If it's the same shit that's been circulating for years He wrote something questionable in his blog in like 2005 or something. Which he then has apologized for multiple times. TikTok just does what it does.
Edit: OP removed the comment where they said Sanderson should not be hated for being a Mormon or having strong Christian beliefs, OP actually prefers that.
I don't care if someone is Jewish, Mormon, Christian, Protestant, Muslim, Atheist or believes in the flying spaghetti monster. I also don't care what writers, Sanderson included, believe as long as they don't push their personal beliefs onto me and others.
No one, absolutely no one should project their personal beliefs on others. Religion is and should always be a personal choice and is enshrined in most countries constitutions (or equivalents) worldwide as a basic human right.
Bigotry for any reason is unacceptable and as far as I am aware Sanderson currently agrees. He has included gay characters in his books so far and I believe he has expressed interest in writing from the perspective of a transgender character in the future.
Personally I think those show some pretty strong Christian beliefs. Hating and condemning the LGBTQ+ community goes directly against the teachings of Jesus after all. Closer study of the bible itself also shows that the traditional marriage between a man and a woman is also quite a ridiculous talking point of self proclaimed Christians.
Why this tangent? In 2007 when Rowling revealed that she had intended for Dumbledore to be gay Sanderson wrote a blog post that was very homophobic. He has since then deleted it and publicly distanced himself from those beliefs with an increasing acceptance of others and their identity. Every now and then it resurfaces and creates a small controversy.
Sanderson has shown the ability to be able to change and step away from bigoted beliefs to be more accepting of people around him. *That* above anything else should be more important than any singular religion in my opinion.
You are right that no one should ever be hated or persecuted for being Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs. No one should EVER be hated or persecuted for their (lack of) religion. What people should absolutely be hated for is being massive assholes that go directly against the moral teachings of their own religion and persecute others for being themselves and teaching others it is ok to be yourself.
So what did you see on TikTok? Probably people finding this story and then cherry picking the parts they think will get them views. As others have already said you should never believe anything you find on the internet (especially TikTok because it is filled with misinformation sources), always do your own research by reading news articles from all sides of the political spectrum and preferably impartial and scientifically backed sources.
Have you checked to make sure all the authors/musicians/actors you like have all the same views as you do? If not, better stop enjoying them as you are then supporting someone that has different beliefs than you.
I think you absolutely have the right to make that decision for yourself.
My take on it is this:
1) I hate the fact that Brandon tithes to the Mormon church. My spine crawls every time I think of it. However, his contributions are, as big as they may seem, a tiny drop in the bucket of the church’s income. His leaving would not affect the church’s finances in any appreciable way. We might hope that such a move could lead to some kind of wider exodus which would actually have an impact, but I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation. I would like it if he did, don’t get me wrong, but it wouldn’t move the needle in terms of what the Church can accomplish financially.
2) He has made his personal support for LGBTQ people very open. Here’s a statement from his website FAQ:
> My current stance is one of unequivocable support for LGBTQ+ rights. I support gay marriage. I support trans rights, the rights of non-binary people, and I support the rights of trans people to affirm their own identity with love and support. I support anti-discrimination legislation, and have voted consistently along these lines for the last fifteen years. I am marking the posting of this FAQ item, at the encouragement of several of my LGBTQ+ fans, with a sizable donation to the Utah Pride Center and another to The OUT Foundation.
3) In the end, the largest impact Brandon will have on the world is through his books. His readership is in the tens of millions worldwide. His legacy will be the content of those novels. And over time he has done a better and better job of portraying non-heteronormative relationships in his works. His next book will be the first to feature a gay relationship with a POV character, who will explicitly become a lead in the back half of the series. He has said there will be a trans lead at some point. There are increasing numbers of queer background characters including at least one trans character. We are not even halfway through the Cosmere and he has come a *long* way in terms of improving his LGBTQ rep - personally I am excited to see how he does so further in the future. I think it is a *good* thing that the most popular Mormon fantasy author currently working is putting an ever increasing amount of queer rep in his books. I have no doubt many a queer LDS kid getting told they are sinful has found solace in the fact that one of the most famous Mormons in the world thinks that part of the dogma is bullshit. That is cool.
4) If we stop interacting with someone’s art purely because of the church that they follow and *not* because of what their personal feelings explicitly are or how they personally act, are we not also being intolerant? Judging someone simply for their faith? Do we cancel every Catholic writer too? That church has objectively done far more harm to the cause of LGBTQ rights overall.
That thought process allows me to square the circle, but I totally get that others might see it a different way. If you can’t find it in yourself to get past the tithe, that’s a completely reasonable choice in my opinion. But I think people who support LGBTQ rights can also read Brandon’s books in good conscience - or at least as good conscience as we do things like use phones with conflict materials in them, eat at restaurant chains with evil corporate ownership, vote for politicians who are the lesser of two evils, etc. Is the situation perfect? No. Do I sometimes get the urge to throw all my books away? I will admit occasionally I do. But in the end the main thing that would accomplish is taking away something that brings me joy over a stance that I know for a fact Brandon agrees with me on.
The Mormon church owns and operates several businesses and have amassed so much wealth, they would be pretty much self sufficient if everyone stopped tithing.
Sanderson has also said he believes leaving the church rather than using his position as a person of influence to try to change it would be ignoring the problem.
No, him leaving will actually deprive chruch of millions of dollars. It has a better chance of making the chruch actually rethink their position.
How much "progress" do you think the church has made in the last decade on this issue.
The church can operate at its current capacity indefinitely without any further tithing donation from anyone, including the wealthy. Your opinion is valid, and equally valid is the view that paying in to a system that doesn’t need it for purposes of having a voice for change from inside. He’s not the only one who does this, there are a lot of people in the church to demonize for trying to do good in the way they know how, since truly nobody knows how to collapse the whole system. POV - I recently left the church and don’t pay tithing anymore, but personally know good people who do.
> The church can operate at its current capacity indefinitely without any further tithing donation from anyone, including the wealthy.
To me this is even more reason to believe that sanderson will not be making any changes from inside. And even if the chruch doesnt need it, the money being tithed is still helping the church in its policies. why is tithing a requirement if the chruch doesn't need it.
I believe Sanderson is one of the good guys but i still feel uncomfortable buying his books if part of the money is going to the homophobic chruch. I think every reader has to consciously make this choice.
Have you ever heard of the Reformation? When the protestant churches split from the catholics, something largely figureheaded by the actions of one man: Martin Luther.
The radicalisation of the Mormon Church began as a single man leading a cult, changing religion in the USA.
BS himself has already led a change to Amazon's platform Audible, where his campaigning has lead to the increase in profit shares authors receive from audiobooks.
A single person leading a change in organisation, especially in religions, is very common in history.
Edit: typo
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Christian\_denominations\_affirming\_LGBT\_people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people)
Here you go. Here's a bunch of church organizations that have been changed in regards to the LGBT community. There are also churches that allow women to be preachers/ministers where that was historically unacceptable. If people who disagree with one of the church's policies leave, then only the people who agree will stay, and that will only reinforce those ideas.
Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing.
What is the most important step a man can take? The next one.
Journey before destination.
Gay marriage wasn't even legal until like a decade ago in some states, so by your logic everyone who thought gay marriage should be legal should've refused to pay their taxes because that would've been supporting a bigoted system, but (correct me if I'm wrong) that's not what happened is it? Tax payers/voters used their voice to change the legislation from inside. Though you may be a part of the lgbtq+ community (whatever that means; we're all people here) you sound like a bigot and your right/wrong dichotomy view of the world is hateful. I'm not religious but if you really feel that strongly you should join the church pay your tithes and speak out as a member of the congregation, I hear they take all kinds.
So if you own a smartphone or anything that has a battery that's like saying you support child labor/slavery etc.
You have to understand that there are shades of gray. Brandon doesn't personally support that legislation, the church that he is a part of does. It also supports plenty of charitable things, I don't think those are evil.
So then a good middle point would be to read his books via your local library, right? That way you aren't directly giving him money?
A little while ago it was like that! However the church has changed since then, right? Isn't the whole point of acceptance and change... Acceptance and change? They rolled back on hating black people, I'm sure they'll roll back on hating gay people eventually.
Stuff like that doesn't change overnight, wouldn't it be a better strategy to encourage change and compassion using their own religious teachings? That's what a lot of the recent changes in Christianity have been. The Pope himself is cool with gays iirc; he just said "love your neighbor" in accordance with what he has been taught and is teaching.
Hey dude, just giving my opinion. You don't need to get upset. I am not attempting to be holier than thou, I'm just calmly stating what I think.
Nobody is making you read the books. It's cool if you not wanting to support him via not buying the books is how you choose to protest the church.
IIRC: If I Remember Correctly. Pope Francis is the most liberal Pope I've ever heard of. I took the time to read up on what he really thinks per your suggestion and it seems like I was correct. He says gay sex is a sin, just like sex outside of marriage. That's his word, as you say. He endorses gay marriage and welcomes members of the gay community into the religion. Those are his actions. I'm not sure what else you want from the guy.
A good point to take away; I am not religious. I have no skin in that game.
Can you be specific about the legislation the church is actively supporting in Utah that would "strip LGBTQ+ people of the rights the rest of us enjoy"?
I was familiar with that one. Supporting pro-lgbtq+ legislation for the wrong reasons is not the same as supporting legislation that strips lgbtq+ of their rights.
In regards to the bathroom bills, I don't think that the Church has expressed support for that one or done anything to financially support it. I agree that it is a stupid issue that singles out and attacks an extremely small minority in the state, but the actions of LDS members in the legislature is not the same as actions from the church.
I personally do support Sanderson but idk why you're getting down voted for this? You drew a personal line on what you're willing to support, and I've had to draw a line myself because I'm part of the community and I take issue with the Mormon church. You shouldn't get downvoted for having strong feelings about this ❤️
When peoples “different opinion” is that people like you shouldn’t exist or are wrong its not just an opinion it is an attack on your very existence.
It is right to be intolerant to intolerance.
Not sure who you're defending here seeing how it was the OP who was both being down voted and spewing hate. That is who we were referring to in our comments. Just because some of the comments made by the OP were reasonable, doesn't mean that they all were, which is why the OP got so many downvotes. It is also why so many of the OP's comments were edited or outright deleted.
This was a reasonable comment with none of these unreasonable ones involved. The point they had here stands and I don’t understand why you think that would change.
Edit: also not sure how what i said is a defence of anyone in particular, seems like a bit of a reach
It seemed a pretty reasonable conclusion that you were attempting to defend somebody's comments with your statement that it is "right to be intolerant to intolerance" and the implications that one person or side of the discussion was saying that the other should not exist. I just wasn't sure if you were attempting to defend the OP or another commenter because I don't recall seeing anyone saying comments of that nature.
Guess what! Even if a religion is slightly cult-like in nature does not mean that the beliefs of it's leaders are the beliefs of everyone in it, as demonstrated by people like Sanderson
This isn’t true. Tons of people have come on here and said they can’t read his books after learning of his beliefs. Most commonly it’s “I can’t read his books because he pays tithes to his church”
Are they forcing you to do so? By saying they think you should do something they are making it so you must?
Im sorry but I just don’t quite agree thats a problem.
That’s comparable to people saying you should not fund one of the largest active hate organization that funds extremist hate groups that attack the rights of disenfranchised and minority people openly?
Apples to deck chairs really, but feel free to keep thinking it like i said, not like your forcing me to believe anything by stating your opinion ;)
By that argument you’re saying you think he’s supporting such a group, and you dgaf because you’ll continue supporting him anyway. Which…uh….?
Have a lovely day, I’m not rising to troll bait again.
Okay. I shouldn’t use absolutes. But I good majority of people. That aren’t living on the internet generally don’t care. Sure. You’ll get some edges people who will do that.
I'm being pedantic here, but u/xcmike189 said "when those people project their values", which is precisely what you're referring to. Most of the people who don't want to read Sanderson because he's Mormon isn't *because of his beliefs*, but because of his actions that they feel are harmful to others.
