…Sometimes, these blog entries just take too much time to set up…anyway, I was reading Mormon Matters and getting into the discussion there, and Bruce had said something that I found intriguing:
…John Dehlin suggested that it was a mistake for modern Mormons to down play what he calls “19th century doctrines†(as he interprets this, this means teachings about how Jesus was conceived, locations of the garden of Eden, belief in a large geography model for Lamanites, belief in 19th century views of the universe, etc.) He believed this is part of what makes Mormons “special.†(his word
)I had a similar conversation with John Hamer that was almost exactly the same via an email exchange.
Interestingly, neither of these gentleman believe in any of those doctrines personally. They also are ardent critics of some/many current Church teachings, anything from being “the one true Church†to the Church’s stance against gay marriage.
I guess I was left with the impression that they were selective in what they felt Mormons should emphasize and what Mormons should give up. Old disproven teachings that have no modern value were looked upon positively, core theology like “one true church†not so much.
Later in the conversation, it came to pass that perhaps it wasn’t John Dehlin or John Hamer who had said or believed these things (or perhaps once they had, but now they had a more complex view). Well, that part bored me and I didn’t want to bore you, so I didn’t link to those comments. Aren’t I so nice?
But I didn’t think the ideas of the above quote were all that outlandish. I kinda like the aspects of the church’s unique doctrine in a kind of love/hate relationship. I wrote about that later down the page too. It’s not something that I seriously entertain of course, and the critical part is as Bruce mentions — I don’t believe in any of these doctrines personally. In fact, some of them make me just a bit embarrassed. But that’s the kind of tradition we have, so I half think the church shouldn’t sterilize it. I feel bad because people ask me things like, “Would these changes make you believe in the church?” and I must say, “They’d be in a good step, but you’d have to change history to make me believe.” Oops! I’ve just wasted their time.
Bruce had a later comment that made me think though.
What I mean is, it’s a problem for someone that doesn’t believe any of it to explain to someone that actually does or wishes to: “You should look at it this way. You should believe this, but not that. I suppose I’m sensitive on this subject precisely because I’ve seen some “liberal Mormons†(probably the wrong term here) really push hard on believing Mormons about what they should or shouldn’t believe but never even take the time or have the desire for feedback on why their suggestions will or won’t work.
I’ve been there. I think I’ve said a lot about how I feel the church should change its policies toward gay members, among other things. But it made me realize that I have two kinds of modes for thinking about the church…one of which is a practical one and one which is an aesthetic or anthropological mode. So I don’t necessarily think that a fondness for obscure church doctrines (even if I don’t believe in them and they are kinda weird) is meant to be taken seriously. It’s just an artistic quality of history and tradition. Meanwhile, when I think about the church in a modern and practical sense, I am glad that they are more streamlined and sterilized, but wish that they’d become more accepting…
Caveat! The comments for this article have evolved organically away from the nuts and bolts of the topic message, and some comments are quite lengthy. For comments that are central(ish) to the topic, read 1-14, 16, 18-26, 32-33, 35 below the starred demarcation, 37-38, 40, 45, 46, 49, and then skip alll the way to 69, 71 after the all caps, and then for the rest of the comments after that, we are back on schedule.
I can’t speak for my brother (John Hamer), but I’d be surprised if he said the LDS church should downplay the “only true church” theme. He was probably the one who recommended the church stop sullying its hands in civil politics. “No gay marriage” may well be a doctrinal point for Mormons, but re-writing the law for other people isn’t, and it’s perfectly reasonable for “cultural Mormons” to point out that the church really shot itself in the foot with Proposition 8.
I think Bruce may be indiscriminately mixing a bunch of not-quite-believer Mormon positions together. Personally, I’m an atheist, but (as everyone probably already knows), I don’t like Mormons downplaying unique doctrines in order to Mormonism seem less weird to Evangelical Christians. That bugs me because it rests on the assumption that mainstream Christian beliefs are somehow objectively more reasonable than Mormon beliefs, which is patently false — they just seem less weird because they’re more common. But believing that you might become a God of your own planet is not objectively more unreasonable than believing in some eternal heavenly stasis or that you might be reborn as a mosquito.
As far as I’m concerned, the whole “we’re the only true church” thing is one of the unique 19th century doctrines (as “disproven” to modern thinking as the location of the Garden of Eden) which the LDS church probably shouldn’t give up.
That’s kinda what the conclusion was throughout the comments that I didn’t link to — that this was probably a mixing of several not-quite-believer positions rather than the particular positions of John Dehlin or your brother.
But that’s what interested me…because even if these aren’t the unique and personal opinions of these two people, I can kinda see how people might agree with them.
I completely agree: I disagree with this downplaying to seem less weird to Evangelical Christians. I guess it’s not so much of thinking that mainstream Christian beliefs are somehow more reasonable, but it’s the idea that…they are more palatable to the majority of the country. I mean, I saw a graphic once that described Christianity in skeptical terms — A Jewish zombie sacrificing himself in symbolic (or real) cannibalism to etc., etc., etc., And sure it sounded weird, but because most people grow up with it, they wouldn’t think that way. As you say — they seem less weird because they’re more common, and the church wants to be “more common.”
In the end, I think that the church should probably keep its exclusivity belief in one way or another…that’s what keeps it ‘strict’ enough to be so popular.
Good point. I think I was mixing multiple viewpoints myself in my comment:
(1) A lot of times the Mormons themselves accept the “mainstreaming” because they want to make their beliefs more palatable to the majority. (2) On the other hand, a lot of people on the fringes of Mormonism will recommend that the LDS church should be more like mainstream Christian denominations — based on the assumption that mainstream Christianity is obviously better, hence anything Mormons do to ape mainstream Christianity is an improvement.
I disagree with both of those positions.
For #1, I think downplaying Mormonism’s unique doctrines (in order to win converts in Christian-majority societies) is ultimately counterproductive, as I explained in Standing up for Your (Former) Beliefs.
For #2: Sheesh, if you have to ape somebody, I would hope you’d have better taste than that… 😉
One more point on the LDS church itself downplaying unique doctrines to be more palatable to the mainstream:
Another problem with this strategy is that the people you’re hoping to please will never be satisfied until you repudiate all of Mormonism’s unique claims — and you risk alienating your core followers in the process.
Naturally, I’m thinking (in particular) of Gordon B. Hinkley’s infamous “Larry King Live” interview. Bruce would probably (correctly) point out that as an atheist, I’m hardly one to second-guess the President of the Church on what Mormons should believe. But that was huge for lifelong Mormons when the prophet wouldn’t stand up for (what they’d learned as) “the plan of salvation” on television. Looking at this from DAMU-land, I’ve seen plenty of people cite that moment as a critical point in the questioning that led them to stop believing the church is true. And what’s so weird is that (as I pointed out in What would have happened?), nobody outside of Mormonism would have batted an eye if he’d given a straight answer.
Re 3:
haha, I just can’t win with you having covered basically everything I talk about in articles on your site.
Re 4:
I understand that idea…in many ways, I recognize that if the church made certain concessions (such as with eternal gender), even though I’d be somewhat glad, I’d be horrified because it would be part of the slippery slope of genericization. And it most certainly would alienate core followers (I hear that the Community of Christ has had something like this happen, but I haven’t read up on it.)
What did I once read…I read something like (I’m not making this up, I hope) liberal Mormons are on the slope to becoming liberal protestants, and liberal protestants are on the slope to become atheists and agnostics (while conservative members, fundamentals, etc., are “safe”). I guess we just skipped all the intermediate steps. (p.s., UGGH I hate reading so many different things but not keeping track of the links; it makes all of my stories seem like hearsay…)
hah, i knew I wasn’t crazy. Mormon Matters was linking to something that Chris Smith had said — I can’t find the original article that Chris wrote though 🙁
Right, but this sort of thing is precisely why the church’s “delete, delete, delete” strategy is such a shame. The prophet could easily come up with an interesting new revelation “clarifying” eternal gender roles, for example adding a cool, alternate plan of salvation for gay people (it’s not like there’s not room for it, see this interesting musing on eternal gender from ZD’s). Add a “Thus saith the Lord” like they did in Joseph Smith’s day, and you’ve just made the church more interesting instead of less.
Instead, it’s always “Oh, you don’t like this strange doctrine? Okay, well, we’ll just pretend like we never said that.”
That was from an interesting article that you wrote about on your own blog, wasn’t it?
haha, I’m not senile enough to quote myself and not realize it (actually, I am. I was looking for an article the other day and I couldn’t find it anywhere…I searched my wordpress articles and there it was)
Although the ZD article is intriguing, I don’t see how the church could make a cool alternate plan of salvation for gay people. Any way they could go would require some alienation (at least, the way I hear conservative members passionately argue against it). For example, even though the Transmogri…Gays-magically-into-straight hypothesis is discomforting (like the women-will-magically-want-polygamy variation), it just seems more like what the church would be behind.
I mean, I’d see more of the church adopting a Heavenly Mother theology (which was mentioned in the article [also, it would earn the church more uniqueness aesthetic points]) than something that would allow gays to be gay. The latter would cause a severe allergic reaction in the conservative elements of the church…perhaps the former would too…but it would…fit better.
I agree, but only because of the direction the church has evolved over the past fifty years, into being the Church of the Truest Republicans.
If the Mormons were still in the mode of “we have our peculiar ways and we don’t care what the world thinks (including conservative Christians),” and if they were in the habit of getting substantial revelations from on high, then the prophet could easily say “Gender is eternal, orientation is a part of eternal gender, gay people’s special role in the eternities is XYZ…”
but that’s the thing…that’s where you jump from pragmatic thinking to aesthetic thinking (it just manifests in a different way).
If Mormons were still in the mode of “we have our peculiar ways and we don’t care what the world thinks,” then this would *exactly* qualify for what Bruce describes as…
From a pragmatic perspective, the church has to play a fine line…it has to be peculiar enough that Mormons think they are a peculiar people (and don’t defect to other religions)…but it can’t be too peculiar, or the church will be too costly to join and missionary efforts will fail.
So it’s very tricky. Because you know, I can see your point…but then it makes me realize that how the church has evolved over the past 50 years was a smash success (what are church growth stats for the past 50 years?)
Yeah, except that I’m not convinced this evolution has been such a smash success in the long run.
I think that being the epitome of the social conservative served the LDS church extremely well though the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s. Then, the organization became so enamored with the success of this strategy that it went completely overboard — and being the best politico-social conservatives became too central a goal. And as everything else started getting sacrificed to that goal, it became more of a liability than an asset.
There’s an interesting theory about “optimal tension” (I think that’s the word), in terms of just the right amount of “peculiarity” (in the sense you describe). I think the church was at that optimal point several decades ago, and now they’re way off kilter.
“I don’t like Mormons downplaying unique doctrines in order to Mormonism seem less weird to Evangelical Christians”
Question: Why is it none of you challenge an obviously challengeable assumption like this? Your whole discussion was based on it and if it isn’t true — and let’s admit that there is no possiblity the collective worldview of Mormons could ever be one particular thing like this — then everything you are saying is good logic based on a false assumption from that point forward.
By the way, Andrew, you made this comment:
“What did I once read…I read something like (I’m not making this up, I hope) liberal Mormons are on the slope to becoming liberal protestants, and liberal protestants are on the slope to become atheists and agnostics (while conservative members, fundamentals, etc., are “safeâ€).”
I believe the link you are looking for his here. My post, but not my words: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/08/the-slippery-slope-of-unbelief/
There is still a fine line that the church has to tread to win a game of numbers, I think. So, becoming the best politico-social conservatives, which has been successful (numbers-wise) for a while won’t necessarily lead to ultimate prosperity (the church has retention problems, and groups that are more willing to mold around local cultures seem to be more popular in those areas — they are resistant to change in what could be a bottlenecking factor)
Without reading any of the official papers on optimal tension, I think, from what I’ve heard of it, that it’s pretty on-the-spot. But I don’t think that such an optimum is something that we can just say “the church was at several decades ago.” It’s something that changes and shifts with the times. I think that we’d be seeing a lot worse things with the church numbers-wise if it were really in such bad shape in terms of an optimum of peculiarity. Unless these numbers are being kept secret from everyone (oh wait — this isn’t so unlikely) or they don’t become readily apparent until years after the fact, I just don’t think that the church is too far off kilter. I must admit that many of my disagreements with the church on social issues aren’t really dealbreakers for many other people.
Re 13:
you are correct, Bruce. (P.S. You’re so popular!)
Mostly because you’re the first person besides me and Andrew to happen upon this discussion, but you can feel free to challenge it.
I do think the church has gone too far in its desire to be the best social conservatives, and that this is a big part of the church’s “mainstreaming” (trying to seem less weird to fellow social conservatives). However, I can go re-read your article and see if I think it addresses this.
wow, I just missed a whole bunch of comments somehow
Re 12 and 16:
nope. I’m not seeing it. What am I supposed to be challenging? Am I supposed to be challenging what someone doesn’t like and suggesting that people should like it? Can you repeat the question..?
