Brandon Sanderson has gone all in on the LGBTQ+ agenda, and with that, Mormon sci-fi author Brad Torgersen called him out for going against church doctrine proclaiming following what Sanderson said would turn the Mormon Church into “just another Woke Jesus club.”
So Brandon Sanderson isn't Mormon. He belongs to the satanic religion of wokism.
Many nominal Christians treat their faith as a social club whose tenets can be taken or left on the buffet table based on whether or not they fit current worldly trends. "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:43). Thus we see absurdities like the nominally Catholic Joe Biden affirming "a woman's right to choose" to murder her unborn child. Why even pretend to be Catholic, then?
If your faith is NOT the seat of your beliefs and values, then it is not faith in any meaningful sense. This is what James means: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can such faith save him? ... Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:14-20)
If your values and beliefs are determined by social convention or some other system, then that system is your faith, and its philosophers are your gods. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, but don't then pretend to fear the LORD your God.
Brandon turns his back on Jesus. Well a lot of people are turning their back on him. Last two books sales have been down. I know it’s early but I expected to see his numbers much higher for Wind and Truth.
Do you know the numbers? I usually don't follow that but I assume because of his popularity it's pretty high. I think he did change editors and his quality really suffered as evident in Rhythm of War. It needed to be edited. I'm halfway through WaT and it needs to be trimmed. Beyond the subject criticism his editing needs to be critiqued as well.
When Non-Christians quote the Bible, they show they are desperate to "disprove" God's Word. The "Judge Not" passage in context has nothing to do with pointing out the sin of mankind. God CLEARLY puts it in His law He gave to man.
And in His law, homosexuality is a grave sin. And for the "God is love" people... Jesus said, I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The law convicts you of your sin. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed for us on the Cross, is the remedy for the punishment we rightly deserve.
The Bible is CRYSTAL clear. It is not ambiguous. It is not "Mosaic v. New Testament" canon. It is not subject to "nuance". God makes it VERY clear. Brandon Sanderson doesn't have to believe it, and he can die in his rebellion, should God choose not to redeem him, but he cannot rightly interpret scripture while dead in sin. Period. Don't use the Bible as a weapon, Brandon. God's Word is sufficient for all good things, and it convicts you of your sin.
Your adamant defense of sin shows that the Holy Spirit is convicting you of your sins... May the Grace of God save you from your just and eternal punishment. But you are dead wrong about homosexuality and "judging" people.
I don’t know how recent that image of Sanderson is but it shows his loyalty to his beliefs, which are a complete opposite of what he believed years ago. I enjoyed his earlier work for his fantasy worlds, magic systems and characters. Romance was mentioned but wasn’t a focus. Over the years I could see his opinions change subtly in his works to bludgeoning the reader, which is a shame.
“Sanderson followed up with a long wall of text defending himself with a lot of nonsensical diatribes about “nuance” and “experience.” He also called for “listening to LGBT+ people” in an attempt to find a “middle ground.” “
He sounds exactly like “Pope Francis”. Are these woke dweebs made in some central casting department?
Genuine question--if a Mormon writer including gay characters in their novel "promotes" LGBTQ ideology, why do we not see his same inclusion of characters that drink and do drugs "promoting" that behavior?
Mormons aren't allowed to drink, yet when a Mormon author includes alcohol in their fantasy world, suddenly we understand how to suspend belief beyond that of condolence. If you guys are going to say that he promotes evil and sin, you need to address the other evils and sins that he seemingly promotes in his novels, i.e. drugs or premarital sex.
For the record, I don't think being gay is "sinful" or wrong, but it shows you're hand when your take is rooted in nothing more than "I don't like this." Stop trying to pretend he's promoting an agenda and just acknowledge that you don't like gay people. You don't want space in this world--real or fantasy.
Most people throughout history in the West believed buggery to be an abomination against God and nature, until the last few decades when some woke liberals in charge decided they Knew Better and worked to brainwash most of the population.
And for absolutely no reason after that, the entire West started degenerating and imploding.
