Great art and the writing holds up throughout the first few scenes I've read, but the landing page here and the premise itself leaves a lot of elephants in the room. Just how pro-mormon + pro-missionary is the narrative here exactly? Because the LDS is verymuch against same-sex relationships, and I'm wary that this'll turn into some kinda conversion therapy story, or like... "being gay is okay, just dont have sex or get married" type shit. Great material for a subversion or deconstruction IMO, but I can't tell yet if that's the author's intent or not from what I've read, which leaves me unsure if I should keep reading or if this just isn't the story for me.
**For anyone else curious: I went further in, (through ch8 of the My Mission route) and the current material still feels like an obfuscated attempt at ministering to the audience, despite whatever anyone else on here might claim. It's got Preach My Gospel tactics written all over it. The narrative is very positive about everything to do with Mormons and missionary work, and offers no great critique on their heavily restrictive practices. Maybe that'll come in later chapters?
There's a line in here about how the MC wishes all gay marriages could be renamed to civil unions—ofc the thoughts of a character don't always align with an author's irl opinions, but there's no narrative pushback against this throughout the entire route I read, and it's important to note that Mormons will never be okay with gay marriage within their church.
I could go on and on as my own religious traumas run deep; I'll leave it at this though—should this VN turn out to be a tragic tale of losing faith, I still think the current material is far too charitable towards a religious sect that is known for being egregiously manipulative and cult-like.
I'm not looking for "the whole gay thing" to be handled "tactfully". Mormons are totally fine to be tactful with us queers so long as we don't "act on" our sexuality at all; i.e it's fine if you're gay, but you better not do any gay shit.
The LDS church is notorious for their manipulative messaging, and part of their schtick is incomplete disclosure about what sorta message you're gonna get out of them. Mormons love to lovebomb, they love to flirt-to-convert, and they loooove baiting in lonely and vulnerable groups of people. They've got like, score cards on how many people they can turn, and they don't care how it gets done so long as it works—it's very disingenuous. (At least they're not JWs ig?)
For anyone else curious, I went further in and I certainly regret it. This VN is 100% an attempt at ministering to the audience, and I should've seen that coming from the start tbf.
I formulated these responses months ago after having received these questions multiple times; however, until this week, they were posted only in the project Discord server and the conversation where the questions were initially asked in another server.
They explain my objections to the very premises of the questions and why I think answering them would harm the reception and interpretation of the work from an artistic perspective.
Your vague answers and the overall lack of clarity over your own stance when it comes to LDC, makes me feel I can't trust you as a narrator for your own written work, do to the stances such churches take against people like me and the inhuman cruelty they express to do to people like myself. So your aim to avoid harming how it was received and how the story might eb interpreted has somewhat backfired, in my case.
I see. I don't think modesty in religious circles is exclusive to gays: straight folk are beholden to a more prudish approach to sexuality too. Nothing wrong with that.
As for missionary work, I don't see it with this tint of malice: those who believe propose their faith to others but it isn't forced upon them, it's up to them to accept or refuse it. I don't see the appeal personally but if it gives a sense of belonging to those who seek it I'm glad for them.
Speaking for myself, there's been at least a couple of FVNs I read whose ideologies I didn't espouse which I ended up enjoying anyway, even Campo Largo itself was great despite me not believing. "Walk in their shoes". Make of that what you will
You're wrong. Straight people do not have it just as bad as gay people in the church.
You cannot "be gay" and in the LDS church full stop. There's a reason why they go out of their way to explain it as a temptation via "same sex attraction" rather than just saying that they're gay directly. It's a sin to act on romantic feelings with another person of the same sex, even modest ones. That's why they banned the slow dances at the FSY meetups, because too many girls were dancing with other girls and enjoying it. Is dancing with someone you're in love with immodest? Surely you don't actually believe that?
There's no route for marriage if you're gay in the LDS; you just have to live with your lonely pain forever while vainly hoping that "god will comfort you", eventually... All of this is fully laid out in the My Mission route, which I'm sure you already know, yet for some reason you're still trying to gaslight me into thinking the story was different than what I read?
I think you'd make a great investigator :)
I would have liked to continue discussing this topic with you, it's a fascinating one, but if it means having to put up with unwarranted snideness then I think my time is better spent elsewhere. It's alright to disagree, it's a way for us to learn, to get more perspectives, but I expect as much respect as I give in a conversation. Since that respect is one sided it's best we end this here. Have a good day
There's one last thing I'd like to add, it came to me after I sent my last message but I feel it's relevant enough to break my promise, and that is that at no point does Campo Largo justify any of the things you pointed out.
When I said CL wasn't preachy that's what I meant, I should've been more specific, it doesn't advocate for that, if anything Travis himself timidly attempts to protest the church's stance on homosexuality during the Suarez route when he's having lunch with him and the otter couple (their name escapes me) and he brings up that article which attempts to absolve homosexuals.
And I mean, to the poor guy the whole thing wreaks torture on his mind and then some, being born and raised in that setting he stands to lose everything if he were to be excommunicated. Being closeted is hard enough, for religious folk doubly so, and that's something I think anyone that's gay can deeply sympathize with. The fault for this state of being isn't mine, nor the author's, nor Travis', it's just the way things are and which are resistant to change, Elder Hartley is just doing his best to navigate his way around this minefield and I saw something heroic in that. In his position that's all he can do.
Being closeted is hard, religion or no religion
Ok ok I'll drop it for real this time
Not exactly great "Mormon propaganda" since the main character is extremely neurotic from being raised in a homophobic religion. It's less than a glowing endorsement of the religion. It's not like this was commissioned by the Mormon church to convert gay furries. It's written by a gay guy.
Accusing this other guy of gaslighting/lying because he disagrees with your reading is absurdly immature. I genuinely can't imagine how you came away with any of the opinions you posted here besides just going into it expecting it to be cynical and then ignoring anything that counters that idea.
The bit about civil unions is a few things: it's actually the main character saying all marriages should be civil unions so that the gays and anyone else can marry without making it a religious issue; in 2008 gays were not permitted to marry legally in most US states. This was a progressive opinion in the time period.