the sauce.  So when does it reach the level of "promoting"?

Two examples:

Orson Scott Card once wrote a work of fiction involving the Saints at some point in the future.  He touched on the Lamanites having risen again as a powerful people, interpreted as various Native American tribes banding together and becoming militant and expanding their borders and carving their own nation out of parts of the US.  Lake Bonneville had also returned, and the Salt Lake valley was now a lake, and you could still see the angel Moroni on the temple poking up above the water.   I wouldn't say he was promoting NA rebellion or the destruction of the SLC temple.  Because although those things are happening, his story at it's core is that the truth claims of the church are true and prophecies were being fulfilled, just in ways people didn't expect.  I have no problem with OSC here.

The Hazbin Hotel series tells the story of the daughter of Lucifer, and her attempts to redeem the souls in hell.  But she is thwarted at every turn by the angels of heaven, who like things the way they are now where they use hell as a hunting ground where they can sate their thirst for violence.  I would say this show promotes a bizzarro mirror-image picture of Christianity where good is evil and evil is good.  If the show's creators claimed to be faithful believing Christians who take the Bible literally, I'd think they were hypocritical sell-outs. 

I know nothing about Sanderson or his books.  If people are mad because he's got gay characters doing gay things, I'd have to read the book before I could say whether he's promoting activity or not.  

Question for all of you: If, say, the main character is gay, and it's just a description of part of him like his hair color, would you call foul and say he's promoting LGBT stuff?  Another way to ask the question: Do you call foul at the prospect of a gay person simply existing in fiction?  Would you demand the character be tormented, or an antagonist, or the book have a central theme of LGBT stuff is wrong before you could accept this character without calling foul?

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience (as the OP suggests), is this similar to someone working in or profiting from [retailing things morally objectionable to his faith]?

IMO, there's a difference here:

Sanderson is not just including LGBTQ+ characters (and their words and actions) in ways that reflect the world around him.  He is also, in the real world, promoting things that are contrary to what the Church teaches.  (This is the greater concern than what's in his stories.)

Creating the thing from your imagination is very different from swiping someone's credit card, or setting someone's alcoholic drink on the table.  It may be that one has to experience the creation of characters and stories to understand this, but trust me, the difference huge.  His characters and their actions are alive inside his head.  They are infinitely more real than the person on the other side of the counter or seated at the table (because he knows the characters, whereas the cashier and the waiter(ess) don't know the customer).  And he experiences far more of their thoughts, feelings, words, and actions than the reader ever sees on the page.

[LDSGator]

22 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Creating the thing from your imagination is very different from swiping someone's credit card, or setting someone's alcoholic drink on the table

It is, and let’s keep some common sense here.  People need jobs. If you want to be a waiter but refuse to serve someone alcoholic beverages, you need to find another job. And that might not be easy. 

Edited January 13 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'll take your word for it. But TBH, I think that either you or I need to work on that.  I read it again and I still couldn't see the snark.  It seems pretty flat to me.  But I'll take your word for it.

Sarcasm comes across as flat to you?

I shouldn't be sarcastic anyhow though. It's rude. Even with the added note afterwards, I shouldn't have done it in the first place. My bad.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I got the impression you were trying to backpedal.

Not back pedaling. Clarifying. And, specifically, clarifying the extremity of the words. I don't know if Sanderson is "fully" woke. I do think he's woke. That should be obvious. You told me I was calling him "fully" woke. So I was clarifying. I'm not backpedaling on thinking he's woke. He is.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Are you interpreting my words any differently?

Nope. Just sharing my thoughts. The point being, just because you or someone isn't annoyed by something being woke doesn't mean it is or isn't. It's not a qualifying determiner of what is or isn't woke. Not really arguing anything. Just saying that's my view.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wasn't telling you what you think.  I was telling you my reaction vis-a-vis what I "believed" you wrote.  Again, I can't read your mind.  I can only read your words.