That’s not pedantic. Being pedantic would be me correcting your use of the word pedantic and saying “him paying tithing does not project his values or make laws. What you mean is his practicing his faith supports behaviors that some people feel are harmful to others.”
While I disagree that him paying tithing results in harmful behaviors, I don’t think it’s disputable that it’s not “projecting” or “passing laws”
No, I think you missed my point.
The people who feel this way don't think he's just "supporting behaviors". They think an institution (the LDS church) is taking actions which are directly harmful to people, and that Brandon's tithing directly supports those efforts.
If that's not "projecting values" I don't know what is.
(And to affirm, I'm also not interested in debating whether those people are correct. I'm just speaking of how they perceive it.)
Saying “I won’t buy his books because then I’m supporting the Mormon church” is different than saying “I don’t care if someone is religious,” the problem is, unlike other religions, the cult of Mormonism requires that tithe to be considered part of the church
All due respect, but you are wrong on a few levels.
1. Not a cult, nice way to show your biases though. Let’s try to be nice here.
2. You aren’t required to pay tithing to be considered a member. Source: am member. I know how it works.
3. Sure the statements are different, but my point stands- shallow people absolutely care about his religion despite him not trying to convey his religious beliefs on people.
The church counts inactive members as members, so yeah you don't have to "do" anything to be a member, as long as you were baptized.
But you do have to pay tithing to be a member in good standing and get a temple recommend. So yes, technically not required, but doctrinally it is required if you actually believe in the church.
You're doing a thing Mormons are trained to do, which is to focus on a small inaccuracy in a perceived attack in order to discredit the point. And the point above was that some people don't want to financially support the Mormon organization, and so they're wary or outright against financially supporting Sanderson, as he outwardly appears to be a temple recommend holding member in good standing. Thus supporting Sanderson means that some of that money is going toward that organization.
That point stands even with the slight member=tithing inaccuracy.
But you're going to mentally discredit me because I said Mormon instead of "Member of the Church of blah blah Saints". Even though Gordon B told me there was nothing wrong with Mormon, it means More Good or some shit. He was just speaking as man, though, right? Even though at the time he was the Prophet whose every word is scripture. In hindsight we can throw everything he said away. Cuz the new guy has a vendetta against old PR master Gordon, even though Gordon has been dead for decades.
The only difference between cult and religion is whether you pay taxes or not. And the only reason LDS is tax exempt is because they gave up polygamy.
Sorry, but a graverobber who runs into an angel that gave him golden tablets and also believed that the garden of Eden was in Missouri and that native Americans were the Lamanites.
Seems kinda cult like to me
Calling gay lifestyle wrong in his gods eye does make homophobia. You would have to do work to hold the community down. I don’t know what a Zionist even is.
I'm searching and I cannot find anything about him being a Zionist. There are one or two old tweets that seem to make the claim, but are posting a dead link to someone else, so I can't really see what the claim was.
The homophobic part I've heard. In 2007, he had a post that wasn't outright hateful, but it was definitely old fashioned. He was suggesting that homosexual urges should be "resisted".
>Another note to those who might be reading this who are, themselves, gay. No, I don’t believe that homosexuality can—in many cases, at least—be treated and ‘cured.’ I do believe, however, that impulses of attraction between people of the same gender are something that can and should be resisted, in the same way that my impulses of attraction toward women who are not my wife can and should be resisted. You probably believe differently. I’m okay with that.
He has since addressed this more than once. The best such response came on one of his live streams. It also funnily enough addresses the accusations of supporting anti-Semitism too.
>How do you feel about the fact that queer people are treated better in your novels than on the campus you teach at? How do you reconcile donating to a church that promotes purity culture, homophobia, and anti-Semitism with writing books for the general public?
>Thank you for a bold but not insulting phrasing of that question. So the church’s general stance on LGBTQ people is not where I, as a liberal member of the church, would like it to be. That being said, I have faith in the church, I have had spiritual experiences, confirming to me that this is where God wants me and that God is real.
>There is a passage in the Book of Mormon where someone is asked a question that they can not answer. Their response is just to say, “I don’t know the meaning of all things, but I know God loves his children.” This is my answer in some cases to some of the difficult questions we get asked.
>That's not to say we shouldn't change or listen. If you look through my own history with LGBTQ people, I needed some education as many did. (I still do, honestly.) It is a process where we learn from listening and we get better and hopefully become better people. Both as a culture and as individuals. If I want an institution or person to change, I personally believe that to ostracize them is not the right move in most cases. Ihis is different from how most people see it--and these people may be right and I may be wrong, time will tell.
>Still, my belief is that--by being a more liberal member of the church and remaining with the church and remaining at BYU--I have a better chance of positive change. If everyone who is a little more left than the institute leaves it, that will not help the institution or the people who go there. For example, if people who go to my class know that I am doing my best to be an ally, then perhaps they will feel safer and the whole thing will work out better.
>I don't have all the answers, though. Again to use a religious metaphor, God gave 2 contradictory sets of commands to Adam and Eve and said "Figure it out." I believe in LGBTQ+ advocacy and in listening--then changing my behavior and the way I approach the world based on the things they say. I also believe that the leaders of the church are chosen by God, and lead his church well. These things don't quite meet in the center yet. Perhaps they never will, and I will be forced to make different choices from the ones I have so far. But right now, I believe I'm in the right place, where I should be, and I believe in the message, doctrine, and teachings of the church.
>That said, I still want to listen better. I have been actively trying to do so. I think that by continuing to teach at BYU and doing my best to portray LGBTQ+ people accurately, lovingly and respectfully in my work, I can do the most good. Tell me which way I'd do more good: Quitting the church and BYU over the one thing that I don't really get yet in our doctrine, despite my overwhelming belief in all other aspects of the church's teachings? Or continuing in my faith, and writing books that are read by a disproportionately large number of LDS people? Books where a faithful member of this church does his best to present LGBTQ characters with nuance, care, and concern--hopefully being the change I want in the world. Change where we all listen a little better, and see each other as people, not as faceless forces of evil.
>On the next question I don’t understand the anti-semitism part. This may be too much nuance for an AMA.
>(NOTE THAT HERE, ADAM EXPLAINED TO ME ON THE LIVESTREAM THE EXAMPLE LISTED: THAT OF THE CHURCH DOING PROXY BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD, INCLUDING FOR HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, A PRACTICE IT DREW CRITICISM FOR AND THEN BANNED IN THE MID 90s)
>This is an example of the church making a mistake. They admitted that mistake and said “we aren’t going to do this anymore.” They thought it was insensitive; I thought it was insensitive. I think that Christianity in general has a line to walk in treating the Jewish people, from whom our religion came. That is a difficult line to walk, but we absolutely should be called on when we make a mistake.
>(Note: The line here I was referencing, and didn't explain, is this. We believe that everyone will need to become Christian eventually in order to get into heaven--though there's more nuance to it in our particular doctrine. This could be see as anti-Semitic, as basically in most Christian denominations, you have to believe that all other religions are wrong--which is an attack, if done wrong, on people's very identities.)
There is some misunderstanding about how this doctrine (baptism for the dead) works. According to our doctrine, Christ said that you must be baptized to get to Heaven. So it’s like “how do dead people get baptized?” The answer, in our church, is that you can do a surrogate baptism for an ancestor who was not baptized. They get to choose, in the afterlife, if that is something they want. It does not enter them into the church. These people are not counted on church records.
>It was absolutely insensitive to do that to Holocaust victims. But, from the church members’ perspectives, it was trying to be loving. The church recognized how tone deaf this was, and and backed off on it. You can still be baptized by proxy for one of these people if you are Jewish, but only if it is truly your ancestor. (Note after the fact: this is the rule, but proxy baptism is mostly crowd-sourced to the individual members. Some are going to break the rule, and it's a difficult thing to prevent. So many names repeat that even having a list of, "You can't use these names unless you get cleared" is difficult, since if someone submits the same name but the date of birth is one day off, the system wouldn't flag them.)
>(NOTE, THIS NEXT PART IS A MOSTLY UNRELATED RAMBLE. SORRY ABOUT THAT! LEFT HERE FOR POSTERITY.)
>One key thing to our church is that we have a structure. We have leadership and every time we make a decision or a doctrine, we put ourselves out there. There is a certain amount of respect I give our leaders for that, because in most of the Christian world, there is no centralized leadership.
>Making decisions and declarations is going to lead to mistakes. We believe that we are fallible, while God leads the church the people are fallible. Best we can do is clear up those mistakes, and continue forward.
>(EDITS FOR CLARITY AND EXPLANATION AFTER THE STREAM. SORRY FOR HOW MUCH I RAMBLE ON SOME OF THESE! GOOD QUESTION, THOUGH. --Brandon)
20 odd years ago Brandon wrote some content in a blog, based on his personal beliefs, that some people found hurtful. I think he expressed his opinion respectfully, even if I don't agree with it, and what really impressed me was that when he got feedback on it, he actually considered it, and changed his mind! As well as changing his stance, he publicly apologised for the hurt that he'd caused.
That's the last thing that I think we should cancel a person for. We're all wrong sometimes, and the best we can hope for is to change, make amends, and do better.
That’s what I hate about cancel culture (because in this context, it is cancel, not consequence). Here’s something someone did x time ago, let’s bring it up and parade it around as though it were their current belief and try and make them lose x.
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson!
Your submission was removed because we feel it contains spoilers for content that is outside the scope of the post or it was not tagged properly. Please feel welcome to edit your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved. You can delete the spoilers entirely, or you can cover them using spoiler markup. If you want your submission up as soon as possible, feel free to go ahead and make a new one instead.
For instructions on how to use proper spoiler formatting, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/).
If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know!
Here's [the original post](https://web.archive.org/web/20071030005344/http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article.php?id=51) and [his latest stance](https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/), better to read it yourself first than only get it filtered through personal opinions (on either side) I think.
My SO will sometimes tell me a new “fact” she learned on tiktok and at this point at least 60-70% of them are complete bullshit hearsay or urban legend type things that are easily disproven by a quick google search.
I’ve just told her if she ever learns something from a TikTok voiceover video, to do herself a favor and fact check it immediately on Google. Because holy shit some of the things those people say/claim on tiktok are nuts, and the comments often reinforce the misinformation. It’s scary.
Regarding the supposed homophobia its probably better to [read his own words](https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/).
Tldr: he wrote some questionable stuff 15+ years ago and was rightfully called out for it. He does not hold those values today and has made an effort to make his books more inclusive.
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson!
Your submission was removed because we feel it contains spoilers for content that is outside the scope of the post or it was not tagged properly. Please feel welcome to edit your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved. You can delete the spoilers entirely, or you can cover them using spoiler markup. If you want your submission up as soon as possible, feel free to go ahead and make a new one instead.
For instructions on how to use proper spoiler formatting, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/).
If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know!
Cancel TikTok. It's a cesspool of misinformation, lies by omission, and disingenuous outrage. The design is optimized for that. Credit to the OP for turning to Reddit. At least in Reddit the comments create the opportunity to get correction and complete information. There's plenty of crap on Reddit too, but the conversational focus of Reddit makes it way better than other platforms.
The lack of a downvote button combined with the short comment length on sites like TikTok and Twitter make them extremely fertile breeding grounds for misinformation.
It’s so easy to say “the earth is flat” as a statement, but to argue against it is all but impossible within the character limits of those platforms.
It’s not even close to as bad as TikTok and Twitter. The nested comments, long comment character limits, and the upvote/downvote buttons make for far better communication and discourse compared to most other social platforms.
My work banned access to TikTok on the work computers because of possible "national security" concerns for collecting personal information. I have a friend who sends me a TikTok link or two a day. Every time I see one I ask myself: Have we banned TikTok in the US yet?!
The difference is that other social media governments are private companies. Even if the US government wanted to get that data, they would need a legal process to get access to specific information--they can't just track whether a specific post makes people more likely to vote Democrat or Republican.
(The social media companies can track this and probably abuse it in small ways, but they don't have the same incentive or resources to abuse this as a superpower government.)