EDIT: -_- I had totally missed it. I understand what it was to challenge. but I’ll decline to slip in an argument here now.
chanson,
My point is that you are making a huge assumption then building a huge argument around it but you are personally capable of thinking of alternative explanations if you want to.
It’s one of those assumptions that is really easy to challenge and their is myriad of evidence that runs counter to it. But obivously also myriad of evidence that runs in favor of it too. So it can’t possibly be as simple as you suggest.
Now, there may be a thread within the Church that is exactly what you are saying: people that want to be more Evangelical. The church is big enough that I’d expect that to be true, at least in some measure. You get all types.
But it’s also clear to me that there are other trends within the church that could be cast into that light even though that’s inaccurate.
I can speak from personal experience on this. I don’t particularly like Evagelicalism. Yet “liberal Mormons” (or atheist as the case might be), like yourself often accuse me of pandering to Evagelicals in my theology. Why? Because they *want* to see me in that light and it fits their preconceived notions of the direction of the Mormon Church and their desire to see it negatively.
Consider, for example, my argument here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/02/the-whole-church-is-under-condemnation-the-talk-that-changed-the-church/
I argue there that much of the direction that liberals Mormons perceive as towards Evagelicalism is actually just towards the Book of Mormon.
Now, if I were an atheist, I would simply reply: but a move towards the Book of Mormon IS a move towards more traditional Christianity because Joseph Smith wrote it before he invented his more weird doctrines.
Yet, even if this were true, it would still be incorrect, and even unfair, to typify a move towards the Book of Mormon as a move towards modern Evangelicalism. The correlation is actually suprious unless we want to rule out the Book of Mormon as being “non-Mormon.” Clearly, if we count the Book of Mormon’s teachings a “Mormon” then the move is actually just towards earlier Mormon doctrines and away from later ones. (Again, I’m taking the atheist world view here, not my own.)
Again, I don’t want to “argue” this point. It’s personal for me. I have no way of knowing what all the forces within the Church are and I’m not going to try. All I can say for a fact is that I have NOT personally experienced a move towards Evagelicalism, only a move towards the Book of Mormon. People that see me as moving towards Evagelicalism are dead wrong about me. Period.
As such, there is a good chance they are also dead wrong about the Church as a whole because of this same bias that they can’t see past.
*sticks in a quiet word*
I can see myself of being guilty of accusing the church of racing towards friendliness with evangelicalism…it was part (a small part, but still one worth meaning) of my opposition to the church’s tactics with prop 8 (this isn’t a prop 8 post haha).
But then I realized…the church wasn’t really racing towards evangelicalism. Quite simply, Evangelicals couldn’t even comprehend (or, at least, they couldn’t accept) the reasons why the church pursued prop 8, so even though the groups were achieving the same goals, the meanings were vastly different. The Mormon intentions were uniquely Mormon.
Yes, Andrew, I agree. That’s the problem. An outcome can be the same for several vastly different under the hood decisions. Thus they can be cast into several different lights according to our own choice on how to perceive things. So we make a choice, perhaps unconcious, how to read them and then reinforce our pre-existing worldviews in that way.
I have learned the hard way not to challenge long held entrenched religious beliefs all at once like this, CHanson, so I’m not going to try. (I picked my words carefully here. I know many atheist choose not to think of their belief system as ‘religion’ so understand I’m using it only in the broad sense of beliefs about God and the reality of nature. Atheism is clearly a religion in that sense.)
At this point, I just want to point out that an assumption was made and we have strong reason to challenge it as being The Truth with a capital T. It may or may not be part of a larger set of trends, but it’s unlikely (though perhaps still possible) to be the sole reason as is being suggested.
Bruce — Just so we don’t end up talking past each other, let me clarify my position:
1. I think there really are people inside the church, outside the church, and on the fringes who say things that amount to “Mormons should be more like Christians in XYZ way,” including points of both doctrine and practice. That’s fab if you’re not one of those people, but they do exist.
2. Hinkley, being a P.R. guy when speaking as a man, tended to downplay Mormonism’s strangeness, as epitomized by the infamous “Larry King Live” interview I mentioned above.
3. The Mormon church politically and socially has become wedded to the Religious Right. Even if Mormons don’t care that much what Evangelical Christians think of them, you have to admit they care more what Christians think of then than they care how they’re perceived by, say, gay people or atheists.
Now, maybe it’s just my biased perspective to see these three points as linked to one another.
Also, I don’t think the church has stepped away from emphasizing the Book of Mormon, and you’re right that the doctrines in the Book of Mormon represent a traditional branch of Christianity.
CHanson,
I appreciate your tone. Let me state where I personally agree or disagree.
#1 – I can’t argue that in a church of this size, you are probably right. I know none of them and have met none of them. Thus my heuristics (which we all know can be easily fooled, I’ll admit) suggests that people that make this claim are exaggerating it by 100s or 1000s of times. This group may exist, but they are incredibly tiny for me to not have come across them.
#2 – I have a different opinion about what Hinckley was doing then you do. Since your opinion of what he was trying to do (downplay weird doctrines) is based on the same bias that leads you to your conclusion, I find this circular logic.
That being said, I will admit that I’m not a mind reader and it’s always possible you’ve pegged Hinckley better than I have.
My opinion that this is part of the overall trend in the Church towards only accepting “as Doctrine” — whatever that means — that which has a revelation attached to it. Hinckley affirmed the part that had a revelation attached (we can become Gods) and hedged on the part that didn’t (the question, to me, implied God was once a sinful mortal man — even Joseph Smith never taught this and it’s a later speculation.)
Thus the data fits my theory too and we are really just both building narratives to fit our worldviews.
#3 – I think words like “politically and socially wedded” are charged words. As such, I can’t say I disagree, but there is a really good chance I understand that differently than you do. I guess the bottom line for me is that I do not believe Mormons care what other religions think of them but do care about being treated intolerantly, misrepresented, or generally being treated unfairly. So again we see two ways to interpret the data.
My objections that it’s immoral for an Evangelical to call me a non-Christian may seem to you to be an attempt to make myself more like them, but in reality I’m objecting to their immoral behavior inherit in the misrepresentation.
I will admit that I am bias and that I have no way to overcome that bias because, frankly, we humans are built to be bias and to ignore counter evidence. Thus I also see these three points as linked, just as you do, but I see them as disproof of the position you are taking.
I see here a church behaving exactly as any sane Church would: they believe their beliefs, they emphasize their revelations over their speculations, they believe all their beliefs not just the ones in the last years of their prophet, and they refuse to be treated intolerantly and take it sitting down.
I have now suggested an alternative way at looking at your three points that I personally believe to be stronger than your narrative. (But of course I do, because I’m bias to my own opinions.)
Still, this is all besides the point to me. You are going to believe what you want to believe to entrench your worldview, just I am. You can’t help it and neither can I.
At this point, I’m just trying to help you understand that your conclusions are less than certain and it makes sense for you to at least challenge them by thinking of other possiblities and not assuming certainty on the uncertain.
I should probably clarify one thing. Joseph Smith did teach that God the Father was once a man, but he strongly implied (or at least I strongly infer) a divine one like Jesus.
Joseph said Jesus put down his life and took it up again just like the Father did. You can read this as you will, but contextually, the idea that we are talking about a divine man is very strong. There is a lot of difference on opinion on how to interpret this and there has never been a solid teaching on this subject. So see it as a speculation on Joseph’s part and ignore it, some see it as God the Father having once been a divine man (I do as this is the most literal reading), and some see it as God having once been a full sinful man at one time.
But even this is not tied to a revelation, even though it is widely accepted within the Church, so it’s not correct to say this is really a teaching of the Church, but rather a (possible) logical extension of other teachings that had backing from Joseph, but only to some degree.
So I saw as the main problems with the question as a sound bite problem: I saw no way for Hinckley to give a full nuanced response of “well, we believe this because Joseph said it, but we don’t necessarily see it as a non-divine man, but some people speculate that it was, but there is no revelation behind it, so even this is just a well qualified opinion, but we do widely teach it because it an opinion that came from Joseph Smith, but we don’t teach it very often because we aren’t sure what to make of it and we let people form their own opinions.”
Of course a fully truthful and nuanced answer like that would have been confusing and seemed like more the dodge then even the answer he gave.
I think the answer he gave, while not perfect, was better than the one I’ve seen liberal Mormons suggest as the answer (“yes we believe thatâ€) because the liberal Mormons ignore all nuance on this teaching and ignore the lack of a backing revelation. Their suggested answer is, to some degree, self serving.
The truth is that the LDS church does teach we can become Gods, but it’s a matter of opinion if God was once a moral man. With our trend towards only accepting as doctrine that which has a revelation, this is a teaching that must get relegated to the “speculation bin.”
If what I said was true, then Hinckley’s answer was the literal truth, it just didn’t give all the possible facts and nuance, but it wasn’t possible for him to do so.
Again, I’m no mind reader. Maybe Hinckely was lying or was intentionally pandering to Evagelicals. But the data supports both points of view.
Look, I’ve admitted my bias and stated that I’m telling you my perceptions. I’m all about encouraging people to look at things from a new perspective, and I’ll grant that your position is new and interesting.
However, I have to admit that from my (biased) perspective, you’re not making me even remotely sympathetic to listening to you when you add all your side commentary about how you have to speak slowly for me since I’m one of those entrenched (eg. closed-minded) atheists…
I think I’m going to have to go with chanson on this one – I don’t think she ever stated her premise as objective FACT. While never specifically stated, it’s generally implicitly agreed that these types of arguments are based on opinions – assumptions, if you will – and then we argue our points.
The way I read it, it never came across as “This is the way it is, period.”
More like, “This is the way I’ve interpreted things, and here’s why.”
Also, whether or not it’s correct that many Mormons want to move towards Evangelical Christianity (should those be capitalized? Hm…), there is the possibility that they want to do without actually KNOWING they want to do it. I certainly know a lot of Mormons who are proud of their “peculiar” religion, yet are also very concerned with being accepted by mainstream Christianity. When confronted about “strange” Mormon doctrines, they almost always try to justify it IN TERMS OF MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY. Not just for its own sake, but in a way that Evangelicals will accept.
Before you jump all over me, sure, this is anecdotal. I’m not putting this forth as a sociological study – it’s just what I’ve observed, and how I’ve interpreted it. Which is what these types of discussions are about (as far as I can tell by observing and interpreting it).
Also, using deductive logic to judge inductive arguments is not always, well, logical. 😉
For discussions of the trend in modern Mormon theology toward a more mainstream Augustinian/Lutheran belief system, see Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy by O. Kendall White and Richard Bushman’s comments here: “In dialogues with evangelical Christians, Mormons are recovering their own grace theology.”
CHanson, I appreciate that we’ve both admitted our biases here. There are many ways to interpret facts. We all build stories to match our points of view, but sometimes also change our point of view as well.
“you’re not making me even remotely sympathetic to listening to you when you add all your side commentary about how you have to speak slowly for me since I’m one of those entrenched (eg. closed-minded) atheists”
Point well taken.
However, I wished you had noticed that I actually said we are all closed minded, it’s human, and included myself in that regard. I never singled out atheists like you are claiming I did.
I also wished you had noticed how much I bent over backward to admit where my reasoning might be wrong, admitting yours might be right, and pointing out where I’m affected by my own biases.
I admit I think it’s unfortunate that we can’t talk more openly about our biases and our own very human closed mindedness without offending people, like I did to you.
It’s a real challenge for me to speak the truth in this regard — we all suffer from closed mindedness in large measure — but having to accept that people will be less sympathetic to what I am saying because of it. So I have to ask myself what my purpose really is here.
I am doing my best to communicate. I’m still working on it. Please bear with me, and please accept my apology if I offended you and made you feel like a closed minded atheist. That was not my intent. My goal was to get us to think about our own thinking in the only way I know how.
“there is the possibility that they want to do without actually KNOWING they want to do it”
This is always a possibility.
I think the rest of what you said is covering the same ground we already did. Yes, you can continue to build up the belief that Mormons actions stem from wanting to be accepted by Evangelical Christians if you wish. And I’m not stupid enough to believe I can convince you otherwise.
“Which is what these types of discussions are about (as far as I can tell by observing and interpreting it).”
Rebecca,
I’m not going to jump down your throat. 🙂 (Guess whether I did to CHanson or not depends on your point of view. I didn’t intend it that way, that’s all I can say. Hopefully my apology will suffice for now.)
Here is the thing, Rebecca. If my purpose is to change your opinion, I’m going about it wrong. Based on my understanding of human nature, the proper way for me to do that is to get to know you first, befriend you, do lunch, and then say “well, have you thought of it this way?”
Now, because you are friends with me, your natural biases shift somewhat. I am making a coherent argument and, as a friend, I’m asking you to stop being so harsh in your opinions of believing Mormons. (I mean this only generically. I don’t mean your post above or really even you at all. Think generic “you†here.) You are now very likely to shift your opinion somewhat, or maybe even entirely.