That may be true in your first response. But when I clarify and then you throw my words back at me like my clarification is a lie then it sure comes across like you're telling me what I was meaning and thinking. I clarified and it was very straight-forward. I was saying what I'd read/heard from others that say he's gone "fully woke", I haven't actually read the books, I've only seen what others are saying, and I was asking a question. I clarified that and you continued to argue. So I got snarky. I don't know if calling him "fully" woke is accurate or an over-reaction or not. I'm not convinced by your response, per se. But I'm not unconvinced by it either. Just...you know...interesting.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you post a critical position and wish to discuss it, then some elements of argumentation will naturally arise.   That's what makes it a dialogue.  If you don't want to have a dialogue about these ideas, why did you post about it?

To see what you all think. You may have noticed, that I didn't say you're wrong to not see a problem with the latest book he wrote and the characters who are gay or his alluding to trans stuff, etc. You're opinion that it's not a big deal is exactly what I was looking for and I appreciate that view. It's the telling me that I'm wrong to think he is "fully woke" part that annoyed me, particularly when I put it as a question, used words like "apparently", and "per the video's I've watched", and "what say ye?"

If you were going to actually respond to my view on the matter, (which I did share), you could have said, "I don't think you should be sad." or "You shouldn't feel betrayed or annoyed." or even, "I don't think you should stop being a fan or stop purchasing his books because of this." That sort of commentary would be addressing what I said. But instead you said that me calling it fully woke was an over-reaction. Well...that would have been more accurately stated as "the videos and posts calling it fully woke are an over-reaction."

But I admit, I did over-react to your saying that I was over-reacting by calling it fully woke. I probably should have shrugged it off. Once again... my bad. Actually... I didn't over-react to that. I just clarified. I over-reacted to you arguing back after I clarified. Either way though. I should have shrugged it off. Sorry.
 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

On 1/11/2025 at 6:01 PM, Vort said:

LDS values are the values of the Latter-day Saints. I think the usage is perfectly acceptable.

Except I think...if I recall...that the counsel was to use Latter-day Saints rather than LDS. So either way I bumbled it.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience (as the OP suggests), is this similar to someone working in or profiting from certain aspects of the gaming/hospitality industry, for example, in Las Vegas: gambling, "adult-oriented" entertainment, providing alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, low-proof beer etc. in hotels/motels for the sake of meeting a demand? is it similar to playing or watching professional sports on Sundays?

It does not matter whether someone does these things to make a living or profit or not (allowing for those who enjoy these activities as an avocation or as a mans to promote their social cause).

I think there are a few important points to consider here. It's hard to draw a hard line though. But one thing that comes to mind is... making a living can be interpreted as getting what you need to live...or as just making money. The first is necessary. The second, beyond the first, is not. Brandon Sanderson is no longer making a living. He has a living. He could live for the rest of his life never making another cent. He's not making a living any longer.

I never understood why, back in the day (they've discontinued it), Marriott hotels provided "adult" movies in all their hotels. I think they only discontinued it because of the internet and they weren't making money on it any longer -- though that's cynicism. So a business started and owned by a "faithful" Latter-day Saint pedaled porn to increase the bottom line. Shameful.

Even when making a living, there are clearly things that faithful followers of Christ should not be doing to make a living. But there are many things that are more questionable, and some that are obviously fine.

By compare and contrast to the Marriott point above, my grandpa and grandma decided to open a video store back in the 80s. I remember the conflict they had over whether they'd carry R-rated movies or not. Ultimately, after pondering, praying, weighing, and considering, they decided to.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Question for all of you: If, say, the main character is gay, and it's just a description of part of him like his hair color, would you call foul and say he's promoting LGBT stuff?

Despite our modern societal fascination with all things sexual, and especially with all things sexually deviant, in polite society (a society I would one day like to be a part of) people don't talk about private matters publically, including (or especially) private sexual matters. So if an author introduces a homosexual character, there needs to be a solid reason for that. Homosexuality is not brown hair or a slight stutter. And if the person's sexuality is somehow central to the story, then yes, I want the representation of good and healthy sexual characteristics to be maintained. I do not want evil called or portrayed as good, or good called/portrayed as evil.