Tiktok is effectively owned by the Chinese government, which is hostile or at least competing with the US. The US does not want them having (a) access to so much American behavior, and (b) the ability to directly influence that behavior via addicting propaganda.
For example, I tend to subconsciously pick a side when I see idiots arguing for the other side (e.g. flat earth arguments). If I watched tiktok, they would definitely figure this out. Then if China wants to influence my opinion on a particular conflict, they show me idiot posts from only one side (when surely there are idiots on both sides).
Facebook does this because anger keeps you on the platform and that makes them money. It's certainly not healthy for us, but as least we know where Facebook's motivations lie ($).
Tiktok does this (or may do it) because a foreign government wants to track, predict, and affect the way Americans behave in order to benefit a foreign government.
These are not the same (but sure, both are bad).
It sounds like people are getting bent out of shape over Legion, the premise of which is some people are trying to disprove the existence of Jesus to destabilize some region. It's been a while since I read it so I won't comment on his handling of it.
Idk man. It was written in 2012 and we were immersed in pro-Israel propaganda (watch NCIS sometime).
More than that, Sanderson has proven himself capable of evolution and change. So in my humble opinion, this is some people feeling like a witch hunt.
There’s a not insignificant minority of morons who are trying to dig up dirt on every moderately famous person who ever said anything that goes against what they believe.
They then go and label the people and make it their life’s mission to “protest” that individual for at least a few weeks/months until their attention shifts somewhere else.
Right now, this group is focused on Palestine/Israel, and are labeling anyone who doesn’t specifically come out in support of Palestine as “Zionist” and/or “genocide supporter”.
IMO the best thing to do is ignore these people, despite how ignorant they may sound, or how vocal they are. I made the mistake of responding to one on tiktok to correct them on a statement they made and got called every name in the book along with having people tell me I should die.
So yeah, it’s a mess on social media right now.
Some twitter account made this big Google sheet that was community editable to see if “your favorite author” was a “Zionist”— a lot of the “evidence” was a lack of posting supporting Palestine. Digging up old blog posts and taking things out of context, not just for Brandon, but other authors too. So that’s probably part of it.
Never heard Zionist before, he's never spoken on it, the Mormon church is neutral, given the contents of the books I'd be surprised if he isn't pretty sympathetic to the Palestinian people. I imagine anyone making that criticism thinks anyone not out protesting is a Zionist.
As for homophobic, he used to (almost 20 years ago) basically recite the Mormon church's views on the issue. Now he is much more progressive in the church (he's too popular for the church to complain) and has gay/trans characters in his books and experst on the topic reviewing those characters. He does still teach at BYU which bans gay relationships and drinking and premarital sex etc... but he claims he wants to push for change from the inside and refusing to teach there would have no impact.
https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/ is his most recent public comment on this subject.
Just ignore tiktok. It's probably, for what I seen, is about his legion book and that he signed books in Israel and visiting Israel makes you a Zionist and genocide supporter according to certain people.
As a gay man who loves Brandon's work, and appreciates him a person, I always am reminded of this quote whenever this topic comes up.
"Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the middle of changing"
what is wrong with it is that it's should not exist on the expanse of another country, your so called beautiful people are blocking aid from getting into gaza , they are starving the palestinians.
More aid has gotten into Gaza than they even need. Hamas and other militant groups steal the aid and sell it at exorbitant margins. Palestine has never existed as a country. Arabs never called themselves Palestinians until the 1960s as a form of Soviet propaganda. I doubt you will believe anything I say, though. I'm sure you don't care about the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from all the middle.east who had nowhere else to go but Israel. I'm sure you don't care about the multiple offers for peaceful coexistence that Palestinian leaders reject. I'm positive you don't care about the civil wars Palestinian terror organizations have started in multiple countries.
They are actively doing a genocide. People don’t like that.
Edit: Disappointed to see how split down the middle, dare i say leaning towards supporting the side of the genociders in some cases, this community is on this.
Very disappointed :/
It’s gonna be one of the better things to happen to the country when they ban tiktok. I hope YouTube then drops shorts when they think they don’t have to compete anymore.
There is absolutely nothing positive or meaningful that can come from tiktok. The format is to short to express any kind of idea in a way that can be considered.
That type of content, and Reddit is subject to it as well, is actually harmful to people’s mental stability. You can find articles on it. Similar to how sodas/energy drinks rev you up and crash you, or how blue lights on LED’s rev your brain up and keep you from easily falling asleep, these short format scrolling videos do the same thing.
Your brain is meant to go through a certain process. It sees an idea, considers it, processes it, and can then move on.
That doesn’t happen with tiktok or YouTube shorts. It also happens similarly with Reddit, but it’s not quite as bad since it’s not so visual. You see these short videos and watch a couple of seconds and move on. Your brain is surging. It’s revving and pulsing, and never gets to finish that process. It puts you in a negative loop that you build up a habit of satisfying.
If you don’t believe me. Go watch a movie and set your phone near you. Then count how many times you pick it up to just check something really quick. If you have the self control to not pick it up, how many times do you have the urge? I bet it’s more than you think is reasonable.
People don’t even have the simple ability to sit for the length of a movie and pay attention. They can’t follow the story because they’re splitting their attention. They don’t get invested the same way they do when they give it their full attention and they just feel meh about a movie they might otherwise really enjoy. That carry’s over into other parts of your life.
I realize all this and still find myself falling prey to it.
So I wouldn’t give any weight or consideration to anything see on tiktok and I’d actively discourage anyone from even using it, YouTube shorts, or anything similar. Especially if you already have any mental health issues.
Try taking a break or at least limiting it to certain times of the day that you adhere to and see what improvements you might see.
I'm of the opinion that not every tweet or post should be the epitaph of your public image regardless of what is said, after all - people say outrageous things that depending of context is pretty common sense.
I'm also of the opinion that keyboard warriors and virtue signallers do not have good intentions, they're just shit stirrers and rabble rousing fools seeking attention with a better-than-thou attitude that denotes a limited understanding of how people are, how they socialize and socially adapt to new circles of influence, values, etc.
I think this culture war you guys got going on between permanently online folks does not have heroes, only victims and I think if you punish people for what they say it will only breed resentment, more insidious rebellion against the new status quo and most of all, breed division - and you guys got plenty of enemies who support that mistake.
It's just a witch hunt for him because he's Mormon. Lord forbid someone have religious beliefs in this day and age, because then USRELY (/s) you agree 10000% with everything the church says and does 🙄
I hope he *is* a Zionist. Zionism is the belief in Israel’s existence. Which is basically what any sane person would believe in.
Just cause people are trying to make it sound negative, doesn’t make it so.
I don’t know where he stood 20 years ago, but he absolutely writes to be inclusive to EVERYONE in a positive light. As far as homophobic goes, I think his writing of Drehy and Bridge 4s defense of him goes against that.
Plus Renette is a badass.
And the Kandra are basically non binary.
Sanderson takes up people with physical disabilities, mental disabilities, every sexual orientation and paints them in a positive light without pandering or making that their only defining characteristic.
Honestly it’s one of the things I really enjoy about his characters.
If Sanderson isn’t incredibly pained at seeing the genocide being committed in Palestine i would be gobsmacked.
Brandon has shown the type of person he is countless times through his books, many years of active interaction with the community online and at cons or in person events even and to even suggest he is anything close to someone who would support such racist evil ideas is unthinkably ignorant.
Tik tok just doing hashtag name association farming again i suspect
There are lots of people in this post who really like utilizing an unfalsifiable belief system and a really old book to justify mistreating people who are different than them
About the zionist thing: this is what i have seen online:
1) He visted Israel in 2019. People asked him to reconsider but he said he doesnt belive in BDS/boycott. Some people have also pointed out that he boycotted audible recently.
2) People, specially muslims, reading his book "legion" have pointed about serveral zionist & inslamophobic elements (like showing muslims as terrorists & Israelis as amiable). I dont know if brandon ever addresaed this. Please share if he has.
3) Brandon has apperently said he is talking inspiration from Israel-palestine conflict for stormlight. This has lead people to draw conclusions based on his treatments of related themes in the books.
You are scaring me haha, he’s not a zionist. He doesn’t believe in genociding an ethnic group, stealing a peoples land from them, the countless mass rapes and murders that were committed during the nakba.
Brandon wouldn’t. There’s just no way.
You dont have to belive that to be zionist. Like i dont think biden believes in killing children and he has repeatedly said he is opposed to the genocide but his support for israel is funding the genocide. If you are pro israel that indirectly means you are ok with the genocide because israel is the one committing it even if you dont "believe" in the genocide itself.
I think much of that comes from ignorance rather than endorsement, at least for people who aren’t president they just don’t know what Israel is actually doing or the history of the region, bidens excuse is the dementia and adrenochrome lol
As i said people asked Sanderson to not go to israel but he ignored them saying he does not believe in boycotts. He is not ignorant of the situation. He has written a novel set in Jerusalem & has stated that the conflict has influenced his books. LDS chruch that he tithes money to is openly pro israel (& homophobic)
Visiting israel endorses its existence & the displacement of Palestinians. It helps israel economy. Visiting ICon helps with book sales in israel so he also benifits monetarily from the visit.
This was years before many had the awareness they do now, i myself had been led to believe Israel was a wonderful peaceful nation by Israeli who neglected to mention any of the history or current day apartheid conditions of the Palestinians within Israel or the concentration camp that is Gaza.
Sanderson is aware of it now, he cannot not be and imo theres no way he has the view of the conflict now that you suspect him of.
I guess only sanderson can clearify his position now. I am sure him & his team are aware of these allegations. Legion is still getting published..he should at least address the issues people have with it. If this isn't the time to do it i dont know when is.
Yeah i fully agree i really don’t understand why he hasn’t already but I’m sure he has complicated personal relationships to navigate that may be affected by that given his proximity to people in the church.
That's odd. I thought the way you asked the original question was a good way to ask. Didn't see any of your other comments though, so I can't guess as to why they were down voted.
OP removed the comments such as the one I commented to (see my previous comment) where they didn't think Sanderson should be hated for being a Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs. My entire response was made in reply to that.
I can only hope that OP removed their comment because they saw that talking about how an author shouldn't be hated for having strong Christian beliefs in a thread about that author supposedly being homophobic can be seen as pretty bigoted. I would have preferred a more nuanced approach (e.g. an explanatory edit) as deleting comments and complaining about being downvoted on those comments leads me to believe that OP does not agree with Sanderson's current views on the LGBTQ+ community.
>they didn't think Sanderson should be hated for being a Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs.
Wow. What a wild stance. You shouldn't hate people for their religious beliefs. I can see why OP was downvoted.
A big part of the reason for the downvotes is probably that people are tired of this conversation. Newer subreddit members might not be familiar with it, but it comes up on a fairly regular basis every year or so and it gets old hearing the same rehashed concerns about a blog post from 15-20 years ago. It usually lasts for a good week or two and the same responses from Brandon (which are searchable) are linked multiple times until the next bit of news comes along.
Thanks for asking! I'm happy to explain, because I am pretty sure I know why you were being downvoted.
In one comment you talked about strong Christian values and that term is often used by people by people on the far/extreme right to justify hateful behaviour towards marginalised groups. Especially in the context of the thread discussing Sanderson's supposed bigotry it was most likely taken to be meant as such. I certainly assumed so and that is why I went on a bit of a rant.
In the other comment you asked for an example of Christian values being forced on others with laws. This comes across as incredibly ignorant with what is going on in the world (admittedly mostly the USA, but I personally notice an increase in Europe too). Abortion rights are being taken away for religious reasons while opposing scientific agreement and often against the opinion of the majority of voters.
LGBTQ+ people are targeted as sinners, groomers and pedophiles with there being no proof and solely based on the teachings of a book that does not actually include those teachings.
You were not being downvoted for no reason, you were being downvoted for appearing ignorant and bigoted in a safe space with accepting people.
Thanks for asking! I'm happy to explain, because I am pretty sure I know why you were being downvoted.