But that isn’t my goal. I don’t really care what you believe.
What I am doing, instead, is discussing the problems of trying to take observations and turn them into opinions. I’m really interested in that, not convincing you.
So it puts me in a tough spot. Ultimately, if I want to pursue the real purpose of me even being here, I have to point out just how difficult it is for human beings to change their mind or consider alternative possibilities. (See http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/08/in-whom-can-i-trust-how-i-lost-my-faith/ and the posts that followed.)
But this is REALLY uncomfortable to discuss, for all of us. It’s true, of course, and at some level we all know it is. But we self identify in ways contrary to the truth. We think of ourselves (and we ALL think this way) as “open minded,” for example, as opposed to our “opponents” that we think of as “closed minded.” The reality is that some of us are more or less open minded, but we are all sort of closer to the “closed” side of that spectrum at any given moment. Our biology actually dictates this, to some degree, so we can’t really fight it. (see http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/15/what-is-a-black-swan-a-book-review/ and http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/16/the-biology-of-irrationality/)
So this discuss will ultimately strike at our self identity and it hurts.
Here’s the point of it, though: I get it that we all observe and form opinions and we’re here to discuss those.
But I get something else as well: these opinions may or may not be accurate about the LDS church. Indeed, it’s generally impossible to ever know.
But they ALWAYS accurately tell us about the person that expressed the opinion.
To use an example: if John Hamer says the LDS Church is always “delete delete delete†and Jeff Spector says “refine refine refine†we really have no way of knowing who is right. The truth is beyond our reach, I’m afraid. But we just learned a ton about John and Jeff and that’s what really interests me.
So I’m less interested in the discuss and more in the meta discussion. I’m also less interested in your personal beliefs and more interested in if you handle them tolerantly. (I made an attempt to define that term: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/05/what-is-tolerance/)
I never claimed that you singled out atheists, and I recognize that you said that everyone is biased.
My point is this:
I think that is absolutely a noble goal, and encouraging people to see things from unfamiliar viewpoints is one of my primary goals in blogging.
However, in my own experience in posting on blogs whose viewpoints are very different than my own, I’ve found that it’s not at all helpful to preface my comments with something like “I know you probably won’t listen to me because of your bias” (even if I admit my own in the same breath). It works better to say “Here’s my bias, and please take it into consideration as you read my opinion.” It’s a subtle point, and yet it makes a difference. People are only too willing to live up to your expectations of them, and I feel like (even if at the end of the day people disagree with my point), they’re more likely to think about it with an open mind if expect that they will.
Meta-point done, I’ll read the rest of your points carefully and respond tomorrow. It’s getting late in Switzerland, and my kids are getting restless. 😉
CHanson, point well taken again. Wording makes a huge difference.
Here’s how I see it … unique is strong if it’s authentic and lame if it’s contrived. So while Mormons take pride in being unique (tends toward authentic) the doctrines which define Mormonism are wholly contrived as witnessed all the niggling and amending. I think this fact undermines the authenticity of Mormon uniqueness.
That’s funny, I was going to say that it shows how seriously they take their revelations over their speculations and proves how authentically they care about them. 😉
I guess this is just one of those situations when the different narratives come into play…
I kinda wish there were something that could reah through the narrative fallacies, so to speak, and give a conclusive answer to these kinds of issues.
Bruce – Your comment to me:
“I think the rest of what you said is covering the same ground we already did.”
Maybe, maybe not. I read through all the comments before I posted mine, and I didn’t think anyone had said specifically what I was saying about Mormons not just defending their positions to Evangelicals, but defending and defining them WITHIN Evangelical Christianity. That’s an important distinction, I think.
As for the last part of your comment:
“Yes, you can continue to build up the belief that Mormons actions stem from wanting to be accepted by Evangelical Christians if you wish. And I’m not stupid enough to believe I can convince you otherwise.”
You are making an huge leap about what I believe – and then you go and tell me that you don’t care what I believe, but how I discuss it. Well, since you’ve said you don’t care what I (or anyone – I’m not taking it personally or taking offense to that) believes, I guess I don’t need to go into that. However, just because I point something out that COULD be true, does NOT mean I believe it. Also, one single point does not define everything I believe about a specific topic.
In how you word your comments, it seems you’re saying that you’re more interested in making pronouncements than actually discussing anything (by your words: “…these opinions may or may not be accurate…But they ALWAYS accurately tell us about the person that expressed the opinion”). Sure, there are biases. But I don’t think that’s any reason to just give up and stop talking about things.
True, maybe I won’t change my mind (about what, you don’t know, since, though you seem to think you know what I believe, you really, really don’t). But I’ve certainly broadened my views and been able to see how other viewpoints might be valid – all because I’ve discussed what I think with other people who have told me what they thing, and why.
And now, I think I will get back on the ACTUAL topic of the post, rather than discussing all the craziness of how we discuss.
****************
ACTUAL TOPIC:
I remember always being taught that we were a “peculiar” people, and taking pride in that – but it was in direct conflict with the general attitude of the wards I was in. As a teenager and young adult, it always seemed that we were being taught, and always moving towards, a squeaky clean uniformity. Conformity was prized above almost everything else – and I’m quite sure conformity as a virtue was taught to us with pronouncements from the Church higher-ups.
Now, it’s true that that was just my IMPRESSION of things, but I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, according to a lot of what I’ve heard about activities and meeting guidelines in the past few years, the Church has really been making a move away from the “stranger” parts of their doctrine and more towards the “palatable” (as I think Andrew said).
On the other hand, it also seems that they are (as someone – Bruce? – said) moving towards more “serious” religiosity. Away with the fun activities for youth – in with scripture-centered activities. No more missionary farewells – they distract from what we should be learning.
It’s up for discussion, though, whether getting back to Mormon basics (BoM doctrine) is truly getting closer to what Joseph Smith taught as Truth. No matter how closely you study the BoM, people are going to interpret it differently, and I think there’s a lot of room to argue that the way the leaders interpret the doctrine today is not the same as how JS intended it to be interpreted.
Andrew S, I take it you either read my link about narrative fallacies or else you like the same books I do. 🙂
Of course the thing that would “reach through” them would be more information so that we have the ability to form objective opinions. And, of course, that’s the one thing we can never actually have.
I made the statement that I knew for a fact that I, as a Mormon, didn’t fit the bill (of pandering to Evangelicals) even though others claim I do. But Rebecca actually correctly points out that even this isn’t a certainty since maybe I secretly want to pander to the larger Evangelical Christian community even though consciously I don’t want to. Who knows… can’t really rule it out as at least a possibility? I’d say that we can’t.
But if I don’t get to speak for what’s in my own head or for the community I am a part of, I’m not sure there is any basis for dialog in the first place and we might as well wall ourselves off from each other.
Which really brings me to a very interesting insight I just had reviewing all of this in my mind. I’m going to get on my soapbox for as few pages. Sorry. It’s related to this post I did a while back: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/04/religions-in-their-own-words-the-morality-of-misrepresenting-other-religions/
The truth is that I am representing myself and my community and the rest of you are also representing me and my community in this dialog. We can’t skip over this point because it matters. This isn’t a discussion of two points of view about a third thing. It’s a discussion of my point of view about myself and my community and your views of myself and my community.
CHanson correctly got on my case over “not making [her] even remotely sympathetic to listening to [me] when [I] added… side commentary about how [I] have to speak slowly for [her] since [she’s” a closed minded atheist.
In other words, she got angry or was at least unreceptive and unsympathetic over my explanation of HER beliefs and HER community. Right or wrong, it’s hard for her to pay attention to what I am saying if I am going to represent or speak for her community/beliefs and not let her speak for herself.
But of course saying “I don’t like Mormons downplaying unique doctrines in order to Mormonism seem less weird to Evangelical Christians…” is very much the same thing, and had the exact same effect on me.
Her words made me the lame LDS person that deletes deletes deletes my doctrines and won’t stand up for what I believe in because I am trying to pander to Evangelical Christians because I secretly think their doctrines make more sense than mine. Like it or not, I am a believing Mormon, so that statement was about me, even if not directly aimed at me. Thus we started this conversation with my unsympathetic to what she had to say.
This is the battle we all face in any sort of dialog.
And it’s why you all can tell me till you are blue in the face why honestly sincerely believe why you think the LDS Church secretly is lying about their doctrines publicly to avoid embarrassment (vs. say, only downplaying the ones that don’t have revelations and thus rightly deserve to be challenged) or that we are trying to be Evangelicals because we like their religion better than our own. (vs. a return to the Book of Mormon.)
You can give me reason after reason, proof after proof, but the problem is that you are always talking to me about me and so I actually do have access to evidence you never can have – I can read the mind of a pretty typical member of that community you are talking about. The best you can hope for is to tell me that I’m non-representative of the community and you are really talking about THEM not ME, which, to be frank, is no better and maybe a worse accusation.
I hope you’ll all give this some thought to what I am saying. I am not suggesting a change of behavior here, as I think deciding to never speak your mind about other people is probably impossible.
On the other hand, I think Chanson is right that I can stand to avoid referring to people beliefs as “entrenched†(clearly fighting words) but I probably can’t avoid expressing that thought in some way, as it is what I honestly believe. (Of everyone, not just atheist. Of all human beings.) So finding the right way to express it is the key here, and maybe being more open minded to the possibility that she might be open minded on this issue.
But I think the reverse is also true. If you honestly believe you see a trend in the LDS Church, you do have to express it, I’ll admit. But perhaps you need to find non-fighting words too if you want me to take you seriously.
If I might offer a suggestion (just like Chanson did to me) I think the main issue here is that when you offer your opinion of someone else, like is being done here, it probably isn’t best to argue with them immediately as if this was a simple “one of us is right†situation. It would make more sense to first ask them to explain their opinions of their own actions (or their community’s actions that they agree with) further first and hear them out and validate their point of view at least as a viable possibility before explaining your further opinions.
Bruce (33):
Well, the so-called revelations are selectively ignored (see WoW), re-interpreted (see new and everlasting coventant), and/or conveniently down-played when the time is right (see one-true-church, nature of godhead, eternal progression, etc).
Though I do not doubt that Mormons tend to authentically care about their revelations, I’m fairly certain that there’s much quibbling over what exactly those revelations are and what they mean. Which was by point before you man-handled it. 🙂
Re 36: yeah, as I said, you’re pretty popular.
I think the reason I didn’t understand your comment in 12 waaaay back when is because I think that the idea I originally is much bigger than the claim “Mormons are pandering to Evangelicals.” For example, I don’t recall introducing that idea to my first post or in my comments at MM (or maybe I’m senile)…it’s just that this broader idea *doesn’t* seem incompatible with the idea that Chanson has raised about downplaying doctrines to seem less weird to evangelicals and so I went with it. I’ve had enough conversations about evangelicals to be able to continue a topic on that.
And it’s taken me a long time through the posts to think that a lot of the disagreements have been because of this, when I don’t necessarily think that’s…the emphasis.
In short, in regards to your 12. Even if I challenge this obviously challengeable assertion, I don’t think the entire discussion is based on it. Just the 36 or so comments that have kinda moved in that direction because I think that language in its limited capacity leads us to simplify things like that.
Rebecca, with all due respect, I did not say I didn’t care what you believe in the way you are now taking it. I was trying to explain why I was interested in a meta discussion about what we can learn about ourselves and each other from our opinions and how I find it difficult to even bring that topic up without offending people because it’s a difficult topic. I feel uncertainty on how to express it without offending people and I just do my best because it’s still a topic worth discussing.
(I discussed this a lot further in my last post, but the main point is that it IS difficult to express certain opinions, even valid ones. And it IS difficult to learn to word them carefully to not offend. I did poorly here, but, honestly, many others did poorly too.)
To be honest, I feel abused by the way you took my words because it’s hard to believe you really misunderstood me this badly. But, I admit it’s probably a legitimate misunderstanding that is largely my fault. (Update: Reading over my post, I seem to have used the generic “you†without clarifying and it got your hackles up. I.e. “I’m also less interested in your personal beliefs and more interested in if you handle them tolerantly.†What I mean here is “this is my area of interest. I’m not trying to convince people of any particular doctrine but “fairness.†This wasn’t meant to be aimed at you personally, so I should have said “one.â€)
So I apologize if there was a misunderstanding and hope to get things back on course with you, if it’s still possible. But to be honest, you’ll have to meet me half way.
You are also right I made a leap on what you believed and was wrong to do so. Whether it was a “huge leap†or not is yet to be seen. Perhaps you aren’t someone that believes that Mormons are trying to downplay their doctrines in order to be accepted more by Evangelical Christians. Please tell me what you really believe and I will not speak for you. I feel bad that I did.
The truth is that I’m just human. Rebecca, you’ve come on so strong from the start (as did I, I have already admitted) that I’m sort of mostly turned off at this point, just as you seem to feel about me. I think this is unfortunate, but it’s the truth. Thus the need to meet half way if we are to have any further dialog.