The act of homosexual sex relations is an abomination and a perversion. This societally unpopular view is undeniably true—undeniable if you're a believing and faithful Latter-day Saint who has a more than merely passing acquaintance with the doctrines of the Restored Church of Christ.

The "perversion" part is obvious enough; sex is fundamentally the Godly ability to create human life, and thus among the most sacred things wse have. Homosexual relations do not and cannot create human life. That is not to say (as some have) that all sexual relations must necessarily have the goal of procreation; accepting this, as some do, would mean that women over the age of about 40 (and, sadly, their husbands) must never engage in sexual relations. But clearly, having sex with animals or little children or members of one's same sex is utterly at odds with the divine purpose of creation, the purpose for which sex was introduced by God. Any such sexual activity is a mockery* of sex and is, again by definition, a perversion of the divine purposes of sexual relations.

*Please remember than "mockery" is, in general, the unauthorized and false reproduction of something. Mockery is often done for the purposes of belittling or making fun, which is how we generally use the term. But a mockingbird is not making fun of other birds, and a law school's mock trial is not intended to belittle the idea of a trial. In both cases, it is a recognition that the thing discussed is not "the real thing", but something intended to represent it, but in a false context. A mockingbird is not a bluejay or a crow; a parrot is not a cursing sailor; a mock trial doesn't actually put anyone in prison. Same-sex individuals using each other for sexual purposes is a false usage of the act of procreation, and is thus, by definition, mockery.

The "abomination" part is a moral judgment, one that is backed up in all scripture and in all prophetic teachings. This does not mean we condemn homosexuals, any more than making a moral judgment against any other sin means we necessarily condemn those who sin in that way. But we must stand by our moral standards. It's one thing to say, "These are my moral standards, and I will stand by them whether or not you agree, but I concede that you have every right to question or even reject those standards;" it is entirely another (and very evil) thing to say, "These are my moral standards, but if you don't agree, I will reject my own standards and call into question things I have heretofore accepted, because I don't want to be perceived as icky or mean by those who reject my moral standards."

All of this to say: If an author is making a character's homosexuality an integral part of the story, then that homosexuality, like any other negative or carnal or wicked characteristic, should be portrayed as such. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexuality has nothing at all to do with the plot, then that author is gratuitously seeking to be perceived as "inclusive", and I see no reason to patronize that dishonest author. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexual proclivities are portrayed as desirable or heroic, then that author has rejected the very basis of human sexual morality, and I see many reasons to reject that immoral author.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a lot of (or any) good reasons for a moral author to introduce a homosexual character whose sexuality has no impact on the storyline or whose sexuality is to be portrayed as intrinsically good or at least morally neutral.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Cool, I got it now, thanks.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "promotes".  There's no such thing as good fiction without sin or bad things happening.  Having main characters struggle with defects and fallen nature and whatnot, is one of the secret ingredients in the sauce.  So when does it reach the level of "promoting"?

Two examples:

Orson Scott Card once wrote a work of fiction involving the Saints at some point in the future.  He touched on the Lamanites having risen again as a powerful people, interpreted as various Native American tribes banding together and becoming militant and expanding their borders and carving their own nation out of parts of the US.  Lake Bonneville had also returned, and the Salt Lake valley was now a lake, and you could still see the angel Moroni on the temple poking up above the water.   I wouldn't say he was promoting NA rebellion or the destruction of the SLC temple.  Because although those things are happening, his story at it's core is that the truth claims of the church are true and prophecies were being fulfilled, just in ways people didn't expect.  I have no problem with OSC here.

The Hazbin Hotel series tells the story of the daughter of Lucifer, and her attempts to redeem the souls in hell.  But she is thwarted at every turn by the angels of heaven, who like things the way they are now where they use hell as a hunting ground where they can sate their thirst for violence.  I would say this show promotes a bizzarro mirror-image picture of Christianity where good is evil and evil is good.  If the show's creators claimed to be faithful believing Christians who take the Bible literally, I'd think they were hypocritical sell-outs. 