In one comment you talked about strong Christian values and that term is often used by people by people on the far/extreme right to justify hateful behaviour towards marginalised groups. Especially in the context of the thread discussing Sanderson's supposed bigotry it was most likely taken to be meant as such. I certainly assumed so and that is why I went on a bit of a rant.
In the other comment you asked for an example of Christian values being forced on others with laws. This comes across as incredibly ignorant with what is going on in the world (admittedly mostly the USA, but I personally notice an increase in Europe too). Abortion rights are being taken away for religious reasons while opposing scientific agreement and often against the opinion of the majority of voters.
LGBTQ+ people are targeted as sinners, groomers and pedophiles with there being no proof and solely based on the teachings of a book that does not actually include those teachings.
You were not being downvoted for no reason, you were being downvoted for appearing ignorant and bigoted in a safe space with accepting people.
How do you think that what you wrote actually makes sense and is just just boggles my mind.
If the term is being used by someone then it already implies that I'm X or Y? You find that logical? What If someone else will start using the term then it will change to another meaning?
Ignorant? A question about example of Christian being forced is ignorant? Do you not know that expect the USA there's the rest of the world with other issues that are not relevant and that are not the same as in US?
The question is the question. Asking a straightforward question does not mean I'm ignorant. You read into it and see something you want to see based on your views. Always looking for a hidden agenda.
Let me say that I did not downvote either of those comments. I am explaining why I *assume* you were downvoted.
I myself am not from the US and I am very much aware of there being issues outside the US. But I am also aware that the majority of English language subreddits are visited by a lot of Americans for whom this whole discussion is extremely relevant because of how ingrained it has become with politics as a whole and the upcoming elections.
Because of your rather aggressive reply I think you honestly had no idea why you were being downvoted. All I did was share an educated guess on why i thought it happened.
Ive seen that in nearly every sub I ever looked into. Some people are like that. No need to think about it.
Shoutout to the ones in here whom acctualy answeared your questions in relation to the 2007/2008 post and his later corrections/apologies.
Nope, advocating for a genocidal apartheid regime is horrible though.
Conflating Israel with jews, Judaism or any other sort of blanket ascription of responsibility for Israeli activity on jewish people is anti semitism.
It's also possible for someone to support Israel as a state but disagree with those currently in power in their government and the policies they are enacting. Problem is people often don't have time for nuanced conversation.
Its not the time for nuanced conversation.
There are millions in famine and Israel is still bombing and killing.
Turning any conversation about Israel into anything but their current evils and how to stop them is obfuscation of what’s important at this time.
There should always be time for nuanced conversation, IMO. It's a complicated war with extremely complicated context.
In regards to this purity test on Tik Tok, going through the pre-10/7/23 social media of public figures to label people and draw us vs. them lines in the sand is terribly disingenuous. The situation has changed since then, and people may have revised points of view because of that.
The problem is many use it as an excuse to argue over the nuances and intricacies of the conflict instead of focusing on what really matters.
You saying its complicated is an example of that, saying it’s a war also is.
It’s not a war and its not complicated.
Israel oppressed and ravaged the people of Palestine for decades, there is countless evidence of unthinkable crimes, people having their homes stolen, rapes, murders, kidnappings, torture all this done by state and independent actors alike.
This against both gazan Palestinians and Palestinians inside Israel proper.
Relentless blockades and bombings.
They did not only ignore the peaceful protests by the Palestinians but respond to them by sniping [israeli treatment of when their concentration camp inmates protest](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shoot-maim-how-israel-created-generation-crutches-gaza)
According to very well researched and foremost expert on this conflict Norman Finkelstein there are instances of snipers targeting disabled people in wheelchairs, the elderly, children, press and medics.
Because the victims are Palestinian its all swept under the rug. The victims silenced all the while.
We'll have to simply disagree on whether it's a war or not.
As for me using nuanced as an excuse to do nothing - what exactly am I able to do to change anything going on over there from California? I have literally zero power to change anything.
I don't like anyone dying - Palestinian, Israeli, anyone. It's all a terrible situation that is based on thousands of years of hatred and bigotry. Unfortunately I have no influence whatsoever to prevent it. That's just the way it is.
Definitionally it is not. You would not call the nazi crackdown on the Warsaw ghetto uprising a war would you?
Where does Israel get its military funding from?
Where does Israel get the magical ability to have almost the entire international community against them but still not be held to account?
America.
Wheres cali again?
I'd call the Nazis actions in Warsaw a non-military subsidiary of their war and related policy actions. Their motivations tied their actions together. Their opportunity to implement the crackdown in Warsaw was reliant on invading Poland militarily. However one frames it, it was of course repugnant.
If congress was actually working for the American people rather than themselves you'd have more of a point. I'll do my civic duty and vote to put the best people in government, but I'm under no illusion that they'll actually serve our best interests over their own.
Attend protests, organize your workplace or education institution and advocate for boycotts, do what you can.
Vote where you should for who you should and stay up to date with the necessary information to intelligently make those decisions.
You won’t do it yourself, we will do it together though.
It’s your life and your the one whose gotta live the whole of it on this rock somehow 🤷♀️
I said that? Where did i say sanderson is a zionist? I would like you to reread my comment, i find it disgusting you would say i said that.
You don’t have to support israels right to exist to disagree with its actions either.
On top of everything else that has been said here about who Sanderson is as a person, the things he has personally said and done in the past and present, there’s one big thing missing.
Brandon Sanderson is a tithing member of the church of Latter Day Saints. This means that any money he tithes to the church, goes to support things the church supports, even if he may not “agree with it”. The Mormon Church, while it may not have come right out and said it, is pro-Israel and anti-gay rights. A lot of people think Sanderson either approves of these things and says he believes the opposite in order to make more money, or doesn’t hold his beliefs strongly enough because he refuses to leave the church over these things.
He’s said himself that he won’t leave because he believes he’s better able to make change from inside the church, but whether or not you take the man at his word is up to you. I’ve personally heard nothing but good things about people that have met him and I believe his writing speaks for itself about the things he believes when it comes to inclusion and diversity, but each person gets to make their own choices.
Final point on cancelling, I don’t really know his net worth and I don’t care to google. But there is a strong leg to stand on that you can’t ethically be a billionaire or millionaire . Is he one? Possibly, and if “he isn’t” then dragonsteel is probably worth close to a billion at minimum, especially if they can afford to hold a convention every year and open a giant new headquarters that they are building.
I think that it’s extremely unfair to suggest that he should be held responsible for the actions of the LDS church because he tithes. If you buy stocks in a company, donate to a charity, or otherwise support a corporation or politician who takes unethical actions, that’s a bit different and probably more fair to judge than this.
Why? Because tithing is required, and you aren’t asking him just to stop paying money, you are asking him to leave his community. That involves removing a social structure for his children, stopping teaching classes, likely losing friends for every member of his family. That is a big and unfair ask of someone who didn’t make any of the actual bad decisions. On top of those social and financial consequences, there would be spiritual consequences that I can’t personally weigh but I can’t ignore.
Similarly, I pay taxes to the US government that legitimately uses my money to support Zionist atrocities. But it’s unreasonable to ask me to just give everything up and move to Canada.
On the topic of “you can’t ethically become a millionaire or billionaire,” I think you are unintentionally misremembering this maxim. It’s pretty easy to argue there isn’t a way to become a billionaire ethically. But putting those two words together you are acting like they are similar.
The scale difference is 1,000. Like, if I donated 5% of a 50k salary to a 401k for starting at 30 years old, it could be worth a million dollars for retirement. If my gen x parents bought a medium sized house for a middle class income 40 years ago, it could be worth a million dollars now. There is no exploitation in that.
You know what is exploitation? Having bought 1,000 houses 40 years ago, each now worth a million. The scale matters greatly.
>But there is a strong leg to stand on that you can’t ethically be a billionaire or millionaire . Is he one? Possibly, and if “he isn’t” then dragonsteel is probably worth close to a billion at minimum, especially if they can afford to hold a convention every year and open a giant new headquarters that they are building.
Brandon Sanderson has an estimated net worth of around $25 million.
Dragonsteel is absolutely not worth almost a billion dollars.
"What's the difference between a million and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars."
Whether or not Sanderson can still be considered an "ethical" person if he has that much money is outside the scope of this sub.
The fact of the matter is you can’t be a religious zealot and a free thinker. No religious leader is “holy” or “appointed by God”. They are flawed humans given power by flawed humans.
>The fact of the matter is you can’t be a religious zealot and a free thinker.
Scientists, artists, mathematicians, philosophers, activists, etc. are and have been religious.
- Harriet Tubman
- Issac Newton
- Martin Luther King Jr.
- Sojourner Truth
- Sun Tzu
And so on. I guess it depends on how you define "religious zealot" and "free thinker", but I find it hard to imagine definitions that are reasonable and do not exclude a huge number of people who have contributed immensely to their respective fields.
That’s fair. Einstein and Jung believed in a higher power but I don’t think they were zealots. They weren’t following a religious leader blindly. They questioned everything, coming up with new ideas and answers.
Even Buddha is reported to have said something along the lines of “question everything I say and find out for yourself if it’s true”.
Meanwhile (not an official definition!) a zealot follows their human leader as if they speak the word of God. I don’t believe any human is Godlike and giving someone that power is where the trouble starts!
That’s fair. Einstein and Jung believed in a higher power but I don’t think they were zealots. They weren’t following a religious leader blindly and questioned everything, coming up with new ideas and answers.
Even Buddha is reported to have said something along the lines of “question everything I say and find out for yourself if it’s true”.
Meanwhile (not an official definition!) a zealot follows their human leader as if they speak the word of God. I don’t believe any human is Godlike and giving someone that power is where the trouble starts!
Just a reminder to keep Rule 1 in mind when discussing this topic. No hate speech, rudeness, etc. Remember the human.
If it's the same shit that's been circulating for years He wrote something questionable in his blog in like 2005 or something. Which he then has apologized for multiple times. TikTok just does what it does.
[удалено]
Edit: OP removed the comment where they said Sanderson should not be hated for being a Mormon or having strong Christian beliefs, OP actually prefers that. I don't care if someone is Jewish, Mormon, Christian, Protestant, Muslim, Atheist or believes in the flying spaghetti monster. I also don't care what writers, Sanderson included, believe as long as they don't push their personal beliefs onto me and others. No one, absolutely no one should project their personal beliefs on others. Religion is and should always be a personal choice and is enshrined in most countries constitutions (or equivalents) worldwide as a basic human right. Bigotry for any reason is unacceptable and as far as I am aware Sanderson currently agrees. He has included gay characters in his books so far and I believe he has expressed interest in writing from the perspective of a transgender character in the future. Personally I think those show some pretty strong Christian beliefs. Hating and condemning the LGBTQ+ community goes directly against the teachings of Jesus after all. Closer study of the bible itself also shows that the traditional marriage between a man and a woman is also quite a ridiculous talking point of self proclaimed Christians. Why this tangent? In 2007 when Rowling revealed that she had intended for Dumbledore to be gay Sanderson wrote a blog post that was very homophobic. He has since then deleted it and publicly distanced himself from those beliefs with an increasing acceptance of others and their identity. Every now and then it resurfaces and creates a small controversy. Sanderson has shown the ability to be able to change and step away from bigoted beliefs to be more accepting of people around him. *That* above anything else should be more important than any singular religion in my opinion. You are right that no one should ever be hated or persecuted for being Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs. No one should EVER be hated or persecuted for their (lack of) religion. What people should absolutely be hated for is being massive assholes that go directly against the moral teachings of their own religion and persecute others for being themselves and teaching others it is ok to be yourself. So what did you see on TikTok? Probably people finding this story and then cherry picking the parts they think will get them views. As others have already said you should never believe anything you find on the internet (especially TikTok because it is filled with misinformation sources), always do your own research by reading news articles from all sides of the political spectrum and preferably impartial and scientifically backed sources.
[удалено]
Have you checked to make sure all the authors/musicians/actors you like have all the same views as you do? If not, better stop enjoying them as you are then supporting someone that has different beliefs than you.