That's a good question, and I'd like to tackle it if I may. Just because a sin is included in a book doesn't mean the author is condoning it. I believe it comes down to the tone that the author uses to address the topic. Let's take Sanderson's tone on alcohol and drugs. His character, Teft, struggles immensely with substance abuse (firemoss is the Sanderson equivalent), and Sanderson clearly shows Teft's fight as a good fight and worthy of the struggle. So in this case, Sanderson is telling us through Teft's struggle that substance abuse is wrong and is worthy of resistance. Nothing wrong with that. The same is not true of Sanderson's views on homosexuality. Nowhere does Sanderson indicate that the sin of homosexuality is a struggle worth fighting. Indeed, he goes out of his way to portray homosexuality as a positive, natural experience and upholds the characters who practice it as role models for his audience. That's the difference, and that is why I can no longer support his writing.
I admit to being often bemused by people who decide that they are smarter and more insightful than the traditions they claim loyalty to, especially those who throw selected prooftexts (or isolated 'scientific studies') at an immense body of experience and study.
Three articles on the same topic in three days? All of which substantively have the same content within.
This seems
A) targeted
B) unnecessarily repetitive
If you value your readers time, why rehash the same article over and over. The stance was made clear. Why did we need another on the 2nd, and a third today?
This is an ongoing topic that deserves attention. The fact that it's not updated in the original post with new info is clearly stylistic (or possibly difficult to pull off using the substack interface, I'm not sure), but I don't think it's just wasting our time.
It's not targeted, as it speaks of a larger problem in publishing and culture in general. It's topical, relevant, and unfortunately happening right now... I wish it wasn't as well, but I don't personally feel those things are at the heart of this reporting.
So Brandon Sanderson isn't Mormon. He belongs to the satanic religion of wokism.
Many nominal Christians treat their faith as a social club whose tenets can be taken or left on the buffet table based on whether or not they fit current worldly trends. "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:43). Thus we see absurdities like the nominally Catholic Joe Biden affirming "a woman's right to choose" to murder her unborn child. Why even pretend to be Catholic, then?
If your faith is NOT the seat of your beliefs and values, then it is not faith in any meaningful sense. This is what James means: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can such faith save him? ... Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:14-20)
If your values and beliefs are determined by social convention or some other system, then that system is your faith, and its philosophers are your gods. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, but don't then pretend to fear the LORD your God.
Brandon turns his back on Jesus. Well a lot of people are turning their back on him. Last two books sales have been down. I know it’s early but I expected to see his numbers much higher for Wind and Truth.
Do you know the numbers? I usually don't follow that but I assume because of his popularity it's pretty high. I think he did change editors and his quality really suffered as evident in Rhythm of War. It needed to be edited. I'm halfway through WaT and it needs to be trimmed. Beyond the subject criticism his editing needs to be critiqued as well.
When Non-Christians quote the Bible, they show they are desperate to "disprove" God's Word. The "Judge Not" passage in context has nothing to do with pointing out the sin of mankind. God CLEARLY puts it in His law He gave to man.
And in His law, homosexuality is a grave sin. And for the "God is love" people... Jesus said, I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The law convicts you of your sin. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed for us on the Cross, is the remedy for the punishment we rightly deserve.
The Bible is CRYSTAL clear. It is not ambiguous. It is not "Mosaic v. New Testament" canon. It is not subject to "nuance". God makes it VERY clear. Brandon Sanderson doesn't have to believe it, and he can die in his rebellion, should God choose not to redeem him, but he cannot rightly interpret scripture while dead in sin. Period. Don't use the Bible as a weapon, Brandon. God's Word is sufficient for all good things, and it convicts you of your sin.
Your adamant defense of sin shows that the Holy Spirit is convicting you of your sins... May the Grace of God save you from your just and eternal punishment. But you are dead wrong about homosexuality and "judging" people.
Another clown makes it clear he doesn't want any of our money.
Now I'll be sure not to buy any books from Sanderson.
Doughy, estrogen-dominant body? Check.
Whimpering Walls O' Text? Check.
A cowardly, hypocritical call to "not judge" while engaging in continuous self-righteous judgment? Check.