I know nothing about Sanderson or his books.  If people are mad because he's got gay characters doing gay things, I'd have to read the book before I could say whether he's promoting activity or not.  

Question for all of you: If, say, the main character is gay, and it's just a description of part of him like his hair color, would you call foul and say he's promoting LGBT stuff?  Another way to ask the question: Do you call foul at the prospect of a gay person simply existing in fiction?  Would you demand the character be tormented, or an antagonist, or the book have a central theme of LGBT stuff is wrong before you could accept this character without calling foul?

 “Promote” would be to use the fictional narrative to advance a moral ideology in the real world. Motives might be (as pointed out in the thread): to cater to popular demand, appease readers’ expectations and loyalties, a platform for the author’s views, and oppose another party’s views. Readers will decide on the motives. This thread focuses on doing that vis-à-vis popular and Church standards. This might include “gay characters doing gay things” which is a matter of literary license and taste, and it might include subtle or straight-up advocacy, which is a matter of clout. As to your question for all: I think the hiccups that have been expressed are about the latter.

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The Hazbin Hotel series tells the story of the daughter of Lucifer, and her attempts to redeem the souls in hell.  But she is thwarted at every turn by the angels of heaven, who like things the way they are now where they use hell as a hunting ground where they can sate their thirst for violence.  I would say this show promotes a bizzarro mirror-image picture of Christianity where good is evil and evil is good.  If the show's creators claimed to be faithful believing Christians who take the Bible literally, I'd think they were hypocritical sell-outs. 

Question for all of you: If, say, the main character is gay, and it's just a description of part of him like his hair color, would you call foul and say he's promoting LGBT stuff?  Another way to ask the question: Do you call foul at the prospect of a gay person simply existing in fiction?  Would you demand the character be tormented, or an antagonist, or the book have a central theme of LGBT stuff is wrong before you could accept this character without calling foul?

1. Vivziepop is *not* a good example of anything other than possibly having undiagnosed mental health issues if what I've heard from various people who are familiar with her and her creations are anything to go by. 

2. A better example would actually be the original "Diamonds Are Forever" novel as written by Ian Fleming all the way back in 1956. When Bond is meeting with Felix Leitner, Felix implies - using terminology of the day - that Wint and Kidd, a pair of hired goons working for the Spang Brothers, are a homosexual couple. At first this seems like a bizarre bit to throw in, but then near the end of the book Bond has to neutralize them on a crowded ocean liner without arousing suspicion and so stages their deaths to look like a murder-suicide after a heated dispute - the kind angry lovers might have - got out of hand & a gun was drawn. 

Fleming was, surprisingly, far *more* progressive in his handling of the two characters than the 1971 movie would be, with the movie depicting them in a very stereotypical fashion for the era. 

[NeuroTypical]

That's a good post @Vort.  

39 minutes ago, Vort said:

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a lot of (or any) good reasons for a moral author to introduce a homosexual character whose sexuality has no impact on the storyline or whose sexuality is to be portrayed as intrinsically good or at least morally neutral.

I think the first time I encountered such a thing was in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.   Dude loved telling a tale with fully flushed out government organizations, and had an awful lot of agencies and names to help him tell his story.  Someone had told me that Clancy had a Mormon in every one of his books, a nod to the overrepresentation of LDS folks in government.  I thought that was cool.   I also noted there was a gay character, and I didn't know what to think.   The faith wasn't crucial to the character.  The orientation wasn't crucial to the character.  Both were included because, well, both exist in real life in the US government.  And Clancy was known for books being read by folks who lived those lives and saying "now this guy knows how it works".    I remember he also had a husband and wife in senior positions, and the scary/suspenseful/dangerous part of the book was made even more scary/suspenseful/dangerous because the wife wasn't there doing her job because she had just given birth.