I have offered several apologies, tried to explain what I see as your misunderstanding of my words via further clarification, and asked you to explain your own position. In short, I’m trying to make amends to you.
If we can get past this impasse, I’ll be happy to discuss the rest of your post in more detail with you. But I think we should clear the air over this first or choose to discontinue this dicussion with each other.
Matt, all you say is true, but I don’t see your point. If we are talking about Hinckley, he properly expressed what we really don’t quibble over and properly refused to express what we do quibble over. Thus you seem to be in agreement with me. Thus I don’t see your point.
aaaaanyway, getting to your 36.
I don’t think any of us are saying that you or anyone particular is acting to get friendly with Evangelicals. I know I didn’t say “BRUCE NIELSON SPECIFICALLY BELIEVES THAT KITTIES ARE BETTER THAN DOGGIES!” What I think I’m saying and what I think Chanson is saying is that *from our perspectives as people who have been involved in the church as well*, that’s what we feel the church is doing and moving towards (with caveat that it’s much more “wider” than this and perhaps more complicated than such a blanket statement). That’s what we hear from certain members (perhaps there’s selective bias at work — we have to just generalize for a blog’s sake). So really, this is very much about our narrative. That’s why I didn’t originally get what was challengeable in 12. She’s saying she disagrees. So she’s already prefaced that this is her narrative and her interpretation. Discrediting this when, as you note, we don’t have the gift of objectivity doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
The post you linked is very good to this discussion, because in it, you ask,
I think what gives Dan the right to choose which side of the contradiction represents Jill’s views is his own narrative. It’s just that every other person would also use their own narratives in the matter as well. See, we have this problem where objectivity isn’t possible, as you have acknowledged, so really we are just having a battle of narratives.
Lemme think of an example (warning, my analogies are terribad)…let’s say I write a letter “A” and call it a “B” (and ignore that we do have standards about what is an A and what is a B). I can tell you all I want that this is a B, but when you walk away, you certainly are inclined to say, “that Andrew S guy…he thinks that “A”s are “B”s…That’s so crazy!” You wouldn’t just say “I can’t accept your views, for I see it as a contradiction.” That’s just too sterile. People don’t talk like that, and they shouldn’t necessarily have to.
You’d have your own kind of narrative for filling in what’s the deal with me. You might even accept such a narrative exists…but that doesn’t really disarm it (my saying I’m biased doesn’t make me unbiased — heck, even controlling for bias doesn’t eliminate bias…it just warps it even more because we are biased in what we perceive our biases to be).
Now, certainly, I could say that you’re trying to ‘speak for me’ now and now you’re trying to classify me as crazy, and that I’m oblivious to the fact that this is an A. But oh ho, you’re in the wrong because really, *I* should know best my belief. I’m not crazy; I have very specific reasons for believing this “A” is a “B.” I’ll have you know that I use a very advanced coding system whereby the “A” is a B.
But…really, that’s just my narrative. It doesn’t somehow overpower yours because it comes from the source. You could want to believe me all I want, and I could explain and explain and explain, but if you just didn’t “get” it, you wouldn’t get it. And your actions will be based on what you do get. So when you’re talking to others, I really can’t blame you for your narrative. The only thing I *could* do is find a better way or forming my narrative so that it makes sense in light of your narrative. (And in the religious sphere, this is how we get all kinds of liberal and New Order and not-so-cut-and-dry Mormons. These are people trying to make Mormonism — whatever it officially makes its narrative — fit into their own narratives.)
Now, you talk about Dan going around and telling people that Jill is polytheist, and people getting the wrong idea because they don’t know the context…this is certainly possible and actually, it’s 100% guaranteed to happen! But it’s because of narratives and this lack of objectivity. It’s something unavoidable. It’s not something we can get rid of by making Jill the only one able to speak for her beliefs with authority either. It’s not something we should just say, “Well, Dan really should explain both sides…or he should present Jill’s beliefs as she believes them without commenting further and sussing it all up.”
I dunno if I’ve made all the points I wanted to make. I already said my analogies are terribad…but to try to bring it back to concrete issues.
Let us say that the church’s explanation for itself, its issues, its direction, etc., is objectively true, but we have no way of discerning this. So, for people who are not inclined to accept that narrative, are they supposed to just give the church the benefit of the doubt and accept its explanation? I don’t think so, because if we did this, why not do it for all other things? Was it you or someone else who wrote that *everything* cannot be true precisely because of the irreconciliable natures of competing claims?
So, these people, especially when talking about their relationship to the church, should certainly be allowed to use their own narrative to inform their own opinion and actions. It is the discerning tool we have. When there are disagreements, the various parties should be actually trying to make their own narrative make more sense to the other person’s narrative in the hopes that from the blending of perspectives, some objectivity can be molded (in your example…most people have such an idea of polytheism that you’re worried people would confuse Jill’s beliefs with precisely because of this blending of perspectives with regards to language.)
akjdfkjadsfjladsfjdsakf I wrote all of this but I don’t think it was organized at all. Please tell me if it makes no sense.
AndrewS,
I agree with what you are saying. We (I) have taken one point and challenged it.
I really haven’t challenged anything else at this point. I’m not sure there is anything else to challenge because I think I’m in agreement with everything else. So I do have to agree that wasn’t the original emphasis of your post. I “derailed†the conversation to some degree by drilling down on a specific comment.
Andrew, excellent discussion.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying, by the way. You are correct. We can’t just make a rule that everyone gets to speak for themselves and we aren’t allowed to hold our own opinions. (A point I already made.)
But I will add this. If you give me specific reasons for why you believe A to be B and B to be A, and I claim I’m an expert on Andrew’s beliefs and tell everyone I’m just telling you what Andrew beliefs are but I fail to mention any of the reasons you gave me, yes, I think this is more than just about my narrative vs. yours any more.
I think we have now crossed into the realm of treating other people how we want — no expect — others to treat us.
And this is my real point. Assuming you believe there is such a thing as morality (and we act as if there is since its biological) then what I am saying is that we have two narratives and a moral issue. It is possible, and desirable, to address that moral issue while keeping both narratives.
This example, while helpful, is “bad” (as you say) because it’s too clear cut. I think most of us get that Dan is doing something immoral, not just expressing his honest opinion.
That same can’t be said for our discussion. CHanson, Rebecca, yourself, etc, are not doing something equivalent to what Dan is doing. You are expressing your opinions, period. You are not intentionally misrepresenting someone else’s beliefs, per se (as you correctly point out.)
I think the issue in this case is that CHanson got mad at me (rightly so) for doing exactly what she did to me, inadvertently, of course. That’s the moral issue in this case. But the solution is different. CHanson can’t realistically go around saying “well, here is my honest opinion, but here are a variety of other possibilities.” You are right that people just don’t speak that way.
I think the moral issue here is for CHanson to cut me slack (and vice versa) over how difficult it is to express these ideas to each other without getting emotionally involved.
Yes, I did suggest that she was holding her beliefs about the LDS church’s reasons for downplaying certain doctrines in part because it reinforces her beliefs about the LDS Church. Guess what? That’s my narrative too. I honestly believe that about her beliefs. It’s no more or less offensive then hers. So what we have to address is that if she (or anyone) has a right to tell me what my real reasons are for my actions, I do to. And if you don’t like it when I do it, then you shouldn’t expect me to like it when you do it to me.
Does that makes sense?
Now all we have to do is find a better way to compromise over how to express our opinions.
I should probably point out that CHanson couldn’t have known I’d read her post. She may or may not have wording it differently if she had known.
On the other hand, I didn’t immediately say things she found offensive either. I initially just challenged an assumption.
Where things seem to have come apart in the discussion in #21 and #22.
We really shouldn’t punctuate “who caused the problem first.” It’s impossible anyhow, so I’m really just trying to explain what I think happened, not lay blame.
I was the first to say something that got Chanson rankled i.e. “At this point, I’m just trying to help you understand that…”
I can see, in retrospect, why this got her upset. But, I didn’t mean this with the tone she took it. But that’s no excuse. I feel I “lost control” of what I was saying here and I think she was right to call me on it.
However, I think we should note that in #21 she had decided to argue with me about (in my mind) what I personally believe. Let’s at least admit that most people do find this offensive and it didn’t exactly sit well with me. She probably didn’t see it that way, but that was what happened from my point of view. I really wasn’t feeling very sympathetic to what she had to say by #22 because of this, though I thought (at the time) I had controlled my tone better.
In short, I think this is a “valid” misunderstanding between us. We are both upset over the very same thing, being type cast into something we don’t like or agree with.
As you point out, Andrew, if this is our valid and honest opinions/narratives we get to express it how we feel. Fair enough. But in neither case did it advance dialog any and in both cases it got the other upset and turned us off to what the other was saying.
Wow! Awesome discussion.
What really matters is not theology but the value that Mormonism adds to people’s lives.
Old and odd ‘doctrines’ need to be evaluated accordingly. For example, the Eden in Missouri doctrine was meaningful to Mormons in Far West or the participants of Zion’s camp.
Today, the same idea means little to us.
Another example would be Brigham Young’s doctrine of Quakers on the moon. That does more damage than good today.
I might be wrong but I doubt that anyone will suggest that Mormonism needs to cling to Quakers on the moon to preserve its distinctiveness.
Survival is more important than distinctiveness.
Beyond survival, ethics might be a competing standard with Mormon distinctiveness.
For example, Brigham Young’s date rape doctrine about Mary’s conception might result in the sexual subjugation of women who act on ‘divine’ example.
May be, Mormonism will be less distinctive without the date rape account of Mary’s conception but it would be a safer place for my daughter.
That ought to be worth something.
Re 43: I edited my comment in 42 just a little bit, but I don’t think I gutted any message. I’ll try to make slimmer messages from here on.
A fun part of this discussion (that highlights the inadequacy of my analogy) is evident. See…we are members, ex-members, former members, NOMs, etc., So in a way, it’s not like we are illegitimate sources to knowing (and sometimes, in exhaustive detail) the beliefs of the church. It’s kinda like how anti-Mormons who never were part of the church sometimes seem to emphasize different things than what ex’s, formers, NOMs, and ax-wound-victims would emphasize.
But in the end, one person doesn’t get more legitimacy, necessarily, than the other. As Jill doesn’t necessarily get the final word on what her beliefs are or I don’t get the final word on what my letter is…well…even in this more interesting case where we have people who were in the church, people who are still in the church, people who have never been in the church, etc.,…one party doesn’t necessarily become more genuinely legitimate because of his status.
(At this point, your invocation of the golden rule [or something that reminds me of it] makes me realize that I do have an “ethical” view of what should happen in this situation. I hate the golden rule so much because it focuses on what the self wants…I’d much rather say “Do unto others what they would have done unto themselves.” tee hee my argument is now just academic, since I recognize that I believe that Dan *should*, as a moral person, regard Jill’s beliefs (even if he doesn’t agree with them) precisely because of an imperative.)
anyway, continuing just academically (I don’t claim my ethical imperative to be The Way Things Must Be — it’s just what I would like them to be :3), I think…uhh…we’re talking about different things now. We once were talking about our opinions on how we see church direction (e.g., Chanson says: I dislike that the church is doing this). In this, I don’t see anything where she tells you what your real reasons and intentions are (but that’s where you first come out swinging in 12…and I dunno…it just seems to me that in comments like this one, you think that Chanson has equated her thoughts on “the Church” [as amorphous and shadowy a metonymy it is] for what you as a member believe…and I don’t think that’s so).
To resolve this part of the conversation, I don’t think there needs to be any slack cut. Really, to address concerns such as in 12, we would need to find a way to accommodate your narrative (e.g., the church is just getting back to its roots; it is refine refine refine, not delete delete delete)…or vice versa (but I’m not going to try to deconvert anyone). If these things don’t happen, then this part of the conversation just won’t be reconciliable (of course, time could change end up having one of us dramatically change our opinion and see the church in a different light.)
We shifted to this discussion and I can see it most readily around 18, 21, 24, and 27 — that’s when I think it got a little more personal I can see some of what you mean about both sides assuming too much about each other’s reasons and intentions and then getting upset over it. I admit I’ve stayed away from that because I’m not a mediator ^_^.
Cutting slack — from either party — also won’t resolve this part. And this is where my huge parenthetical comment on the golden rule comes into play — to resolve this, we have to somehow suspend our narrative and accept the other person’s narrative for their own belief. It’s gotta be simultaneous though. We have to just accept that the other person isn’t saying what they are saying from ulterior motives or just because of suspicion or to accommodate their own narratives — even if OUR narratives make us think that.
ugh, so much on slimming down -_-
Amazingly, even though I hadn’t seen comment 44 at all, I think I magically answered it in my monolithic 47!