What we have here folks is a bog standard Gamma wankbiscuit, whose main concern is to avoid being called mean names by people who loathe him anyway.
I don’t know how recent that image of Sanderson is but it shows his loyalty to his beliefs, which are a complete opposite of what he believed years ago. I enjoyed his earlier work for his fantasy worlds, magic systems and characters. Romance was mentioned but wasn’t a focus. Over the years I could see his opinions change subtly in his works to bludgeoning the reader, which is a shame.
“Sanderson followed up with a long wall of text defending himself with a lot of nonsensical diatribes about “nuance” and “experience.” He also called for “listening to LGBT+ people” in an attempt to find a “middle ground.” “
He sounds exactly like “Pope Francis”. Are these woke dweebs made in some central casting department?
Probably
Mormonism Has Always Been Fake And Gay.
"How dare they twist the beautiful tradition of Christianity for the sake of their libidos" said the MORMON
Can't wait until the alphabet people are the trads, that'll be the same kind of irony
Genuine question--if a Mormon writer including gay characters in their novel "promotes" LGBTQ ideology, why do we not see his same inclusion of characters that drink and do drugs "promoting" that behavior?
Mormons aren't allowed to drink, yet when a Mormon author includes alcohol in their fantasy world, suddenly we understand how to suspend belief beyond that of condolence. If you guys are going to say that he promotes evil and sin, you need to address the other evils and sins that he seemingly promotes in his novels, i.e. drugs or premarital sex.
For the record, I don't think being gay is "sinful" or wrong, but it shows you're hand when your take is rooted in nothing more than "I don't like this." Stop trying to pretend he's promoting an agenda and just acknowledge that you don't like gay people. You don't want space in this world--real or fantasy.
Most people throughout history in the West believed buggery to be an abomination against God and nature, until the last few decades when some woke liberals in charge decided they Knew Better and worked to brainwash most of the population.
And for absolutely no reason after that, the entire West started degenerating and imploding.
Which is why we gotta get it out of our literature, culture and what not. It’s why I refuse to insert it into my novels am so tired of it.
That's a good question, and I'd like to tackle it if I may. Just because a sin is included in a book doesn't mean the author is condoning it. I believe it comes down to the tone that the author uses to address the topic. Let's take Sanderson's tone on alcohol and drugs. His character, Teft, struggles immensely with substance abuse (firemoss is the Sanderson equivalent), and Sanderson clearly shows Teft's fight as a good fight and worthy of the struggle. So in this case, Sanderson is telling us through Teft's struggle that substance abuse is wrong and is worthy of resistance. Nothing wrong with that. The same is not true of Sanderson's views on homosexuality. Nowhere does Sanderson indicate that the sin of homosexuality is a struggle worth fighting. Indeed, he goes out of his way to portray homosexuality as a positive, natural experience and upholds the characters who practice it as role models for his audience. That's the difference, and that is why I can no longer support his writing.
The only thing marriage does is teach u how to keep a commitment. Marriage and having children isn't a prerequisite for salvation.
I admit to being often bemused by people who decide that they are smarter and more insightful than the traditions they claim loyalty to, especially those who throw selected prooftexts (or isolated 'scientific studies') at an immense body of experience and study.
Even the Devil himself can quote scripture, far better than most believers.
Three articles on the same topic in three days? All of which substantively have the same content within.
This seems
A) targeted
B) unnecessarily repetitive
If you value your readers time, why rehash the same article over and over. The stance was made clear. Why did we need another on the 2nd, and a third today?
Each one has added something the previous didn't. Could they have just updated the original? Sure. But not necessary either.
Do you feel personally targeted?
This is an ongoing topic that deserves attention. The fact that it's not updated in the original post with new info is clearly stylistic (or possibly difficult to pull off using the substack interface, I'm not sure), but I don't think it's just wasting our time.
It's not targeted, as it speaks of a larger problem in publishing and culture in general. It's topical, relevant, and unfortunately happening right now... I wish it wasn't as well, but I don't personally feel those things are at the heart of this reporting.