I dunno.  I'm doing my best to live the 2nd great commandment.  The other side of the fence challenged my adherence to it with a question like "You're really gonna get bent out of shape just because someone wrote a book with a gay character?  Really?  Our mere existence is that much of a threat to you?"  I had to admit it was a valid question, and if I was going to adhere to "love thy neighbor", I had to know how to love my gay neighbor.  

Conversely, I've seen umpteen endless examples of LGBT representation being pushed so hard in entertainment and advertising, that it detracts from the point of whatever.   "Hey look kids, we want to go buy that brand of tire - the Tire ad had both a black guy and a lesbian couple!"

I took this picture while at WalMart in 2020:

And don't even get me started on Star Trek Discovery, who went so full-on woke, that they ticked off their own fans and ratings were low.  They had to basically apologize and beg people to keep watching their 5th season, promising to "step away from the messaging and get back to storytelling".   

Again, I dunno.  Been trying for a lot of years to find how love works with tolerance, and how the two balance with folks who sin differently than I do.  I don't think I'm quite to where God wants me yet.

 

Edited January 13 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's a good post @Vort.  

I think the first time I encountered such a thing was in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.   Dude loved telling a tale with fully flushed out government organizations, and had an awful lot of agencies and names to help him tell his story.  Someone had told me that Clancy had a Mormon in every one of his books, a nod to the overrepresentation of LDS folks in government.  I thought that was cool.   I also noted there was a gay character, and I didn't know what to think.   The faith wasn't crucial to the character.  The orientation wasn't crucial to the character.  Both were included because, well, both exist in real life in the US government.  And Clancy was known for books being read by folks who lived those lives and saying "now this guy knows how it works".    I remember he also had a husband and wife in senior positions, and the scary/suspenseful/dangerous part of the book was made even more scary/suspenseful/dangerous because the wife wasn't there doing her job because she had just given birth.

I dunno.  I'm doing my best to live the 2nd great commandment.  The other side of the fence challenged my adherence to it with a question like "You're really gonna get bent out of shape just because someone wrote a book with a gay character?  Really?  Our mere existence is that much of a threat to you?"  I had to admit it was a valid question, and if I was going to adhere to "love thy neighbor", I had to know how to love my gay neighbor.  

Conversely, I've seen umpteen endless examples of LGBT representation being pushed so hard in entertainment and advertising, that it detracts from the point of whatever.   "Hey look kids, we want to go buy that brand of tire - the Tire ad had both a black guy and a lesbian couple!"

I took this picture while at WalMart in 2020:

And don't even get me started on Star Trek Discovery, who went so full-on woke, that they ticked off their own fans and ratings were low.  They had to basically apologize and beg people to keep watching their 5th season, promising to "step away from the messaging and get back to storytelling".   

Again, I dunno.  Been trying for a lot of years to find how love works with tolerance, and how the two balance with folks who sin differently than I do.  I don't think I'm quite to where God wants me yet.

 

You’ll never please everyone. If I write a book with happy, adjusted LGBTQ+ who live normal lives and love their families, someone will complain. If I include an LDS guy-LDS will cheer, but if I give him a pill addiction I’m suddenly “disloyal” or “not representing LDS in the best light.” 
 

Haters gonna hate. If you can’t accept that being a writer isn’t for you

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think the first time I encountered such a thing was in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.   Dude loved telling a tale with fully flushed out government organizations, and had an awful lot of agencies and names to help him tell his story.  Someone had told me that Clancy had a Mormon in every one of his books, a nod to the overrepresentation of LDS folks in government.  I thought that was cool.   I also noted there was a gay character, and I didn't know what to think.   The faith wasn't crucial to the character.  The orientation wasn't crucial to the character.  Both were included because, well, both exist in real life in the US government.

I don't object to details that add color and realism to the story. Mentioning in passing that So-and-so is gay, because it comes up in a believable way but otherwise has no bearing on the story, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Making that character then act within the story in a believable way is also reasonable. I suppose I'm contradicting myself to some degree; maybe I'm feeling out what exactly I do think on the topic.