And really, I think my analysis of the 2nd part of the discussion (the unintentional and more personal part) covers it well. To dialog and get somewhere, we’d simply have to treat others as they’d want to be treated (whereas the golden rule would have us treat others as we would want them to treat us — which only pays attention to our own narrative in the first place)
I just wanted to make the distinction between the first part of the discussion and the second. Because, you see, dropping our narratives and walking in the other person’s shoes wouldn’t work so well for the 1st part of our discussion, because we wouldn’t actually get anywhere. If I talk with someone of a religion I don’t believe and accept their narrative of its truthfulness (and they accept my narrative of its nontruthfulness), then I’ll never REALLY make any progress with my narrative and they won’t with theirs. We are just roleplaying and will feel phony for it.
I love how there have been several comments to try to put us back on track (thanks Hellmut, rebecca, and the rest)…but haha, now I’m all on this other issue.
Bruce (40):
my head just ‘sploded. X:P
Andrew,
For some reason all the text get cut off on the right side. It’s hard for me to read everyone’s comments. I am learning to cut and paste them into a document to read them.
Andrew,
I really appreciate this discussion, especially your insights.
Would it be fair to summarize your point in post #47 as “it’s impossible for any real dialog to happen if we refused to suspend our narratives about other people’s beliefs and not take their as a starting point?”
If so, this seems to me to be exactly what I said in #36: “But if I don’t get to speak for what’s in my own head or for the community I am a part of, I’m not sure there is any basis for dialog in the first place and we might as well wall ourselves off from each other.”
In other words, if I understood you correctly, then I completely agree.
To some degree, you have to decide if your conversation is private and I’m intruding, or if it’s intended as a dialog.
Andrew,
I have to strongly disagree with you on one thing. You basically blame me for coming out swinging in #12. Forgive me but I must disagree with this. I do not believe #12 could ever be called a “swing” based on your own explanation in #41.
Please note that you went on in #41 to be on the only one to really answer that challenge. And what was your answer? It was that it was assumed because it’s a personal belief or narrative that fits the whole belief or narrative of the individual, and that’s okay.
I agree. It’s not because there is some objective reality by which we can truly determine that this is the most likely or best answer.
Andrew, I have spent a life time making variants of this argument or issue that challenge. You are the first and only person to give a truly honest answer to it (in #41). The usual response, as we’d probably expect, is to further justify why our narrative is superior to all others and (sometimes) anyone that disagrees with us is obviously bias or an idiot. (Not accusing anyone here of that second part.)
I bow to your ability to not get angry at being challenged (beter than me) and to give such a introspective (is that the right word?) answer.
re 50: it’s probably e-divine retribution for my megalithic comments (a tradition I will probably now continue). v_v
re 51:
It’s half of what I’m saying, but half doesn’t make me feel comfortable. There is, I think, a distinction of when we should suspend our narratives and when we should move forth boldly with our narratives.
When we actually discuss, our discussion *must* be based on our own narratives. If we’re discussing something that we don’t like about the church, then we *must* discuss that from our own narratives. There would be no dialog if, for example, Chanson or I had said, “I don’t like the way the church is (in my opinion) moving towards being more palatable to Evangelicals…BUT REALLY, MY OPINION IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH OR MEMBERS VIEW ITS ACTIONS AS SO MY OPINION IS KINDA SILLY AND HAS LITTLE MERIT IN THE REAL WORLD~”
In this case, we can talk all we want, but we are now just role playing out of politeness. Imagine if we talked to people of all religions suspending our narratives and adopting theirs (I use this example because you did write about this once…True Religion: Why There can only be one). We’d be super polite and all, but secretly and publicly, we wouldn’t get anything done. We’d still (on the inside) believe OUR religion is right, and instead of pressing the issue by pressing the narrative and possibly getting something new for our narratives, we would have a polite, sterile, meaningless conversation.
So, that’s like where this conversation began. It is not private and you’re not intruding. It’s just that people are eschewing super politeness for pressing conversation that could change views (even subtly and maybe only privately).
However, where I accept that there must be narrative suspension is when we set the stage…before we get into the heat of discussion (and what we think “backstage”, so to speak). I can’t characterize everything you do and all of your motives in *my* narrative, even if I might feel inclined to do so. If I feel you are being disingenuous, arrogant, deceptive (or perhaps deceived), that is when there can be no conversation. I have to accept (if I truly want conversation), even if I disagree with the house of cards that are your ideas, that you build those with the intentions you say you build them with.
I think the distinction is in something like this. If I believed someone to be “brainwashed” (which is something that gets lobbed surprisingly often [but not by me, i hope]) or someone believed I was “rationalizing sin,” then conversation could not happen. That’s where we should suspend narratives. However, when it actually comes to the discussion, it makes no sense for me to suspend a narrative that I don’t believe what you believe or you don’t believe what I believe. I can accept your intentions are what you say they are but still come to a disagreement in the end about the beliefs if the substance of your argument is unconvincing.
Andrew, one more thing. You said: “it just seems to me that in comments like this one, you think that Chanson has equated her thoughts on “the Church†[as amorphous and shadowy a metonymy it is] for what you as a member believe…and I don’t think that’s so.”
I apologize if I left that impression. I tried to avoid that impression as best I could. What I actually said was “The truth is that I am representing myself and my community and the rest of you are also representing me and my community in this dialog.”
It helps to realize that by “my community” I mean specifically “believing Mormons.”
Here is the problem I see with what you are saying, Andrew. You are starting with the assumption that if CHanson (or whoever) didn’t aim the attack specifically at me, but rather at an amorphous group — that I happen to be a part of and frankly highly representative of in my mind — that I shouldn’t in any way take it personally. Balderdash! There is no such thing as an amorphous group of people. They are always a collection of individuals.
If I were to say to someone here “I find that most atheists are closed minded” or “generally ex-Mormons are sinners and that’s why they left the Church” or “generally DAMUs are bitter and it shows” you better believe people who think of themselves as atheists/ex-Mormons/DAMUs etc would take it personally. Of course my objection of “no, I didn’t mean you personally, necessarily,” would be pretty meaningless. (Also note, I picked the above examples because I’ve seen those groups complain about how immoral it is when believing Mormons type cast them in such ways.)
You see, we all have many identities. I have a self identify that cannot be separated from my group identity as a believing Mormon. Thus I feel it’s unfair for you to try to hold me to a standard of “it’s not aimed at you” (very true) while yourself potentially getting angry if the shoe were on the other foot. (Maybe not you, Andrew, but you would be an exception, not a rule.)
But keep in mind, I was explaining something specific here. I wasn’t saying, please apologize to me, for you have intentionally wounded me. I was merely explaining why I was, just like Chanson, likely feeling unsympathetic to what was being said because of my perception of strong bias against people holding my point of view and an unwillingness to even validate that I at least had a valid way of looking at things too. Heck, there wasn’t even an acknowledgement that I was right that it couldn’t be all one explanation or another. That was probably the single easiest thing to admit.
So this was just an explanation of how I find dialog difficult because it’s always personal. I did not mean to hurt or harm Chanson any more than she meant it to me.
Take Hellmut’s comment about BY’s “date rape” doctrine. This comment signals to me just how disinterested he is in dialog on this subject. He wants to say something negative and he’s saying it. He’s framing it in a way where it’s not open for discussion.
Now of course BY didn’t see it that way. How could he? So actually, we *objectively* know that Hellmut is wrong here. Hellmut knows he is too, of course.
Of course BY would have seen this more like the “once a person dies and goes to heaven their spouse is free to remarry” doctrine (with the Father being in heaven being effectively the same from BY’s point of view.)
As you pointed out, Hellmut is saying it this way because it’s HIS chosen narrative. But unless Hellmut is REALLY dense (I don’t believe that) then I am right to assume he is choosing to talk about this as offensively to believing Mormons as possible. (Even when he knows for sure he’s in dialog with one, apparently.)
A fair question is if I should or shouldn’t feel offended over the fact that he is, apparently, trying to say offensive things to me in front of me.
I think that is the wrong question. I think the right question is, “will many people not be able to help it but be offended and thus start saying offensive things back, maybe even unintentionally?†This being true, are we promoting dialog, or are we just taking a swing while trying to shut it down.
Re 52: I have to ask something first, just to clear things up.
Did you write 12 with the belief that the conversation up to that point was implying that Mormons (or even just you) believe that what they/you do is to to appease Evangelicals? Did you write 12 believing that Chanson believed that you yourself fit such a pattern — even if you’re “unaware” of it? I moreso sensed it in later posts (18, for example)
If so (or even worse, if Chanson actually did mean such things), then either of these would suggest the kind of thing I mean that I’ve been trying to qualify my comments in 41 with — the thing that would justify a suspension of narrative. I think conversation would fail if Chanson truly asserted something like “Bruce is pandering to Evangelicals even if he says he isn’t” or if you asserted “Chanson believes I’m pandering to Evangelicals regardless of what I say about it.” Either of you would be swinging early on if these things were true (but later on, you guys definitely start swinging…no offense and no blame). There is no offense and no blame…
Really, my point in 41 was…kinda shattered (and I’ve been picking up the pieces) in 47…I realized that while I answered in 41 in a way that seemed to work in *some instances* (as I’ve elaborated in 53)…I can see that Dan’s actions were “bad” because of violation of what I think should be a more refined ethical prime (treat others as they would like to be treated).
See, in the end, Dan does have the…I dunno…right…to trust his own narrative…after all, that’s why and how we discern things. In the end, we need not be in perfect agreement (especially since there are some incompatibilities). I feel Dan can present his narrative alone because Jill’s narrative, in the end, did not convince him. But in discussion with Jill, I think he owes her just a bit more respect to at least *begin* from a slate that is open to Jill’s position regardless of his narrative on the issue.
#53,
Andrew, I COMPLETELY AGREE with what you are saying. However, I am not sure I think you are being consistent here.
Yes, just avoiding saying what I really believe would be pointless. Yes, failing to assume the person I am in dialog with is telling the truth about themselves (i.e. assuming they really believe the narrative they claim to believe) is equally pointless.
Yet, if I see CHanson give a narrative that I completely disagree with and I decide to challenge part of it — in this case just “why are you assuming that when there could be other interpretations?” you still feel like *I* am coming out swinging and Chanson wasn’t.
This, I do not understand. You are placing a value judgement on this that I am failing to see at all.
As part of a whole dialog, each part here was needed. Chanson said what she really believed. She did so with a great deal of certainty, because that is how she felt. I responded in kind. Both very understandable.
Then we both got offended at some point. That is also understandable, actually.
Then she suggested to me how I could have said it better and I accepted the criticism. Then I suggested how she could have handled it better. She isn’t here to respond, but probably will.
It would seem to me that this, at least so far, really is a dialog between us with the usual give and take that must happen.
Hopefully there is a learning experience here on how to word things better… but if not, at least hopefully we can talk past it now and in the future and not get so upset over differing opinions that we shut down dialog entirely.
That’s really not the point I was making. I just meant that — if your goal is to get people to listen to you and take your points into consideration — some approaches are more effective than others.
I disagree. I think all of this meta-discussion of everyone’s biases is a huge distraction from the substance of the question at hand.
Everyone here is aware that all people have biases, and that we’re coming from different belief positions. Thus, I think you could explain your position and arguments more succinctly without tacking on unhelpful and uninteresting remarks about how everyone’s conclusions are colored by their biases.
I think you’ve made some interesting and original points on this thread, yet, in all sincerity, I’m having difficulty wading through all of this meta-narrative about who’s misrepresenting whom in order to tease them out.
re 54:
getting at it out of order, yes, I take such an assumption that Chanson didn’t aim at you, but at an amorphous group. But that is partially because that is the foundation of her narrative as well (e.g., regardless of if I believe her or disbeliever her on this position, I accept her intentions to be true in that she’s addressing “some Mormons,” or “how the Church seems,” or “Mormons” [generalized], etc.,)
So, to highlight a position that I have been retooling since 47 and I think I got it in 53…let me try to present it as I would try to see it. It seems to me that if someone were referring to atheists or liberal Mormons or Cultural Mormons or whatever, and they claimed to be just talking about a generalized group (and not me in particular), but I felt, as a representative of these groups, personally addressed…then where my suspension of narrative would have to be is in assuming that they do this to directly address me (even though they say they don’t). I would have to suspend my narrative long enough to accept — even if just for the purposes of the conversation — that perhaps they are referring to just some amorphous, generalized group (then again, I guess the nature of the liberal/ex/cultural/former/post/wafhdsfoh Mormons is just a touch more amorphous ^_^).
Where does my point in 41 (and the other half of 53 about defending your narrative come into play)? Well, I think that the true dialog would come when I can converse accepting my opposition’s narrative that they are referring to an amorphous group, but then my goal is to use *my* narrative to show how *my* narrative, that I am a representative of a group and they don’t have things completely correct, can more convincingly describe the group than the other person’s.
In the end, my goal might not be fully reached. Dan, even after his conversation with Jill, was unconvinced about Jill’s side. And I reserve the right for that to happen — and when that happens, I reserve Dan’s right to continue in his narrative.
