3 ms·

> If I was going to be disparaging, I'd say that their closest Christian analogue is the nakedly revisionist evangelical Christianity of the the American 1970s

> If I was going to be disparaging, I'd say that their closest Christian analogue is the nakedly revisionist evangelical Christianity of the the American 1970s and forwards. That would be disparaging to the evangelical community. Even if you find modern evangelicals to hold distasteful beliefs, and I personally do, I don't think that's an apt comparison. A much closer analog would be the radical Mormon cults of southern Utah. A radical version of a controversial branch of the religion.

woodruffw 4y ago
Here's the case I'll make: The radical Mormon sects, to my understanding (which is limited to Under the Banner of Heaven[1]) have somewhat strong textual justifications for their practices: it's a matter of historical fact that the early Mormons were polygamists, were vitriolic racists, &c. This is in contrast to both reactionary evangelicals (who do not make up all evangelicals) and Hasidic Jews (who are do not make up the entire Orthodox community), where both groups have largely substituted contemporary doctrine (as a conservative religious expression) for historical (and even canonical) interpretations. Compare evangelical interpretations of capitalism (and the "doctrine of wealth") to descriptions of wealth and charity thoughout both the Old and New Testaments. Similarly, Hasidic interpretation to pillars of Jewish doctrine (Pikuach Nefesh, Tikkun Olam). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven
- CSMastermind 4y ago
  That's fair, I think you're looking at it from the perspective of similar belief structure and religious doctrine. I was thinking about community size and distance from the "mainstream" beliefs of those religion, not necessarily the way in which they diverge.

3 ms·

> If I was going to be disparaging, I'd say that their closest Christian analogue is the nakedly revisionist evangelical Christianity of the the American 1970s

by CSMastermind 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
Here's the case I'll make: The radical Mormon sects, to my understanding (which is limited to Under the Banner of Heaven[1]) have somewhat strong textual justifications for their practices: it's a matter of historical fact that the early Mormons were polygamists, were vitriolic racists, &c. This is in contrast to both reactionary evangelicals (who do not make up all evangelicals) and Hasidic Jews (who are do not make up the entire Orthodox community), where both groups have largely substituted contemporary doctrine (as a conservative religious expression) for historical (and even canonical) interpretations. Compare evangelical interpretations of capitalism (and the "doctrine of wealth") to descriptions of wealth and charity thoughout both the Old and New Testaments. Similarly, Hasidic interpretation to pillars of Jewish doctrine (Pikuach Nefesh, Tikkun Olam). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven
- CSMastermind 4y ago
  That's fair, I think you're looking at it from the perspective of similar belief structure and religious doctrine. I was thinking about community size and distance from the "mainstream" beliefs of those religion, not necessarily the way in which they diverge.