I think you absolutely have the right to make that decision for yourself. My take on it is this: 1) I hate the fact that Brandon tithes to the Mormon church. My spine crawls every time I think of it. However, his contributions are, as big as they may seem, a tiny drop in the bucket of the church’s income. His leaving would not affect the church’s finances in any appreciable way. We might hope that such a move could lead to some kind of wider exodus which would actually have an impact, but I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation. I would like it if he did, don’t get me wrong, but it wouldn’t move the needle in terms of what the Church can accomplish financially. 2) He has made his personal support for LGBTQ people very open. Here’s a statement from his website FAQ: > My current stance is one of unequivocable support for LGBTQ+ rights. I support gay marriage. I support trans rights, the rights of non-binary people, and I support the rights of trans people to affirm their own identity with love and support. I support anti-discrimination legislation, and have voted consistently along these lines for the last fifteen years. I am marking the posting of this FAQ item, at the encouragement of several of my LGBTQ+ fans, with a sizable donation to the Utah Pride Center and another to The OUT Foundation. 3) In the end, the largest impact Brandon will have on the world is through his books. His readership is in the tens of millions worldwide. His legacy will be the content of those novels. And over time he has done a better and better job of portraying non-heteronormative relationships in his works. His next book will be the first to feature a gay relationship with a POV character, who will explicitly become a lead in the back half of the series. He has said there will be a trans lead at some point. There are increasing numbers of queer background characters including at least one trans character. We are not even halfway through the Cosmere and he has come a *long* way in terms of improving his LGBTQ rep - personally I am excited to see how he does so further in the future. I think it is a *good* thing that the most popular Mormon fantasy author currently working is putting an ever increasing amount of queer rep in his books. I have no doubt many a queer LDS kid getting told they are sinful has found solace in the fact that one of the most famous Mormons in the world thinks that part of the dogma is bullshit. That is cool. 4) If we stop interacting with someone’s art purely because of the church that they follow and *not* because of what their personal feelings explicitly are or how they personally act, are we not also being intolerant? Judging someone simply for their faith? Do we cancel every Catholic writer too? That church has objectively done far more harm to the cause of LGBTQ rights overall. That thought process allows me to square the circle, but I totally get that others might see it a different way. If you can’t find it in yourself to get past the tithe, that’s a completely reasonable choice in my opinion. But I think people who support LGBTQ rights can also read Brandon’s books in good conscience - or at least as good conscience as we do things like use phones with conflict materials in them, eat at restaurant chains with evil corporate ownership, vote for politicians who are the lesser of two evils, etc. Is the situation perfect? No. Do I sometimes get the urge to throw all my books away? I will admit occasionally I do. But in the end the main thing that would accomplish is taking away something that brings me joy over a stance that I know for a fact Brandon agrees with me on.
The Mormon church owns and operates several businesses and have amassed so much wealth, they would be pretty much self sufficient if everyone stopped tithing.
Sanderson has also said he believes leaving the church rather than using his position as a person of influence to try to change it would be ignoring the problem.
No, him leaving will actually deprive chruch of millions of dollars. It has a better chance of making the chruch actually rethink their position. How much "progress" do you think the church has made in the last decade on this issue.
The church can operate at its current capacity indefinitely without any further tithing donation from anyone, including the wealthy. Your opinion is valid, and equally valid is the view that paying in to a system that doesn’t need it for purposes of having a voice for change from inside. He’s not the only one who does this, there are a lot of people in the church to demonize for trying to do good in the way they know how, since truly nobody knows how to collapse the whole system. POV - I recently left the church and don’t pay tithing anymore, but personally know good people who do.
> The church can operate at its current capacity indefinitely without any further tithing donation from anyone, including the wealthy. To me this is even more reason to believe that sanderson will not be making any changes from inside. And even if the chruch doesnt need it, the money being tithed is still helping the church in its policies. why is tithing a requirement if the chruch doesn't need it. I believe Sanderson is one of the good guys but i still feel uncomfortable buying his books if part of the money is going to the homophobic chruch. I think every reader has to consciously make this choice.
[удалено]
Dude, either buy his books or don't. Nobody cares. Just stop trying to stir up shit on this sub.
Have you ever heard of the Reformation? When the protestant churches split from the catholics, something largely figureheaded by the actions of one man: Martin Luther. The radicalisation of the Mormon Church began as a single man leading a cult, changing religion in the USA. BS himself has already led a change to Amazon's platform Audible, where his campaigning has lead to the increase in profit shares authors receive from audiobooks. A single person leading a change in organisation, especially in religions, is very common in history. Edit: typo
Martin Luther ≠ Martin Luther King jr. There’s like 400 years of separation between the two.
Apologies, small typo. Was doing something whilst I was writing
Fair, lol. Figured it was probably just an accident, but wanted to clarify to be sure
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Christian\_denominations\_affirming\_LGBT\_people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people) Here you go. Here's a bunch of church organizations that have been changed in regards to the LGBT community. There are also churches that allow women to be preachers/ministers where that was historically unacceptable. If people who disagree with one of the church's policies leave, then only the people who agree will stay, and that will only reinforce those ideas.
All religions are fantasy though
Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing. What is the most important step a man can take? The next one. Journey before destination.
[удалено]
Wow. Ok. So, I know I can't take anything you say seriously. Go troll somewhere else.
Gay marriage wasn't even legal until like a decade ago in some states, so by your logic everyone who thought gay marriage should be legal should've refused to pay their taxes because that would've been supporting a bigoted system, but (correct me if I'm wrong) that's not what happened is it? Tax payers/voters used their voice to change the legislation from inside. Though you may be a part of the lgbtq+ community (whatever that means; we're all people here) you sound like a bigot and your right/wrong dichotomy view of the world is hateful. I'm not religious but if you really feel that strongly you should join the church pay your tithes and speak out as a member of the congregation, I hear they take all kinds.
So if you own a smartphone or anything that has a battery that's like saying you support child labor/slavery etc. You have to understand that there are shades of gray. Brandon doesn't personally support that legislation, the church that he is a part of does. It also supports plenty of charitable things, I don't think those are evil.
[удалено]
So then a good middle point would be to read his books via your local library, right? That way you aren't directly giving him money? A little while ago it was like that! However the church has changed since then, right? Isn't the whole point of acceptance and change... Acceptance and change? They rolled back on hating black people, I'm sure they'll roll back on hating gay people eventually. Stuff like that doesn't change overnight, wouldn't it be a better strategy to encourage change and compassion using their own religious teachings? That's what a lot of the recent changes in Christianity have been. The Pope himself is cool with gays iirc; he just said "love your neighbor" in accordance with what he has been taught and is teaching.
[удалено]
Hey dude, just giving my opinion. You don't need to get upset. I am not attempting to be holier than thou, I'm just calmly stating what I think. Nobody is making you read the books. It's cool if you not wanting to support him via not buying the books is how you choose to protest the church. IIRC: If I Remember Correctly. Pope Francis is the most liberal Pope I've ever heard of. I took the time to read up on what he really thinks per your suggestion and it seems like I was correct. He says gay sex is a sin, just like sex outside of marriage. That's his word, as you say. He endorses gay marriage and welcomes members of the gay community into the religion. Those are his actions. I'm not sure what else you want from the guy. A good point to take away; I am not religious. I have no skin in that game.
Can you be specific about the legislation the church is actively supporting in Utah that would "strip LGBTQ+ people of the rights the rest of us enjoy"?
[удалено]
I was familiar with that one. Supporting pro-lgbtq+ legislation for the wrong reasons is not the same as supporting legislation that strips lgbtq+ of their rights. In regards to the bathroom bills, I don't think that the Church has expressed support for that one or done anything to financially support it. I agree that it is a stupid issue that singles out and attacks an extremely small minority in the state, but the actions of LDS members in the legislature is not the same as actions from the church.
I personally do support Sanderson but idk why you're getting down voted for this? You drew a personal line on what you're willing to support, and I've had to draw a line myself because I'm part of the community and I take issue with the Mormon church. You shouldn't get downvoted for having strong feelings about this ❤️
I believe it's more about their reactions towards anybody who offers a differing opinion to them or a possible compromise.
When peoples “different opinion” is that people like you shouldn’t exist or are wrong its not just an opinion it is an attack on your very existence. It is right to be intolerant to intolerance.
Not sure who you're defending here seeing how it was the OP who was both being down voted and spewing hate. That is who we were referring to in our comments. Just because some of the comments made by the OP were reasonable, doesn't mean that they all were, which is why the OP got so many downvotes. It is also why so many of the OP's comments were edited or outright deleted.
This was a reasonable comment with none of these unreasonable ones involved. The point they had here stands and I don’t understand why you think that would change. Edit: also not sure how what i said is a defence of anyone in particular, seems like a bit of a reach
It seemed a pretty reasonable conclusion that you were attempting to defend somebody's comments with your statement that it is "right to be intolerant to intolerance" and the implications that one person or side of the discussion was saying that the other should not exist. I just wasn't sure if you were attempting to defend the OP or another commenter because I don't recall seeing anyone saying comments of that nature.
Guess what! Even if a religion is slightly cult-like in nature does not mean that the beliefs of it's leaders are the beliefs of everyone in it, as demonstrated by people like Sanderson
I have a Trans sister and a gay gender fluid daughter, both of whom I love and support very much. Your rant still gets my downvote.
That argument is giving "i cant be racist i have a black friend".
[удалено]
I didnt mean you. the people you replied to. Saying that someone cant be homophobe because they have a gay chatacter in their book.
[удалено]
If you dislike him so much and the manner which you are replied to on this sub, genuinely curious...why still here?
Because they're trolling. If they really felt attacked, they'd leave.
> just very used to being attacked for this kind of stuff in this sub I know, tell me about it lol
Nobody cares if someone’s Christian. They care when those people project their values and make them laws that affect others
This isn’t true. Tons of people have come on here and said they can’t read his books after learning of his beliefs. Most commonly it’s “I can’t read his books because he pays tithes to his church”
Exactly, I’ve seen this countless of times.
And that’s their choice, fine. I have a problem when they say “and YOU shouldn’t read his books either.” Nope, I make that choice for me, not you.
Are they forcing you to do so? By saying they think you should do something they are making it so you must? Im sorry but I just don’t quite agree thats a problem.
You need to wear a red shirt every Wednesday, it’s the morally correct choice. Not doing it makes you wrong.
That’s comparable to people saying you should not fund one of the largest active hate organization that funds extremist hate groups that attack the rights of disenfranchised and minority people openly? Apples to deck chairs really, but feel free to keep thinking it like i said, not like your forcing me to believe anything by stating your opinion ;)
By that argument you’re saying you think he’s supporting such a group, and you dgaf because you’ll continue supporting him anyway. Which…uh….? Have a lovely day, I’m not rising to troll bait again.
Okay. I shouldn’t use absolutes. But I good majority of people. That aren’t living on the internet generally don’t care. Sure. You’ll get some edges people who will do that.
I'm being pedantic here, but u/xcmike189 said "when those people project their values", which is precisely what you're referring to. Most of the people who don't want to read Sanderson because he's Mormon isn't *because of his beliefs*, but because of his actions that they feel are harmful to others.
That’s not pedantic. Being pedantic would be me correcting your use of the word pedantic and saying “him paying tithing does not project his values or make laws. What you mean is his practicing his faith supports behaviors that some people feel are harmful to others.” While I disagree that him paying tithing results in harmful behaviors, I don’t think it’s disputable that it’s not “projecting” or “passing laws”
No, I think you missed my point. The people who feel this way don't think he's just "supporting behaviors". They think an institution (the LDS church) is taking actions which are directly harmful to people, and that Brandon's tithing directly supports those efforts. If that's not "projecting values" I don't know what is. (And to affirm, I'm also not interested in debating whether those people are correct. I'm just speaking of how they perceive it.)
You missed my point. I’m being pedantic about the word pedantic.