If you were to say “I find most atheists are closeminded,” then my goal shouldn’t be to get mad or think that you’re brainwashed or have ulterior motives or whatever (even though my narrative might incline me to that). Really, if I want to communicate (if I can’t suspend my narrative, then perhaps I shouldn’t want to communicate), then I should accept — even if just for the duration of the conversation — that you’d be saying this from honest intentions, but try to show from my narrative that mine is a more convincing one to see things from on this issue. It might even mean that I need to show by example that I am not closeminded, I am not bitter, (or that I don’t show it :D). Heck, I’ll be the first to admit as a DAMU that DAMUs need to stop being so bitter XD.
Those are the things I would do. I mean, I’m not perfect, but I’ve found in my life that that kind of stuff leads to better results than other things I could potentially do.
Regarding Hellmut, I’m not going to directly talk about him because I can see that there are other reasons why he (and other seeming axe-wound-cases — haha, sorry, my Dear axe-wound-cases) seems bitter or vitroilic. But I would say that, regardless of *actual* ill will or not, I think the question isn’t necessarily “should I be offended” but really “even if I am offended, what kind of things will lead to an improved situation?” That second question you ask is good, but then I would answer that one of the things the church did teach me is that just because I think people do have the tendency to be offended and act on that, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying to improve from that.
I dunno. I’m not a mediator. I think that killing people with kindness is surprisingly effective, and more particularly more effective and satisfying than acting out of offense, whether perceived or real (because…hey…I can admit that in the DAMU community there most certainly is real offense.)
I’ve written though, previously, about how sometimes I think dialog, in the end, is futile, for some of the things you talk about. But something stubborn in me keeps wanting to be resilient and hopeful.
#55:
Good questions, but I’m having a hard time following you now.
I think you are saying, did I see it as a personal attack at that point? No. Did I see it as an attack on “beleving Mormons” (i.e. the Church), absolutely. She explains in #21 what she really meant, and I still believe that to be the case even after reading her clarifications. Actually, especially after reading her clairifications.
I have been personally accused of pandering to Evangelicals, just as you suggest, but not be chanson. And, yes, it shuts off dialog completely.
Andrew, I have to still somewhat disagree with what you are saying… no that isn’t right. I think what you are saying here is true: “Dan does have the…I dunno…right…to trust his own narrative…after all, that’s why and how we discern things. In the end, we need not be in perfect agreement (especially since there are some incompatibilities). I feel Dan can present his narrative alone because Jill’s narrative, in the end, did not convince him. But in discussion with Jill, I think he owes her just a bit more respect to at least *begin* from a slate that is open to Jill’s position regardless of his narrative on the issue.”
But I think this really does miss the point of my original article, even though it’s true.
The point of my article was the potential for damage to someone elses life through intentional misrepresentation even if it’s a valid narrative to you.
If we are going to start with the assumption that “it’s my narrative, thus it’s the truth TO ME” then, with all due respect, give me a single example of a “misrepresentation” that doesn’t pass your test with flying colors.
Look at my offensive examples in #54. Let’s take the idea that most or all ex-Mormons left the Church because they couldn’t keep the commandments.
I have seen a LOT of pain the in the NOM community on Mormon Matters over this, in their words, intolerant misrepresentation/lie/bearing false witness of other people.
I COMPLETELY agree with them. I think this narrative is sick and wrong and intolerant. I correct believing Mormons that say it.
But this is, to those that say it, a “true narrartive to them.”
Do you see a moral ethical issue with me seeing believing Mormons saying this and saying to meself “ah, well, they are entitled to their narrative, and they are just talking amongst themselves, so there isn’t any real dialog going on, so who cares… let them believe what they believe.”
Or do I have an ethical issue to say, “that’s judging others, you shouldn’t do that. I haven’t found this to always be the case, though I’m sure sometimes it is. But we don’t get to decide who this isn’t or isn’t true for.”
I see it as I need to do the later. If what you are saying is true that ethics has no meaning over our personal narratives other than when in dialog, I just have to agree to disagree with you.
(None of this is related to any of the dialog here. Let me make that very clear.)
chanson,
I can appreciate what you are saying in #57. I sense in your words (perhaps wrongly) an accusation against me.
I am sorry, but I am teasing this out with Andrew because it’s obvious we both want to. You don’t have to participate and probably shouldn’t because it really is besides the point, as you say. And it’s clearly off topic now.
Also, saying you got angry is probably not the right wording. Saying it turned you off to the discussion is probably right. With that in mind, understand that I didn’t “get angry” with you either. I just meant it was probably as hard for me to want to listen as it was for you and for the very same reasons.
I actually think a) you did listen, and b) so did I.
re 56:
it’s because of things that you have said in later comments, rather than things specifically in 12. Remember — I completely misunderstood what you meant in 12 the first few times I read it, and it only started getting more context as I read further in the conversation. But you see, as I wrote in 55, I’m not certain. I’m wondering if my own narrative fallacies are in the way…so when I say things like “you started swinging in 12,” I realize that too might have been a slip up in fallacy (that I think I can catch…even if it’s after I’ve opened mouth, inserted foot).
And I’m not necessarily saying that Chanson wasn’t swinging. I know from other conversations (sorry C!) that Hell hath no fury like Chanson on a roll 🙂 (I’m really going to get pulverized for that one…)
I don’t think I’m placing value judgment either. I meant what I said earlier when I said I placed no blame and saw no offense. I’m not saying, “AHA I KNOW FOR A FACT…” I’m saying “I dunno…it seems.”
Re 57: I think that a flexible discussion, even if it is a meta-discussion, can be meaningful. I wouldn’t recommend anyone who hasn’t been keeping up wades through all of it (hmm…perhaps I should make a caveat in the article >_>), but I’m definitely going to continue this thread in another article in the near future…
“Well, I think that the true dialog would come when I can converse accepting my opposition’s narrative that they are referring to an amorphous group, but then my goal is to use *my* narrative to show how *my* narrative, that I am a representative of a group and they don’t have things completely correct, can more convincingly describe the group than the other person’s.”
Yes! That’s it! That’s what I was trying to say in #18!
We have arrived!!!! 😛
#62:
Since chanson is back, let us stop using hyperbole and thus risk chanson wrath (on me at least) further and let me admit that I DO NOT believe she “came out swining.” Those are very subjective terms that could mean anything from “she made a point I disagreed with” (true) to “she was trying to be offensive to me” (not true) to “she was trying to personally attack me” (not true) to “she was trying to be unfair to the Church intentionally” (unfair, in my opinion yes, but certainly not intentionally. It’s her narrative, of course.)
Andrew, please take a look at my point about ethics with Dan. I feel like I am in agrement with everything you are saying now except possibly: “In the end, my goal might not be fully reached. Dan, even after his conversation with Jill, was unconvinced about Jill’s side. And I reserve the right for that to happen — and when that happens, I reserve Dan’s right to continue in his narrative.”
Let’s nuance this a bit further.
Certainly Dan ALWAYS has the right to continue is narrative if we are talking in a legal sense, well unless it’s pure slander or libel, of course.
But do you *really* mean there is no potential moral issue here?
What I have in mind is that Dan goes around telling everyone “Jill is a polytheist” and this is contextually assumed to be a) offensive to Jill, b) will make Jill look bad to her peers because “polytheist” has a specific meaning to them that is different than why Dan actually means, and perhaps do real harm to her socially (maybe no one will elect her as president.
I just can’t agree that Dan doesn’t have a moral obligation to Jill, even if she is not present, so at least say “Jill is a polytheist even though she thinks of herself as a monotheist” or something to in some way clarify that she is only a polytheist, even in Dan’s own narrative in a distinctly different way than how most people understand that term.
Heck, I think it would be better for him to just say “her beliefs don’t make sense and are contradictory.”
If you really don’t agree with me on this, we can, of course, agree to disagree. But I think this is an important point because I believe Dan would be the first to be offended if the shoe were on the other foot. We all get offended by misrepresentation like this. Thus if we expect different behavior, to me that means we also owe different behavior.
Re 59: I guess my own bias gets in way now, because although I can conceive of a way her clarifications in 21 and beyond could be a continued attack, I just don’t see it as the principal meaning. But then again, I can extrapolate it enough to make the connection (e.g., by attacking the church or the GAs — even in a generalized aspect, you in extension reach down to all the believing Mormons, regardless of your intention, precisely because of the connection between faithful believing member and these symbols of their faith.)
Regarding the “exMormons leave because they couldn’t keep the commandments,” that some believing Mormons believe a “sick and wrong and intolerant” narrative isn’t in and of itself why it is acceptable or unacceptable.
Here is unacceptable: “I’m going to assume that exMormons leave because they couldn’t keep the commandments and rationalize any explanation or anything to the contrary so that it fits in this. I will go into conversation with exMormons with this already decided.”
Here is acceptable: “Even though I feel that exMormons leave because they couldn’t keep the commandments, I’m going to trust this exMormon that I meet’s narrative and see if he can convince me to adjust my narrative by the strength of his. I will go into conversation with exMormons with caution — after all, I have my beliefs — but openness.”
It is the duty of exmormons to 1) live in a way that can reconcile their narratives with those who believe or 2) to broaden the narratives of those who believe.
So, no I don’t say, “Well, it’s my narrative, and it’s true for me so that’s that!” No, narratives are scrutinized and evaluated and reconsidered, and we need people in our lives who can help us scrutinize and evaluate and reconsider them. But I’m not going to become some atheist or cultural mormon missionary in this task.
It’s complex. I have to deal with stereotype every day, and I recognize that even though there are ugly stereotypes, the only way I can defeat them is by presenting a more convincing narrative. If I can’t do that, then they most *certainly* will (and I can’t blame them) continue as they will. Regardless of any objective right or wrong. They can be wrong as two left feet but how could I expect them to get a right food if I or anyone else can’t convince through the strength of our narratives the other side?
“I wouldn’t recommend anyone who hasn’t been keeping up wades through all of it (hmm…perhaps I should make a caveat in the article.”
Yeah, better put a warning. If #57 is any indication, people are going to be annoyed (and specifically at me, due to the circumstances and group ids involved) that I “took the discussion off course” so to speak. So give them a fair warning.
Chanson, let me just say again, I appreciate what you had to say very much. It may not seem like it because I went off on this tangent with Andrew and used you as an example. But I actually meant it in a positive way. We both, naturally, were a bit put off with the way the other worded things, but we were able to work through it and it still turned into a dialog. (If you think I’m making this up now, this is what I also said in #56.)
Andrew, very interesting discussion. Most people really dislike discussions like this, so I’m amazed how much on the same or similar wave length we are.
63:
If Jill cannot convince Dan that she is not polytheist (whether by broadening Dan’s idea of monotheism in a convincing way or convincing him that his current model of monotheism can fit her), then really, that is her problem. Now, I have already allowed an exception — if Dan enters the conversation already expecting certain things about Jill or expecting certain things about the terms of use (and I think that’s more likely the case) — then obviously, that’s how we see that Dan has issues. But even in that case, we can come to this moral position where Dan is at fault, but we really can’t expect him to change based on it, unfortunately.
Jill would be offended. Of course. And of course, Dan would be offended if the shoe were on the other foot — I’m not saying he wouldn’t be. But then Dan has the same onus…to convince Jill or broaden her outlook.
That Jill’s reputation is wrecked is unfortunate, But any victim of stereotyping faces this — and there’s even a overriding advertising problem with this — because remember, if everyone is so convinced by Dan’s words, then that means his narrative is also convincing to all of them. So now, Jill not only has failed to convince Dan, but Dan has the upper hand because he’s convincing in other ways. It’s a cold world, but without convincing counterarguments (and what is convincing to an individual could be particularly tricky to find), I can’t really expect anyone who harbors a stereotype to someone drop it. I can’t expect to see myself as “enlightened” if I can’t even show this by my actions and words.
For example, let’s look at Jill’s position. What if Dan told everyone that she was monotheist. Well, her monotheism is just as unconventional as the polytheism that Dan was previously talking about. So Jill still has her work cut out for her.
Funny all this talk of ‘Chanson’s wrath’, etc. Never seen it. Never.
As for this thread? Yeah, time to sign-up for therapy and do it in private. 🙂 The post topic was a good one but all the rest of us are totally drowning in this merciless threadjack.
#64:
Andrew, I am not going to argue with the point you make about the difference in the two ways you layout the narrative of ex-Mormons all (or mostly) leave the Church due to sin.
I am just going to clarify, that the objection — and I have heard it MANY times with very strong terms — is always a case of two believing Mormons talking to each other and they over hear it, usually because they never identified themselves as unbelieving, or because it happened back when they were active.
So while you are saying how you personally look at it (and I agree with you to some degree) there is more here. There is a real fear of being stereotyped and the real damage that can come from such stereotypes. So I see this as a bonefide moral issue worthy of discussion.
You then go on to essentially address that very point. You are right. There may be (I am saying there is) an objective right or wrong here. But in the end, all we can do is address it as best we can.