Maybe it's this: I don't object to the existence of e.g. homosexual characters in a fictional environment. I don't object to such characters being portrayed positively or even heroically; Alan Turing was obviously a positive and even heroic real-life character whose homosexuality was intrinsic to his personal story. I suppose what I object to is not the humanization and even lionization of someone who happens to be homosexual, but the lionization and normalization of homosexuality itself, as if there is something beautiful and precious and desirable about homosexual relations. That seems very obviously to be calling evil good and good evil.

If a good biopic is ever made of Michael Jackson, I hope it's filled with pathos, with acknowledgement of the immense talent of the man, and with the conclusion that it is the tragic story of a good man being destroyed by exploitation from his very childhood. I hope it's filled with sympathy and understanding. But I certainly hope that any sexual relations or even sexual innuendo regarding children is not excused or portrayed as positive in any way. Even when we love and admire and sympathize with people like Michael Jackson, good is good and evil is evil, and we should not be mixing those up.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Haters gonna hate. If you can’t accept that being a writer isn’t for you

I’d also argue that if you can’t handle reading about lifestyles that aren’t your own or reading about members of “your clan” that have personal issues/problems, reading novels and watching television might not be for you either. 

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't object to details that add color and realism to the story. Mentioning in passing that So-and-so is gay, because it comes up in a believable way but otherwise has no bearing on the story, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Making that character then act within the story in a believable way is also reasonable. I suppose I'm contradicting myself to some degree; maybe I'm feeling out what exactly I do think on the topic.

The two instances that I've mentioned:

Mistborn: The lesbian character was a gunmaker that supplied the custom weaponry to the main character.  The scenes were played to comic effect because the primary sidekick kept trying to hit on her (trying to "convert" her).  Yes, it was entertaining.

Stormlight Archives:  One mention of a "gay marriage" was played to comic effect because there was a "scribe" of sorts that was supposed to make sure all records were kept properly.  One such form was that if a soldier (an NPC) was married, they needed certain forms filled out.  The main character didn't really care and wondered why such a form was necessary.  He treated it like a pesky mosquito and rolled his eyes.  But the bureaucrat insisted that the forms needed to be filled out.

The other gay relationship was a minor character.  And they had one scene where he was outed.  That's all.  The reason why it was brought up was that the fanbase was asking.  So, Sanderson said it was so.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Again, I dunno.  Been trying for a lot of years to find how love works with tolerance, and how the two balance with folks who sin differently than I do.  I don't think I'm quite to where God wants me yet.

What I personally choose to consume or not in entertainment (or cereal) has zero to do with love or tolerance -- unless I proclaim it (which I do, sometimes), in which case the question becomes more relevant. But silently choosing to not read a book because it has gay stuff in it isn't relevant to love or tolerance at all, imo.

I hear you though on finding that balance and not knowing where or how to stand on some of these things. Just not related to whether we read Brandon Sanderson or not.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't object to details that add color and realism to the story. Mentioning in passing that So-and-so is gay, because it comes up in a believable way but otherwise has no bearing on the story, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Making that character then act within the story in a believable way is also reasonable. I suppose I'm contradicting myself to some degree; maybe I'm feeling out what exactly I do think on the topic.

Maybe it's this: I don't object to the existence of e.g. homosexual characters in a fictional environment. I don't object to such characters being portrayed positively or even heroically; Alan Turing was obviously a positive and even heroic real-life character whose homosexuality was intrinsic to his personal story. I suppose what I object to is not the humanization and even lionization of someone who happens to be homosexual, but the lionization and normalization of homosexuality itself, as if there is something beautiful and precious and desirable about homosexual relations. That seems very obviously to be calling evil good and good evil.