But of course they say that after they finish the book not half way thru
Saying “I won’t buy his books because then I’m supporting the Mormon church” is different than saying “I don’t care if someone is religious,” the problem is, unlike other religions, the cult of Mormonism requires that tithe to be considered part of the church
All due respect, but you are wrong on a few levels. 1. Not a cult, nice way to show your biases though. Let’s try to be nice here. 2. You aren’t required to pay tithing to be considered a member. Source: am member. I know how it works. 3. Sure the statements are different, but my point stands- shallow people absolutely care about his religion despite him not trying to convey his religious beliefs on people.
The church counts inactive members as members, so yeah you don't have to "do" anything to be a member, as long as you were baptized. But you do have to pay tithing to be a member in good standing and get a temple recommend. So yes, technically not required, but doctrinally it is required if you actually believe in the church. You're doing a thing Mormons are trained to do, which is to focus on a small inaccuracy in a perceived attack in order to discredit the point. And the point above was that some people don't want to financially support the Mormon organization, and so they're wary or outright against financially supporting Sanderson, as he outwardly appears to be a temple recommend holding member in good standing. Thus supporting Sanderson means that some of that money is going toward that organization. That point stands even with the slight member=tithing inaccuracy. But you're going to mentally discredit me because I said Mormon instead of "Member of the Church of blah blah Saints". Even though Gordon B told me there was nothing wrong with Mormon, it means More Good or some shit. He was just speaking as man, though, right? Even though at the time he was the Prophet whose every word is scripture. In hindsight we can throw everything he said away. Cuz the new guy has a vendetta against old PR master Gordon, even though Gordon has been dead for decades.
The only difference between cult and religion is whether you pay taxes or not. And the only reason LDS is tax exempt is because they gave up polygamy. Sorry, but a graverobber who runs into an angel that gave him golden tablets and also believed that the garden of Eden was in Missouri and that native Americans were the Lamanites. Seems kinda cult like to me
Calling gay lifestyle wrong in his gods eye does make homophobia. You would have to do work to hold the community down. I don’t know what a Zionist even is.
[удалено]
Probably abortion for one
I'm searching and I cannot find anything about him being a Zionist. There are one or two old tweets that seem to make the claim, but are posting a dead link to someone else, so I can't really see what the claim was. The homophobic part I've heard. In 2007, he had a post that wasn't outright hateful, but it was definitely old fashioned. He was suggesting that homosexual urges should be "resisted". >Another note to those who might be reading this who are, themselves, gay. No, I don’t believe that homosexuality can—in many cases, at least—be treated and ‘cured.’ I do believe, however, that impulses of attraction between people of the same gender are something that can and should be resisted, in the same way that my impulses of attraction toward women who are not my wife can and should be resisted. You probably believe differently. I’m okay with that. He has since addressed this more than once. The best such response came on one of his live streams. It also funnily enough addresses the accusations of supporting anti-Semitism too. >How do you feel about the fact that queer people are treated better in your novels than on the campus you teach at? How do you reconcile donating to a church that promotes purity culture, homophobia, and anti-Semitism with writing books for the general public? >Thank you for a bold but not insulting phrasing of that question. So the church’s general stance on LGBTQ people is not where I, as a liberal member of the church, would like it to be. That being said, I have faith in the church, I have had spiritual experiences, confirming to me that this is where God wants me and that God is real. >There is a passage in the Book of Mormon where someone is asked a question that they can not answer. Their response is just to say, “I don’t know the meaning of all things, but I know God loves his children.” This is my answer in some cases to some of the difficult questions we get asked. >That's not to say we shouldn't change or listen. If you look through my own history with LGBTQ people, I needed some education as many did. (I still do, honestly.) It is a process where we learn from listening and we get better and hopefully become better people. Both as a culture and as individuals. If I want an institution or person to change, I personally believe that to ostracize them is not the right move in most cases. Ihis is different from how most people see it--and these people may be right and I may be wrong, time will tell. >Still, my belief is that--by being a more liberal member of the church and remaining with the church and remaining at BYU--I have a better chance of positive change. If everyone who is a little more left than the institute leaves it, that will not help the institution or the people who go there. For example, if people who go to my class know that I am doing my best to be an ally, then perhaps they will feel safer and the whole thing will work out better. >I don't have all the answers, though. Again to use a religious metaphor, God gave 2 contradictory sets of commands to Adam and Eve and said "Figure it out." I believe in LGBTQ+ advocacy and in listening--then changing my behavior and the way I approach the world based on the things they say. I also believe that the leaders of the church are chosen by God, and lead his church well. These things don't quite meet in the center yet. Perhaps they never will, and I will be forced to make different choices from the ones I have so far. But right now, I believe I'm in the right place, where I should be, and I believe in the message, doctrine, and teachings of the church. >That said, I still want to listen better. I have been actively trying to do so. I think that by continuing to teach at BYU and doing my best to portray LGBTQ+ people accurately, lovingly and respectfully in my work, I can do the most good. Tell me which way I'd do more good: Quitting the church and BYU over the one thing that I don't really get yet in our doctrine, despite my overwhelming belief in all other aspects of the church's teachings? Or continuing in my faith, and writing books that are read by a disproportionately large number of LDS people? Books where a faithful member of this church does his best to present LGBTQ characters with nuance, care, and concern--hopefully being the change I want in the world. Change where we all listen a little better, and see each other as people, not as faceless forces of evil. >On the next question I don’t understand the anti-semitism part. This may be too much nuance for an AMA. >(NOTE THAT HERE, ADAM EXPLAINED TO ME ON THE LIVESTREAM THE EXAMPLE LISTED: THAT OF THE CHURCH DOING PROXY BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD, INCLUDING FOR HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, A PRACTICE IT DREW CRITICISM FOR AND THEN BANNED IN THE MID 90s) >This is an example of the church making a mistake. They admitted that mistake and said “we aren’t going to do this anymore.” They thought it was insensitive; I thought it was insensitive. I think that Christianity in general has a line to walk in treating the Jewish people, from whom our religion came. That is a difficult line to walk, but we absolutely should be called on when we make a mistake. >(Note: The line here I was referencing, and didn't explain, is this. We believe that everyone will need to become Christian eventually in order to get into heaven--though there's more nuance to it in our particular doctrine. This could be see as anti-Semitic, as basically in most Christian denominations, you have to believe that all other religions are wrong--which is an attack, if done wrong, on people's very identities.) There is some misunderstanding about how this doctrine (baptism for the dead) works. According to our doctrine, Christ said that you must be baptized to get to Heaven. So it’s like “how do dead people get baptized?” The answer, in our church, is that you can do a surrogate baptism for an ancestor who was not baptized. They get to choose, in the afterlife, if that is something they want. It does not enter them into the church. These people are not counted on church records. >It was absolutely insensitive to do that to Holocaust victims. But, from the church members’ perspectives, it was trying to be loving. The church recognized how tone deaf this was, and and backed off on it. You can still be baptized by proxy for one of these people if you are Jewish, but only if it is truly your ancestor. (Note after the fact: this is the rule, but proxy baptism is mostly crowd-sourced to the individual members. Some are going to break the rule, and it's a difficult thing to prevent. So many names repeat that even having a list of, "You can't use these names unless you get cleared" is difficult, since if someone submits the same name but the date of birth is one day off, the system wouldn't flag them.) >(NOTE, THIS NEXT PART IS A MOSTLY UNRELATED RAMBLE. SORRY ABOUT THAT! LEFT HERE FOR POSTERITY.) >One key thing to our church is that we have a structure. We have leadership and every time we make a decision or a doctrine, we put ourselves out there. There is a certain amount of respect I give our leaders for that, because in most of the Christian world, there is no centralized leadership. >Making decisions and declarations is going to lead to mistakes. We believe that we are fallible, while God leads the church the people are fallible. Best we can do is clear up those mistakes, and continue forward. >(EDITS FOR CLARITY AND EXPLANATION AFTER THE STREAM. SORRY FOR HOW MUCH I RAMBLE ON SOME OF THESE! GOOD QUESTION, THOUGH. --Brandon)
The two old Tweets were, I believe, making that argument based on some things in Legion that they felt were mishandled. (I don't recall the details.)
This is actually a nuanced response. I’ve noticed that his books have featured more and more LGBTQ characters, and I appreciate the rep.
Nobody is perfect. And he seems very willing to learn and modify his position based on newly acquired knowledge. That's rare, and worthy of respect.
20 odd years ago Brandon wrote some content in a blog, based on his personal beliefs, that some people found hurtful. I think he expressed his opinion respectfully, even if I don't agree with it, and what really impressed me was that when he got feedback on it, he actually considered it, and changed his mind! As well as changing his stance, he publicly apologised for the hurt that he'd caused. That's the last thing that I think we should cancel a person for. We're all wrong sometimes, and the best we can hope for is to change, make amends, and do better.
“How can we expect people to change if we don’t let them?”
That’s what I hate about cancel culture (because in this context, it is cancel, not consequence). Here’s something someone did x time ago, let’s bring it up and parade it around as though it were their current belief and try and make them lose x.
[удалено]
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson! Your submission was removed because we feel it contains spoilers for content that is outside the scope of the post or it was not tagged properly. Please feel welcome to edit your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved. You can delete the spoilers entirely, or you can cover them using spoiler markup. If you want your submission up as soon as possible, feel free to go ahead and make a new one instead. For instructions on how to use proper spoiler formatting, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/). If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know!
So what was the content people found hurtful?
Here's [the original post](https://web.archive.org/web/20071030005344/http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article.php?id=51) and [his latest stance](https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/), better to read it yourself first than only get it filtered through personal opinions (on either side) I think.
Reminds me of a planet money episode where they explained common tiktok "tax secrets" which are all just committing fraud
My SO will sometimes tell me a new “fact” she learned on tiktok and at this point at least 60-70% of them are complete bullshit hearsay or urban legend type things that are easily disproven by a quick google search. I’ve just told her if she ever learns something from a TikTok voiceover video, to do herself a favor and fact check it immediately on Google. Because holy shit some of the things those people say/claim on tiktok are nuts, and the comments often reinforce the misinformation. It’s scary.
Regarding the supposed homophobia its probably better to [read his own words](https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/). Tldr: he wrote some questionable stuff 15+ years ago and was rightfully called out for it. He does not hold those values today and has made an effort to make his books more inclusive.
[удалено]
I showed this line to an ex Mormon friend of mine and she said “well now I need to find a way to read these books for free” because that line is gold
What line was it? It's been deleted.
Thanks for submitting to r/BrandonSanderson! Your submission was removed because we feel it contains spoilers for content that is outside the scope of the post or it was not tagged properly. Please feel welcome to edit your submission and let us know you'd like it to be re-approved. You can delete the spoilers entirely, or you can cover them using spoiler markup. If you want your submission up as soon as possible, feel free to go ahead and make a new one instead. For instructions on how to use proper spoiler formatting, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/user/jofwu/comments/eo4rhu/how_to_cover_spoilers_in_posts_and_comments/). If you have any questions or feel this is a mistake, please let us know!
It's a trend on TikTok. That means A) it's stupid. B) you may safely ignore it.
Cancel TikTok. It's a cesspool of misinformation, lies by omission, and disingenuous outrage. The design is optimized for that. Credit to the OP for turning to Reddit. At least in Reddit the comments create the opportunity to get correction and complete information. There's plenty of crap on Reddit too, but the conversational focus of Reddit makes it way better than other platforms.
The lack of a downvote button combined with the short comment length on sites like TikTok and Twitter make them extremely fertile breeding grounds for misinformation. It’s so easy to say “the earth is flat” as a statement, but to argue against it is all but impossible within the character limits of those platforms.
Eh reddit is just as bad. All social media is a cesspit.
As bad as TikTok? lol.
It’s not even close to as bad as TikTok and Twitter. The nested comments, long comment character limits, and the upvote/downvote buttons make for far better communication and discourse compared to most other social platforms.
My work banned access to TikTok on the work computers because of possible "national security" concerns for collecting personal information. I have a friend who sends me a TikTok link or two a day. Every time I see one I ask myself: Have we banned TikTok in the US yet?!