Getting back to my original article, I was addressing to a general audience the potential moral problem of us deciding to always just go with our own narratives and not even try to nuance it or to avoid obvious misunderstandings through poor word choice (i.e. most people don’t consider the Trinity doctrine anything similar at all to polytheism which is something distinctly different.)
I was hoping some people that currently “trust their own narratives” while “objecting to the morality of others trusting their own” might start to scrutinize their own a bit more and learn to be a bit more nuanced. I was probably wasting my time, but, hey, it got me to think my own point of view through better on what I feel is right and wrong.
You are right that the choice is theirs. You are right that all we can do personally is choose how we’ll react or try to help them deal with it.
Also, while I think we should all try to go out and challenge our personal narratives, I think we have to be realistic that we often don’t and other people don’t either. Coming up with ways to help us all break out of that complacency – by perhaps trying to write about it — is not a straightforward thing to do. I am not claiming the article is or was effective, only that it explained my personal point of view.
Bruce — okay, I’m done with the meta-debate — you can continue it with Andrew if you like — but I’d like to go back to some of your other points.
The central point here is “mainstreaming”: the idea that the LDS church has modified its public image (and possibly also its doctrine and practices) in order to appear more mainstream.
You argue that “mainstreaming” has not occurred — there is no mainstreaming, it’s just a mistaken impression. Do you agree that that is an accurate assessment of your position?
***
On a tangential side-note, your point about Hinckley is interesting and novel. So (I gather) you’re saying that he wasn’t saying he wasn’t sure whether God was once a man, merely leaving the door open for the possibility that he was a perfect (Jesus-like) man rather than an ordinary mortal like the rest of us.
I still think he could have said “Yes, we believe that God was once a man, but we’re not sure how accurate it is to say he was an ordinary man like us,” (or something like that) and skip the confusing part about how that was just a couplet. However, I’m not going to make any further assumptions about Hinckley’s motivations. Let’s just say he was on the spot in an interview, and perhaps could have come up with better answers if he’d had time to compose them carefully.
However, I do think that — whatever Hinckley’s motivations — ordinary members were justifiably distressed.
I found this transcript (I’m not sure if it’s the infamous interview or another), and I think some people thought that as prophet, having inherited the mantle of Joseph Smith, he should be receiving clear revelations and know the actual answer to such questions. Instead, he says this:
However, I’ll grant that it’s perhaps not “mainstreaming” so much as a clarification that those people who thought that the prophet literally talks to Jesus in the holy of holies were mistaken.
#68: I think we’ve arrived at the end. We are disagreeing now. The world isn’t a moral place, per se, so of course it is what it is. (I think this is your point.)
But there is a moral issue here and you hit it on the head: Dan is behaving in a way Dan would abhor and call out if it was happening to him. He just doesn’t realize it at this time.
One more thing to consider. You said: “then that means his narrative is also convincing to all of them.”
True enough for this contrived example. But perhaps a better example would be if there were 100 Dan’s on campus that all hated Jill and were doing it to hurt her and only one Jill. Jill’s argument may be better or more convincing, but she has no real hope of overcoming the sheer numbers.
This, then, is getting into the idea of stereotyping a minority group and the real reason it’s damaging to that minority. It’s a rigged fight from the outset, so it’s not really a matter of “what is more convincing.”
getting to 70:
It’s a rigged fight, yet that’s how things are. You really don’t get any handicaps…but I would still say that a more convincing argument (and this really hinges on what I think a convincing argument is — a convincing argument *must* pierce through to the other person’s metanarrative…otherwise, it isn’t convincing OR the other person isn’t beginning the conversation with narrative suspension. And I *do* think we have a duty to begin conversation with as much of that as possible) depends not on numbers.
In the end, when you say like in 68, “I think we have to be realistic that we often don’t and other people don’t either. Coming up with ways to help us all break out of that complacency – by perhaps trying to write about it — is not a straightforward thing to do. I am not claiming the article is or was effective, only that it explained my personal point of view.”
well, that’s really where my moral issue comes into play. Regardless of realism, we personally do have a duty, regardless of dogma, regardless of religion, regardless of personal association, race, creed, etc., to come to an understanding that this is something we *have* to work on.
OK, SO BACK TO THE NON META-DEBATE:
re 69:
I think I can agree, without conjecturing as to why or wherefore it happens, that there is mainstreaming. If we take all the narratives into play (just to shake out the remnants of that, sorry), I don’t think that they are incompatible with such a view. After all, even if we DON’T look at it as “delete delete delete” and we INSTEAD look at it as “refine refine refine,” this can work well in a context of mainstreaming.
chanson,
Actually, I am going to agree with you that the Church has intentionally “mainstreamed” it’s image, in at least some sense of that word. So I’m not going to argue with you over that.
I took only exception to the idea that they did it because they wanted to “seem less weird to Evangelical Christians.”
Concering Hinckley, I actually agree with you. I think his answer was not as good as it could have been because he was on the spot. (I grow tired of people claiming it’s obviously a lie and I’m stupid for not seeing it. This was more or less an argument made to me by someone you know.)
I should probably clarify though, that I don’t like your suggested answer either and feel it misrepresents Mormonism. (Not intentionally.)
Here is that answer I believe he should have given that still fits into a sound bite:
When asked if we can become Gods, I’d answer.
“We teach we can become like God is. We believe that just as Jesus was fully a man that fully inherited all that His Father had, that as literal joint heirs with Christ, we will too.”
When asked if God was once a man, I’d answer:
“We have, in the past, taught that God was once a man, at least in the same sense Jesus was a man. But that isn’t actually believed to be more than a speculation, not a scriptural doctrine. So there is room for multiple opinions on this subject and we don’t have an official “doctrine†per se on the subject modernly.”
Here are some ways that I believe the Church is VERY MUCH mainstreaming, though not to Evangelicals in particular:
1. We are getting MUCH better are rewording our doctrines to not be so specific to Mormon lingo. Telling people “We believe we can become Gods” is true, but misleading because that word simply means something different to us then to other religions. (I learned this the hard way.) My answer above is an honest attempt to “mainstream” the explanation of our belief without modifying it at all.
2. We are learning to not speculate in a modern media environment. In the 19th century, there wasn’t really any specific doctrine on a lot of subjects. BY taught one thing, OP taught another. But they never had to worry about unfriendly people picking over their words, finding contradictions, taking it out of context, showing they changed their mind over decades, etc. And they never had to worry about how they phrased it because the only people that heard it would already have a Mormon view point.
That just isn’t true today. So we really have to watch out what is really said in our scriptures vs. how we *interpret* the scriptures. And we are getting very good at downplaying the interpretations and letting people believe whatever they want if it wasn’t really clear in the scriptures in the first place. I see this as a very positive move just in terms of our religious pluralism, but it is also a form of mainstreaming.
3. We are mainstreaming in that we are starting to catch up on some of the more difficult areas of our history. This is a topic too big to get into. So let’s admit that we have been too one sided for too long (though maybe it’s not as bad as DAMUs and Antis claim) and let’s move towards greater openness slowly but surely. Doing this all at once is impossible. But we’re well on our way.
4. We are re-emphasizing the Book of Mormon, which does have more in common with other Christian religions, albeit always with a uniquely Mormon twist, and has allowed us to feel like we can legitimately build on common ground that was always there but being ignored.
We fought too much in the past. Someone would say “you believe in salvation by works” and we’d say “oh yeah, well you believe you can just confess Jesus and then go murder some one.” Neither was true and the conversation wouldn’t go much further.
Now, I can say “no, actually, I do believe in salvation by grace alone, I’m just not sure I understand those words in quite the same way you do, let’s talk about how we might differ and where we might be the same.” (Then I launch into my normal subversive attempt to help said Evangelical understand that they have a wacked view of the phrase “grace aloneâ€)
5. We are getting away from our long time unofficial doctrine of papal infallibility that was always denied, but also always believed. Again, too much to say here. But you gave a perfect example of this.
6. We are emphasizing the real core of the source of our “faith: — answers to prayers — over trying to “prove” we’re right out of the Bible like Evangelicals believe you are supposed to do.
This is, really, a return to our roots. But we’ve been working on proving ourselves true for a very long time and this is dying slowly. On the other hand, it won’t and shouldn’t die out entirely, I’m not suggesting that. But it should always be secondary, I guess I mean.
I do not doubt that all of these moves are a form of “mainstreaming” our beliefs. I do not doubt this is happening, should happen, and is correct. I do not doubt it’s been very positive for the church, at least in general. I do not doubt that while we were at it, we sometimes went too far and are trying to correct ourselves now (For example, trying to emphasize Jesus from the Bible rather than from Joseph Smith’s revelations.)
But I personally believe that such mistakes have been generally few and far between and that the list I gave above is the true explanation of what is going on.
Andrew in #71 just said what I was saying. We are mainstreaming for sure. But this isn’t the same as what you said in #1 in my opinion.
I see “mainstreaming” as a very positive thing so long as we are still true to our beliefs.
We can argue all day if we were true to our beliefs or not. But all I can really say is that we are true to how I, as a believing Mormon, see our beliefs — even historically. And that I ultimately have no intentions of being true to how someone that is not a believing Mormon sees our beliefs.
Well, I’m off to bed.
I can’t spend this much time on this blog any more for a while. I didn’t get enough work done (right during layoffs! Yikes!) and I really need to concentrate on work and avoid blogging over the weekend for my wife’s sake. She’s been very understanding.
So I’m sorry, but I can’t promise to respond to anyone else. Chanson, I feel like I owe you at least one more reply… so tomorrow, I’ll read anything you say past #73 and give you one final reply. Then I have to be done.
I can’t promise to respond to Rebecca unfortunately, but then we’ve buried that conversation 5,000 comments ago, so she can’t possibly catch up now.
I would still like to hear from Rebecca if my further clarification helped or not, but oh well, if she doesn’t want to. I’ll understand.
Matt, by the time I read your comment about never having seen chanson’s wrath, I had already written a post saying it was just hyperbole. I haven’t either.
I would go get counseling, but I’m too busy blogging to take a break for it. Besides, Andrew was already in with the counselor ahead of me. 😛
Andrew, I really enjoyed our discussion, very much. I still think there is a moral issue here, but I perceive you agree, but are just saying it differently.
I’m emphasizing the moral issue as a starting point for discussion, your emphasizing the reality that right and wrong don’t matter as much as effectiveness. But of course casting things in a moral light is part of effectiveness. i.e. If Jill can make Dan look like a jerk (which we all agree he is if we define “jerk” as behaving differently then you want others to behave towards you) Jill wins. Thus this IS part of how one makes their narrative effective.
This should be obvious as everything in life get put into a moral narrative for exactly this reason.
Sweet dreams, Bruce.
Strangely enough, I’ve made almost exactly this same point before — that Christians should be aware (when Bible-bashing with Mormon) that Mormons don’t base their authority on the Bible in quite the same way protestants do. Unfortunately, I can’t find the reference to the precise post I’m thinking of, but I’ve covered this point a bit in the fictionalization.
And you seem to agree that the church is now more P.R. conscious, and concerned with how it presents itself.
I’m trying to pin down the crux of our point of disagreement, and it appears to be a dispute over whether there exist critics (inside the church, outside the church, and on the fringes) who applaud mainstreaming because they think the LDS church should be more “Christian” on principle, where “Christian” is assumed to mean “like modern mainstream Protestants”.
I contend that such people exist, even if you’re not among them. Keep in mind, I spend more time in DAMU-space than on the Bloggernacle, so I’m including the DAMU/exmo Christians who really do think that anything the Mormons do to be more like mainstream Christianity is an improvement. One DAMU Christian in particular told me in a private conversation that there are influential (wealthy) Mormons who are trying to move Mormonism towards more mainstream Christian doctrines (though that may well have been wishful thinking on his part). I’m also talking about cases I’ve read on the Bloggernacle when people complain that the LDS church should do more for Easter (like other Christian churches) and complain about the J.S. nativity for “Smithmas” since it makes Mormons seem like they’re not really Christian.
p.s. It was clearly a mistake for me to have used the term “Evangelical” here. It shouldn’t be a slur, and yet I feel like it has negative connotations — as though it’s much worse to suggest Mormons are doing something for the Evangelicals’ benefit, as opposed to suggesting they’re thinking of mainstream Christians in general.
But, really, I didn’t have a good reason to specify Evangelicals in my original comment, except for the fact that they’re the most common type of Christian I’ve encountered in Mormon/Christian internet discussions.
Bruce – I did indeed catch up (though I skimmed the comments that were all meta). First I want to address something you said somewhere in the 70s:
“So we really have to watch out what is really said in our scriptures vs. how we *interpret* the scriptures.”
Yes. BUT. There is very little text (ANY text, not just scriptural), if any, that isn’t open for interpretation. Even a seemingly concrete proclamation like, “Thou shalt not kill” is open for interpretation. Kill what? Only humans? And is there any justification, ever? What about self-defense? War?