If a good biopic is ever made of Michael Jackson, I hope it's filled with pathos, with acknowledgement of the immense talent of the man, and with the conclusion that it is the tragic story of a good man being destroyed by exploitation from his very childhood. I hope it's filled with sympathy and understanding. But I certainly hope that any sexual relations or even sexual innuendo regarding children is not excused or portrayed as positive in any way. Even when we love and admire and sympathize with people like Michael Jackson, good is good and evil is evil, and we should not be mixing those up.

Here's the thing though: Before about the 2010s I never had much of an issue with homosexuality in stories, with a few exceptions. (For example, I always considered Will & Grace an evil and never consumed it.) But other movies and shows with it...even if it wasn't ideal, it didn't bug me or put me into a "boycott" frame of mind. It was just like.... swearing. I'd rather not have all the swearing in my favorite 80s movies. But I just ignored it. Whatever. The world was the world. If ever swear word sends me into a gasping, pearl-clutching panic.... well, you know what I mean I assume. Maybe my attitude on that is/was wrong. But that's what it was/is.

It wasn't until the last ten to fifteen years that the ridiculousness of it all has made me so overly sensitive. Now-a-days, any gay character in anything feels IMMEDIETELY like an agenda. Because it probably is. But even if it weren't...it would feel like it. And I'm so fed up and annoyed with it all that it's made me intolerant of things that I used to be tolerant of. Like EXTREMELY intolerant.

Want to lose my business? Allude to anything woke. Done. I'm out. It was not that way in past decades. They CAUSED my intolerance. It doesn't matter if it's believable, has a bearing on the story, or anything of the sorts. I'm out! Take your woke agenda and go jump! I'm....so.....done....with...it! SO...STINKING....DONE! I hate it now. I'm completely, entirely INTOLERANT of it in entertainment because it's been so forced, agenda driven, poorly executed, and contrived.* Nothing has been improved by the forced injection of this stuff. No movie, show, book, or other has been improved by it. Most have been severely hurt.

And that ^ is with normal entertainment from "the world". Now try and feed it to me from a so-called "faithful" Latter-day Saint....... whoo boy.

*from what I've heard from some sources, the Brandon Sanderson injection of it is forced, agenda driven, poorly executed, and contrived. Which, as I've stated -- haven't read the last book. But I did read the first 3.5 books, and the other time he mentioned a gay character in the series in passing....I remember thinking how forced, agenda driven, poorly executed, and contrived it felt. It was really like.... what? Why? In a fantasy novel? Why even mention this? What the what?! Awkward. Out of place. Lame.

[Just_A_Guy]

Two semi-random observations:

1) Sanderson has “to-heck-with-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on” kind of money.  He doesn’t have to write a dadgum thing that he doesn’t want to write.

2) There is currently something of a minor reformation going on at BYU.  Whether Sanderson is still employed there when the dust settles, is anyone’s guess.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There is currently something of a minor reformation going on at BYU

Are they purging people with his views?

Edited January 14 by LDSGator

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There is currently something of a minor reformation going on at BYU.

I hope that the adjective "minor" is an understatement.

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Are they purging people with his views?

There is an "audit" of the faculty.  Those not supporting and sustaining church standards are likely going to find themselves unemployed.  Per the news I have read on the topic.  

 

Frankly, there is an anti-LDS cancer at BYU that needs to be purged.

[NeuroTypical]

Boundary maintenance.  A religion gets to draw a clear boundary around what it believes and what it doesn't.  Folks can believe whatever they want, but if they want to be on the inside part of the boundary, their beliefs should align.

To understand how bizarre it would be to have it any other way, I still like the analogy of the chess club:

Quote

“Black advances his knight to put white's king in check. But what’s this? White is yelling at the judge because that’s not how knights are supposed to move! He’s mad that the rules of the game did not take into account the more historically accurate way Persians used to move their knights!  He keeps telling people to read the Chatrang-namak, and is calling everyone to repentance!"

[Later, the guy playing white holds a press conference to protest his expulsion.  Some of his buddies help him picket tournaments, and hand out flyers.  He starts a website detailing the sins of the International Chess Federation.] 

 

 

Edited January 14 by NeuroTypical