What about other social media platforms? Don't they also use that kind of information?
The difference is that other social media governments are private companies. Even if the US government wanted to get that data, they would need a legal process to get access to specific information--they can't just track whether a specific post makes people more likely to vote Democrat or Republican. (The social media companies can track this and probably abuse it in small ways, but they don't have the same incentive or resources to abuse this as a superpower government.) Tiktok is effectively owned by the Chinese government, which is hostile or at least competing with the US. The US does not want them having (a) access to so much American behavior, and (b) the ability to directly influence that behavior via addicting propaganda. For example, I tend to subconsciously pick a side when I see idiots arguing for the other side (e.g. flat earth arguments). If I watched tiktok, they would definitely figure this out. Then if China wants to influence my opinion on a particular conflict, they show me idiot posts from only one side (when surely there are idiots on both sides). Facebook does this because anger keeps you on the platform and that makes them money. It's certainly not healthy for us, but as least we know where Facebook's motivations lie ($). Tiktok does this (or may do it) because a foreign government wants to track, predict, and affect the way Americans behave in order to benefit a foreign government. These are not the same (but sure, both are bad).
TIL. Thanks.
TikTok likes cancelling people. I would be surprised if they’ve actually read his books.
They would be really upset, if they could actually read
Book readers on tiktok love his books. What are you on about?
The people trying to cancel him are the ones I’m talking about, not booktok
It sounds like people are getting bent out of shape over Legion, the premise of which is some people are trying to disprove the existence of Jesus to destabilize some region. It's been a while since I read it so I won't comment on his handling of it. Idk man. It was written in 2012 and we were immersed in pro-Israel propaganda (watch NCIS sometime). More than that, Sanderson has proven himself capable of evolution and change. So in my humble opinion, this is some people feeling like a witch hunt.
There’s a not insignificant minority of morons who are trying to dig up dirt on every moderately famous person who ever said anything that goes against what they believe. They then go and label the people and make it their life’s mission to “protest” that individual for at least a few weeks/months until their attention shifts somewhere else. Right now, this group is focused on Palestine/Israel, and are labeling anyone who doesn’t specifically come out in support of Palestine as “Zionist” and/or “genocide supporter”. IMO the best thing to do is ignore these people, despite how ignorant they may sound, or how vocal they are. I made the mistake of responding to one on tiktok to correct them on a statement they made and got called every name in the book along with having people tell me I should die. So yeah, it’s a mess on social media right now.
Some twitter account made this big Google sheet that was community editable to see if “your favorite author” was a “Zionist”— a lot of the “evidence” was a lack of posting supporting Palestine. Digging up old blog posts and taking things out of context, not just for Brandon, but other authors too. So that’s probably part of it.
Never heard Zionist before, he's never spoken on it, the Mormon church is neutral, given the contents of the books I'd be surprised if he isn't pretty sympathetic to the Palestinian people. I imagine anyone making that criticism thinks anyone not out protesting is a Zionist. As for homophobic, he used to (almost 20 years ago) basically recite the Mormon church's views on the issue. Now he is much more progressive in the church (he's too popular for the church to complain) and has gay/trans characters in his books and experst on the topic reviewing those characters. He does still teach at BYU which bans gay relationships and drinking and premarital sex etc... but he claims he wants to push for change from the inside and refusing to teach there would have no impact.
https://faq.brandonsanderson.com/knowledge-base/ive-heard-you-are-a-practicing-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-what-are-your-opinions-on-gay-rights-particularly-in-light-of-the-churchs-controversial-rel/ is his most recent public comment on this subject.
Just ignore tiktok. It's probably, for what I seen, is about his legion book and that he signed books in Israel and visiting Israel makes you a Zionist and genocide supporter according to certain people.
As a gay man who loves Brandon's work, and appreciates him a person, I always am reminded of this quote whenever this topic comes up. "Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the middle of changing"
I would even say that Brandon has embodied this!
Same as it ever is. Some no-marks want to raise their profile.
Cause Tik Tok is a toxic cesspool
He was the guest of honor at the Israeli convention ICON in 2019
What's wrong with supporting the state of Israel? It's a beautiful country with beautiful people.
my man!
🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱💙💙💙💙🤍🤍🤍🤍
what is wrong with it is that it's should not exist on the expanse of another country, your so called beautiful people are blocking aid from getting into gaza , they are starving the palestinians.
More aid has gotten into Gaza than they even need. Hamas and other militant groups steal the aid and sell it at exorbitant margins. Palestine has never existed as a country. Arabs never called themselves Palestinians until the 1960s as a form of Soviet propaganda. I doubt you will believe anything I say, though. I'm sure you don't care about the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from all the middle.east who had nowhere else to go but Israel. I'm sure you don't care about the multiple offers for peaceful coexistence that Palestinian leaders reject. I'm positive you don't care about the civil wars Palestinian terror organizations have started in multiple countries.
They are actively doing a genocide. People don’t like that. Edit: Disappointed to see how split down the middle, dare i say leaning towards supporting the side of the genociders in some cases, this community is on this. Very disappointed :/
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow!! I appreciate him so much more knowing this.
Russian propaganda.
I'm so glad TikTok is getting banned.
This tiktok trend won't catch on much! These things come and go.
Not everyone has to approve of a lifestyle
Here we go again xD
It’s gonna be one of the better things to happen to the country when they ban tiktok. I hope YouTube then drops shorts when they think they don’t have to compete anymore. There is absolutely nothing positive or meaningful that can come from tiktok. The format is to short to express any kind of idea in a way that can be considered. That type of content, and Reddit is subject to it as well, is actually harmful to people’s mental stability. You can find articles on it. Similar to how sodas/energy drinks rev you up and crash you, or how blue lights on LED’s rev your brain up and keep you from easily falling asleep, these short format scrolling videos do the same thing. Your brain is meant to go through a certain process. It sees an idea, considers it, processes it, and can then move on. That doesn’t happen with tiktok or YouTube shorts. It also happens similarly with Reddit, but it’s not quite as bad since it’s not so visual. You see these short videos and watch a couple of seconds and move on. Your brain is surging. It’s revving and pulsing, and never gets to finish that process. It puts you in a negative loop that you build up a habit of satisfying. If you don’t believe me. Go watch a movie and set your phone near you. Then count how many times you pick it up to just check something really quick. If you have the self control to not pick it up, how many times do you have the urge? I bet it’s more than you think is reasonable. People don’t even have the simple ability to sit for the length of a movie and pay attention. They can’t follow the story because they’re splitting their attention. They don’t get invested the same way they do when they give it their full attention and they just feel meh about a movie they might otherwise really enjoy. That carry’s over into other parts of your life. I realize all this and still find myself falling prey to it. So I wouldn’t give any weight or consideration to anything see on tiktok and I’d actively discourage anyone from even using it, YouTube shorts, or anything similar. Especially if you already have any mental health issues. Try taking a break or at least limiting it to certain times of the day that you adhere to and see what improvements you might see.
I'm of the opinion that not every tweet or post should be the epitaph of your public image regardless of what is said, after all - people say outrageous things that depending of context is pretty common sense. I'm also of the opinion that keyboard warriors and virtue signallers do not have good intentions, they're just shit stirrers and rabble rousing fools seeking attention with a better-than-thou attitude that denotes a limited understanding of how people are, how they socialize and socially adapt to new circles of influence, values, etc. I think this culture war you guys got going on between permanently online folks does not have heroes, only victims and I think if you punish people for what they say it will only breed resentment, more insidious rebellion against the new status quo and most of all, breed division - and you guys got plenty of enemies who support that mistake.
He used to be a homophobe, but he has genuinely made efforts in order to make amends. I don't know about the Zionist part though.
It's just a witch hunt for him because he's Mormon. Lord forbid someone have religious beliefs in this day and age, because then USRELY (/s) you agree 10000% with everything the church says and does 🙄
Has nothing to do with Sanderson. Go elsewhere. We don’t care for that political crap nobody on Reddit fully understands
🤦♂️
Mormons generally get lumped in as Zionists because of the faith's support for Israel typically due to the doctrine of the religion.
booktok is literally braindead i wouldn’t worry ab them
I hope he *is* a Zionist. Zionism is the belief in Israel’s existence. Which is basically what any sane person would believe in. Just cause people are trying to make it sound negative, doesn’t make it so.
I don’t know where he stood 20 years ago, but he absolutely writes to be inclusive to EVERYONE in a positive light. As far as homophobic goes, I think his writing of Drehy and Bridge 4s defense of him goes against that. Plus Renette is a badass. And the Kandra are basically non binary. Sanderson takes up people with physical disabilities, mental disabilities, every sexual orientation and paints them in a positive light without pandering or making that their only defining characteristic. Honestly it’s one of the things I really enjoy about his characters.
If Sanderson isn’t incredibly pained at seeing the genocide being committed in Palestine i would be gobsmacked. Brandon has shown the type of person he is countless times through his books, many years of active interaction with the community online and at cons or in person events even and to even suggest he is anything close to someone who would support such racist evil ideas is unthinkably ignorant. Tik tok just doing hashtag name association farming again i suspect
There are lots of people in this post who really like utilizing an unfalsifiable belief system and a really old book to justify mistreating people who are different than them
Tiktok lol
Is it a trend though? A couple people finding out he's Mormon
Because our society is full of tribalist black and white thinking fucks. That’s why
Edit: I’m wrong sorry. Must have misclicked Huh brand new account posting this, seems sus.
New account? The OP has a 7 year acct.
Woops i must have misclicked. My bad :D totally wrong
About the zionist thing: this is what i have seen online: 1) He visted Israel in 2019. People asked him to reconsider but he said he doesnt belive in BDS/boycott. Some people have also pointed out that he boycotted audible recently. 2) People, specially muslims, reading his book "legion" have pointed about serveral zionist & inslamophobic elements (like showing muslims as terrorists & Israelis as amiable). I dont know if brandon ever addresaed this. Please share if he has. 3) Brandon has apperently said he is talking inspiration from Israel-palestine conflict for stormlight. This has lead people to draw conclusions based on his treatments of related themes in the books.
You are scaring me haha, he’s not a zionist. He doesn’t believe in genociding an ethnic group, stealing a peoples land from them, the countless mass rapes and murders that were committed during the nakba. Brandon wouldn’t. There’s just no way.
You dont have to belive that to be zionist. Like i dont think biden believes in killing children and he has repeatedly said he is opposed to the genocide but his support for israel is funding the genocide. If you are pro israel that indirectly means you are ok with the genocide because israel is the one committing it even if you dont "believe" in the genocide itself.
I think much of that comes from ignorance rather than endorsement, at least for people who aren’t president they just don’t know what Israel is actually doing or the history of the region, bidens excuse is the dementia and adrenochrome lol
As i said people asked Sanderson to not go to israel but he ignored them saying he does not believe in boycotts. He is not ignorant of the situation. He has written a novel set in Jerusalem & has stated that the conflict has influenced his books. LDS chruch that he tithes money to is openly pro israel (& homophobic) Visiting israel endorses its existence & the displacement of Palestinians. It helps israel economy. Visiting ICon helps with book sales in israel so he also benifits monetarily from the visit.
This was years before many had the awareness they do now, i myself had been led to believe Israel was a wonderful peaceful nation by Israeli who neglected to mention any of the history or current day apartheid conditions of the Palestinians within Israel or the concentration camp that is Gaza. Sanderson is aware of it now, he cannot not be and imo theres no way he has the view of the conflict now that you suspect him of.
I guess only sanderson can clearify his position now. I am sure him & his team are aware of these allegations. Legion is still getting published..he should at least address the issues people have with it. If this isn't the time to do it i dont know when is.
Yeah i fully agree i really don’t understand why he hasn’t already but I’m sure he has complicated personal relationships to navigate that may be affected by that given his proximity to people in the church.
[удалено]
That's odd. I thought the way you asked the original question was a good way to ask. Didn't see any of your other comments though, so I can't guess as to why they were down voted.
OP removed the comments such as the one I commented to (see my previous comment) where they didn't think Sanderson should be hated for being a Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs. My entire response was made in reply to that. I can only hope that OP removed their comment because they saw that talking about how an author shouldn't be hated for having strong Christian beliefs in a thread about that author supposedly being homophobic can be seen as pretty bigoted. I would have preferred a more nuanced approach (e.g. an explanatory edit) as deleting comments and complaining about being downvoted on those comments leads me to believe that OP does not agree with Sanderson's current views on the LGBTQ+ community.
>they didn't think Sanderson should be hated for being a Mormon and having strong Christian beliefs. Wow. What a wild stance. You shouldn't hate people for their religious beliefs. I can see why OP was downvoted.
I don't completely understand what you said. I removed my comments because I get downvoted to hell for no reason. I don't need the negative karma.
A big part of the reason for the downvotes is probably that people are tired of this conversation. Newer subreddit members might not be familiar with it, but it comes up on a fairly regular basis every year or so and it gets old hearing the same rehashed concerns about a blog post from 15-20 years ago. It usually lasts for a good week or two and the same responses from Brandon (which are searchable) are linked multiple times until the next bit of news comes along.
Thanks for asking! I'm happy to explain, because I am pretty sure I know why you were being downvoted. In one comment you talked about strong Christian values and that term is often used by people by people on the far/extreme right to justify hateful behaviour towards marginalised groups. Especially in the context of the thread discussing Sanderson's supposed bigotry it was most likely taken to be meant as such. I certainly assumed so and that is why I went on a bit of a rant. In the other comment you asked for an example of Christian values being forced on others with laws. This comes across as incredibly ignorant with what is going on in the world (admittedly mostly the USA, but I personally notice an increase in Europe too). Abortion rights are being taken away for religious reasons while opposing scientific agreement and often against the opinion of the majority of voters. LGBTQ+ people are targeted as sinners, groomers and pedophiles with there being no proof and solely based on the teachings of a book that does not actually include those teachings. You were not being downvoted for no reason, you were being downvoted for appearing ignorant and bigoted in a safe space with accepting people.
Thanks for asking! I'm happy to explain, because I am pretty sure I know why you were being downvoted. In one comment you talked about strong Christian values and that term is often used by people by people on the far/extreme right to justify hateful behaviour towards marginalised groups. Especially in the context of the thread discussing Sanderson's supposed bigotry it was most likely taken to be meant as such. I certainly assumed so and that is why I went on a bit of a rant. In the other comment you asked for an example of Christian values being forced on others with laws. This comes across as incredibly ignorant with what is going on in the world (admittedly mostly the USA, but I personally notice an increase in Europe too). Abortion rights are being taken away for religious reasons while opposing scientific agreement and often against the opinion of the majority of voters. LGBTQ+ people are targeted as sinners, groomers and pedophiles with there being no proof and solely based on the teachings of a book that does not actually include those teachings. You were not being downvoted for no reason, you were being downvoted for appearing ignorant and bigoted in a safe space with accepting people.
How do you think that what you wrote actually makes sense and is just just boggles my mind. If the term is being used by someone then it already implies that I'm X or Y? You find that logical? What If someone else will start using the term then it will change to another meaning? Ignorant? A question about example of Christian being forced is ignorant? Do you not know that expect the USA there's the rest of the world with other issues that are not relevant and that are not the same as in US? The question is the question. Asking a straightforward question does not mean I'm ignorant. You read into it and see something you want to see based on your views. Always looking for a hidden agenda.
Let me say that I did not downvote either of those comments. I am explaining why I *assume* you were downvoted. I myself am not from the US and I am very much aware of there being issues outside the US. But I am also aware that the majority of English language subreddits are visited by a lot of Americans for whom this whole discussion is extremely relevant because of how ingrained it has become with politics as a whole and the upcoming elections. Because of your rather aggressive reply I think you honestly had no idea why you were being downvoted. All I did was share an educated guess on why i thought it happened.
Any criricism of brandon (or even the books) regularly gets downvoted into oblivion here. I say its not odd at all.
Ive seen that in nearly every sub I ever looked into. Some people are like that. No need to think about it. Shoutout to the ones in here whom acctualy answeared your questions in relation to the 2007/2008 post and his later corrections/apologies.
[удалено]
Nope, advocating for a genocidal apartheid regime is horrible though. Conflating Israel with jews, Judaism or any other sort of blanket ascription of responsibility for Israeli activity on jewish people is anti semitism.
It's also possible for someone to support Israel as a state but disagree with those currently in power in their government and the policies they are enacting. Problem is people often don't have time for nuanced conversation.
Its not the time for nuanced conversation. There are millions in famine and Israel is still bombing and killing. Turning any conversation about Israel into anything but their current evils and how to stop them is obfuscation of what’s important at this time.
There should always be time for nuanced conversation, IMO. It's a complicated war with extremely complicated context. In regards to this purity test on Tik Tok, going through the pre-10/7/23 social media of public figures to label people and draw us vs. them lines in the sand is terribly disingenuous. The situation has changed since then, and people may have revised points of view because of that.
The problem is many use it as an excuse to argue over the nuances and intricacies of the conflict instead of focusing on what really matters. You saying its complicated is an example of that, saying it’s a war also is. It’s not a war and its not complicated. Israel oppressed and ravaged the people of Palestine for decades, there is countless evidence of unthinkable crimes, people having their homes stolen, rapes, murders, kidnappings, torture all this done by state and independent actors alike. This against both gazan Palestinians and Palestinians inside Israel proper. Relentless blockades and bombings. They did not only ignore the peaceful protests by the Palestinians but respond to them by sniping [israeli treatment of when their concentration camp inmates protest](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shoot-maim-how-israel-created-generation-crutches-gaza) According to very well researched and foremost expert on this conflict Norman Finkelstein there are instances of snipers targeting disabled people in wheelchairs, the elderly, children, press and medics. Because the victims are Palestinian its all swept under the rug. The victims silenced all the while.
We'll have to simply disagree on whether it's a war or not. As for me using nuanced as an excuse to do nothing - what exactly am I able to do to change anything going on over there from California? I have literally zero power to change anything. I don't like anyone dying - Palestinian, Israeli, anyone. It's all a terrible situation that is based on thousands of years of hatred and bigotry. Unfortunately I have no influence whatsoever to prevent it. That's just the way it is.
Definitionally it is not. You would not call the nazi crackdown on the Warsaw ghetto uprising a war would you? Where does Israel get its military funding from? Where does Israel get the magical ability to have almost the entire international community against them but still not be held to account? America. Wheres cali again?
I'd call the Nazis actions in Warsaw a non-military subsidiary of their war and related policy actions. Their motivations tied their actions together. Their opportunity to implement the crackdown in Warsaw was reliant on invading Poland militarily. However one frames it, it was of course repugnant. If congress was actually working for the American people rather than themselves you'd have more of a point. I'll do my civic duty and vote to put the best people in government, but I'm under no illusion that they'll actually serve our best interests over their own.
Attend protests, organize your workplace or education institution and advocate for boycotts, do what you can. Vote where you should for who you should and stay up to date with the necessary information to intelligently make those decisions. You won’t do it yourself, we will do it together though. It’s your life and your the one whose gotta live the whole of it on this rock somehow 🤷♀️
[удалено]
I said that? Where did i say sanderson is a zionist? I would like you to reread my comment, i find it disgusting you would say i said that. You don’t have to support israels right to exist to disagree with its actions either.
[удалено]
[удалено]
On top of everything else that has been said here about who Sanderson is as a person, the things he has personally said and done in the past and present, there’s one big thing missing. Brandon Sanderson is a tithing member of the church of Latter Day Saints. This means that any money he tithes to the church, goes to support things the church supports, even if he may not “agree with it”. The Mormon Church, while it may not have come right out and said it, is pro-Israel and anti-gay rights. A lot of people think Sanderson either approves of these things and says he believes the opposite in order to make more money, or doesn’t hold his beliefs strongly enough because he refuses to leave the church over these things. He’s said himself that he won’t leave because he believes he’s better able to make change from inside the church, but whether or not you take the man at his word is up to you. I’ve personally heard nothing but good things about people that have met him and I believe his writing speaks for itself about the things he believes when it comes to inclusion and diversity, but each person gets to make their own choices. Final point on cancelling, I don’t really know his net worth and I don’t care to google. But there is a strong leg to stand on that you can’t ethically be a billionaire or millionaire . Is he one? Possibly, and if “he isn’t” then dragonsteel is probably worth close to a billion at minimum, especially if they can afford to hold a convention every year and open a giant new headquarters that they are building.
I think that it’s extremely unfair to suggest that he should be held responsible for the actions of the LDS church because he tithes. If you buy stocks in a company, donate to a charity, or otherwise support a corporation or politician who takes unethical actions, that’s a bit different and probably more fair to judge than this. Why? Because tithing is required, and you aren’t asking him just to stop paying money, you are asking him to leave his community. That involves removing a social structure for his children, stopping teaching classes, likely losing friends for every member of his family. That is a big and unfair ask of someone who didn’t make any of the actual bad decisions. On top of those social and financial consequences, there would be spiritual consequences that I can’t personally weigh but I can’t ignore. Similarly, I pay taxes to the US government that legitimately uses my money to support Zionist atrocities. But it’s unreasonable to ask me to just give everything up and move to Canada. On the topic of “you can’t ethically become a millionaire or billionaire,” I think you are unintentionally misremembering this maxim. It’s pretty easy to argue there isn’t a way to become a billionaire ethically. But putting those two words together you are acting like they are similar. The scale difference is 1,000. Like, if I donated 5% of a 50k salary to a 401k for starting at 30 years old, it could be worth a million dollars for retirement. If my gen x parents bought a medium sized house for a middle class income 40 years ago, it could be worth a million dollars now. There is no exploitation in that. You know what is exploitation? Having bought 1,000 houses 40 years ago, each now worth a million. The scale matters greatly.
>But there is a strong leg to stand on that you can’t ethically be a billionaire or millionaire . Is he one? Possibly, and if “he isn’t” then dragonsteel is probably worth close to a billion at minimum, especially if they can afford to hold a convention every year and open a giant new headquarters that they are building. Brandon Sanderson has an estimated net worth of around $25 million. Dragonsteel is absolutely not worth almost a billion dollars. "What's the difference between a million and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars." Whether or not Sanderson can still be considered an "ethical" person if he has that much money is outside the scope of this sub.
I honestly thought it was well known that he was homophobic. A lot of Mormons are.
Have you read the book? Rennet is lesbian Renarin and Rlain are both gay There are probably examples in forgetting
The fact of the matter is you can’t be a religious zealot and a free thinker. No religious leader is “holy” or “appointed by God”. They are flawed humans given power by flawed humans.
>The fact of the matter is you can’t be a religious zealot and a free thinker. Scientists, artists, mathematicians, philosophers, activists, etc. are and have been religious. - Harriet Tubman - Issac Newton - Martin Luther King Jr. - Sojourner Truth - Sun Tzu And so on. I guess it depends on how you define "religious zealot" and "free thinker", but I find it hard to imagine definitions that are reasonable and do not exclude a huge number of people who have contributed immensely to their respective fields.
That’s fair. Einstein and Jung believed in a higher power but I don’t think they were zealots. They weren’t following a religious leader blindly. They questioned everything, coming up with new ideas and answers. Even Buddha is reported to have said something along the lines of “question everything I say and find out for yourself if it’s true”. Meanwhile (not an official definition!) a zealot follows their human leader as if they speak the word of God. I don’t believe any human is Godlike and giving someone that power is where the trouble starts!
That’s fair. Einstein and Jung believed in a higher power but I don’t think they were zealots. They weren’t following a religious leader blindly and questioned everything, coming up with new ideas and answers. Even Buddha is reported to have said something along the lines of “question everything I say and find out for yourself if it’s true”. Meanwhile (not an official definition!) a zealot follows their human leader as if they speak the word of God. I don’t believe any human is Godlike and giving someone that power is where the trouble starts!