Those are rhetorical questions, but I think you can see what I mean – even things that seem *obvious* may mean something different, yet equally obvious, to someone else. How the LDS Church chooses to interpret things is important because that *can* be a conscious or subconscious attempt at mainstreaming.
As for what you wrote to me, specifically: Sigh. I am apparently coming across as the Bitch of All Time on blogs lately. You may not believe me, but I was actually trying to make my comment sound civil (obviously did not succeed). I did NOT take offense to your use of the general “you” – you pointed out that’s what you were using, and in my comment I wrote, “(or anyone – I’m not taking it personally or taking offense to that)” to show that I understood that.
I didn’t actually realize there was any need to, as you put it, “clear the air” between us. I kind of want to apologize for you feeling “abused” by my comments, but reading through them, I’m really not sorry for anything I said and I don’t think it’s in any way insulting. And I think “abused” is an awfully strong word to use in a fairly amicable discussion such as this one (here I feel like I ought to insert an emoticon to indicate that I’m not meaning this in a nasty or overly serious way, but I can’t think of what emoticon would suffice, so I’m just explaining it instead – since apparently I am incapable of wording things without coming across as harsh).
When I said I didn’t need to clarify what I believed because you didn’t care: I just meant that you’d SAID you weren’t really interested in what people believed, but more in how they discussed it. Take what I wrote literally – there’s really no subtext there. I wasn’t offended (just slightly irritated that we’d gotten so off topic – and annoyed at myself for addressing it. Which is how I kind of feel right now).
As for what I believe: I have no idea if Mormons are *trying* to mainstream. It seems to me that there’s a real tension in modern Mormonism between going more mainstream, and going more fundamentally Mormon. Sometimes it seems to me that they’re trying hard to go one way, sometimes the other. And then there’s still more tension between those who think Mormonism is valid without taking much of it literally (liberal or New Order Mormons), and those who believe that letter-of-the-law literality is the only right way. So I guess what I believe is that there’s a lot of tension in modern Mormonism between different factions that interpret things differently.
Chanson, I always thought it was so odd that at BYU we didn’t get any time off for Easter. Secular schools get Spring Break, but we, a supposedly Christ-centered school (it is, after all, the Lord’s University!) didn’t recognize it at all.
I can understand why you would be saying this but the point that I did want to make is that theology matters and has far reaching consequences. In a number of instances, the authority of the proponent tends to mask implications that no Latter-day Saint would accept if the same statements had been advanced by a gentile.
Whether Brigham Young meant it or not, his account of Mary’s conception is about patriarchal domination. When believers apply the values communicated by Brigham Young’s narrative, it will probably result in female subjugation.
The date rape language is highlighting the ethical implications of a narrative that believers would not accept if it were not for the authority of the narrator.
Mormons are wonderful. Unfortunately, we are prone to participate in unethical conduct when authorities demand it.
Only recently, we have seen Mormons, such as Jay Bybee and Kyle Sampson, undermining the rule of law, for example. I need not remind you of similar instances where good people committed unspeakable cruelty to satisfy the requirements of obedience.
If members had been less reliant on borrowed light then we would have hurt less African Americans before 1978 because some of us might have permitted themselves to recognize the humanity of our neighbors.
Because members act on the words of church leaders, it is important to identify the ethical content of statements by Mormon authorities such as Brigham Young.
Chanson said: “I’m trying to pin down the crux of our point of disagreement, and it appears to be a dispute over whether there exist critics (inside the church, outside the church, and on the fringes) who applaud mainstreaming because they think the LDS church should be more “Christian†on principle, where “Christian†is assumed to mean “like modern mainstream Protestantsâ€.”
I don’t disagree with this. I think the use of “Evangelical” left a specific impression that, we have to admit, HAS been used by others intentionally as a knock the on the LDS church, thus I saw it in that light. Also the context was “trying to avoid seeming weird because their teachings are less weird.” I simply do not agree with this.
When you clarify that you mean Mormons are “mainstreaming” we are now using a neutral word that I can agree with. I’m not sure if I agree that means “mainstream Christianity” so much as “culturally more mainstream.” But, of course, there will be overlap between the two.
chanson, I realize heuristics affect us largely. If you are “hanging out” with ex-Mos who do indeed want to see Mormonism become another Protestant denomination (using one of your examples), that WOULD color the way you see the situation, and I can see that.
I don’t hang out with the same people, so I don’t really think of it or see it. And, of course, they are ex-Mos, so even if I did, I wouldn’t consider their opinion of what another (my) community should be doing and I wouldn’t consider it in my understanding of what the Mormon community is trying to do.
Chanson, I feel like we are ,you know, sort of agreeing at this point. 🙂
Rebecca, I stand corrected again. I can see that your tone might have been different then the way I read it.
While you make a good point that *everything* is interpretable (very very true) I think this misses the point of what I was saying.
At a general level, I agree with what you are saying. At a specific level, I don’t.
Some arguements are harder or easier to make out of scripture. Some things, while possibly argubable, simply are never argued because there is literally a 100% agreement.
The specific example is Hinckley: he affired that we can become Gods in Mormon theology, but refused to affirm God was once a man.
He may not have said it in the best way, but he was correct to do so. The first of those is overwhelming found in Mormon scripture (though we could argue what it really MEANS we can’t argue that it’s there). The second isn’t found anywhere at all in scripture. We can argue over whether or not Joseph Smith’s sermons count as scripture or not, but as far as the standard works go, you can’t find any reference to it all. So these two points shouldn’t be treated as equal in Mormon theology if we start with the assumption that Mormon scripture has higher authority than other things said.
Yes, we can find counter examples and argue them, but let’s just at least accept that this is a general principle strived for. If we can’t agree on that, we’re on different planets and it doesn’t matter anyhow.
So while I agree with your point in general, it does miss the point that it is still very possible to use the scriptures as a basis (at least as a starting point?) for how we understand the authority of sayings.
I hope we can at least agree on that much.
Hellmut, your comment to me is based on a set of assumptions I do not share with you.
I can’t really take the time to argue with youj point for point here, but here are the assumptions you seem to be building your argument on that I don’t agree with:
1. We know for certain what BY really meant.
2. That view has a moral composition that can be evaluated seperately from what the person saying it really meant.
3. That moral composition is, by everyone not currently under the sway of BY’s authority, easily viewable as immoral in an objective sense. (Note: My example of how BY might have seen it proves this isn’t the case.)
Since I disagree with you on these assumptions, the rest of your logical argument, while sound, comes to a conclusion I can’t agree with.
This argument smacks to me of the growing popularity of non-theistic people (don’t know if that includes you or not) to claim that theism is dangerous due to, for example, authority.
But I don’t consider this a proven proposition any more than I consider it’s reverse true: that atheists are more dangerous because they don’t see themselves as accountable to a higher power. (I see this as untrue as several levels, though there may be specific instances where it is true, just like there may be specific instances of the reverse being true.)
I’m sorry I can’t respond further on this subject at this time. I hope you’ll understand. We can agree to disagree on your point here.
Hellmut, one more thing. In my last post I should have said something more like “it seems to me you are building your argument on these assumptions” rather than saying “these are your assumptions.”
Feel free to correct me, that that is the way I honestly read what you were saying.
Hellmut,
I feel I do owe you one explanation.
I DO NOT agree with BY on this (assuming we are reading him correctly, what I find questionable, but likely.)
However, I also DO NOT agree with your assessment and find it “offensive” (I don’t mean I’m offended here) in that you are taking a teaching of a group of 19th century people OUT of the context of their full beliefs and OF COURSE it looks bad when you do that.
I feel I very much do understand how 19th century Mormons would look at something like this. It’s very straightforward.
1. Mary willingly chose to marry the Father
2. She willingly chose to have a baby with her husband.
3. That husband then left the earth and was, from a mortal perspective, the same as any first husband no longer on the earth — she was free to re-marry.
4. Joseph was, then, her second husband. The one she was not sealed to, but only for time.
Again, I DO NOT believe any of this. But I also find it utterly un-offensive when it is understood how they understood it rather then the way you are choosing to portray it.
Actually, my assumption is that we can know what Brigham Young’s words imply.
It is, of course, possible that speakers do not fully appreciate the meaning of their words. Therefore I do not claim that I know what Brigham Young meant.
But I do know what he said and we can investigate what will happen when people act on his words.
Let me admit that I haven’t read all of the discussion and meta-discussion about the discussion. (I suppose this counts as meta-meta discussion. (And this is meta-meta-meta …)) So what I’m about to say has probably already been covered, but here goes.
As a member, especially as a returned missionary, I was quite aware of how strange/unique Mormon teachings were. As a missionary, I was trained to offer milk before meat to those unfamiliar with the church. I would avoid discussing meaty topics in public meetings for fear of suffocating a budding testimony. The same is true of official materials from the church. The assumption is that they will eventually be introduced to the meat in all due time.
Contrary to that assumption, it’s been said often that this ethic has translated into a always-milk-never-meat church experience (until perhaps the temple if you count that as a doctrinal exposition (I don’t)). I think this has big consequences, one of which is that over time, we de-emphasize the strange/unique doctrines if for no other reason than because we forget what they are. They stop being part of our communal discourse, so they lose mind share. Eventually, these meaty ideas die through atrophy because even lifelong members have never been fed the meat.
So the intent wasn’t necessarily to mainstream or to lose religious identity or to consciously emphasize the Book of Mormon religion (notice that the extra-scriptural temple tradition shows no sign of being de-emphasized) or to repudiate former teachings as speculative. This results from the tension that has been mentioned earlier between unique doctrines and wanting to convert outsiders. Perhaps the church and its members have prioritized number of converts over some of the more peculiar doctrines. Life is a trade off.
Judaism is probably a good example of the opposite ethic. They have peculiar ideas and customs. They believe that they are God’s chosen. They do not particularly care if you become a Jew or not. This has given them less pressure to assimilate Jewishness to popular tastes. Consequently, Jewish identity is still strong and distinct.
I dub this the meat-to-milk drift theory.
In case I didn’t emphasize this enough, the drift happens largely because we forget. The lack of public discourse also forces us to create a public theology in contrast to the confidential theology. If the public theology becomes strong enough, the confidential can be supplanted and forgotten without too much disturbance.
Very interesting Jonathan, I could see how that happens unwittingly (but then I imagine…haha, purely speculation) that when people become general authorities they get taken aside and entreated to all of the things that might have been emphasized throughout the rest of the church experience. I mean that in the best of intentions, of course.
And although I can see how the opposite might be true for Judaism, is this more for certain traditions of Judaism (e.g., moreso for Orthodox than Reform or Conservative)…because I can also see too how there are many Jewish people who I’d look at and think, “Wow, I’d never know you were Jewish if you hadn’t told me.”
So, in these cases, is there still the possibility of forgetting as public theology is most expressed and confidential theology rarely shows (maybe…I’m just hanging out with unrepresentative people >_>)?
This is a very good point. I feel like I learned a fair amount of “meat” because of the fact that my mom was a multi-generational Mormon, but my experience isn’t everyone’s, and what looks to me as “stuff we knew as kids” may look to others as “Wha…? I never heard about that at all…”
Regarding your point about tailoring the message to converts, this is very close to what I was saying in Standing up for Your (Former) Beliefs.
Yeah. I think my intended original point was more that I don’t want Mormons to merge their unique identity with mainstream Christianity. So if you come along and say “Well, they’re not doing that!” then, well, good. It makes the procedure of not doing that that much simpler. 😉
In general, I agree with Rebecca that Mormon culture has a very strong pull towards conformity and at the same time it has a very strong pull towards peculiarity. I have a great fondness for the latter and I despise the former, perhaps as a result of my upbringing. So I tend to be biased against any kind of “mainstreaming” (though I recognize that term can have a host of different meanings). For more detail on my peculiar perspective, see Family history: we’re different and my deconversion, part 1.
Injecting another thought into this stew of really interesting ideas (and doing so with my own meta intro ’cause it’s fashionable) …
I have heard that JS had some anxiety about the way that non-unified faith within families was a threat to family cohesion. That part of his motivation was to unite his family under as single faith which naturally extended to the community and then to all of humanity and then to all of time and creation. This anxiety seems to me to permeate the soul of the LDS church. The drive for unity (conformity) and peculiarity (distinction) are the tell-tells of this anxiety.
Oh, and unlike Judaism, the drive for (and firm belief in) worldwide conversion as an affirmation and anxiety reducer. Could be that popularity MUST win out over peculiarity though it seems to me a fatal flaw.
Bruce, I don’t mind authority, by the way. However, people who claim power incur an obligation of accountability.
With respect to the substantive argument, I actually agree with you that Brigham Young and his believers imagined Mary as God’s willing concubine. However, I am not sure that choice has much meaning after a person has been overpowered by something like the holy ghost.
More disturbingly, Brigham Young exercised power in ways that rendered concepts such as choice and will meaningless and were logically analogous to date rape scenarios. If he asked you to marry a plural wife, for example, and you refused, you might have found yourself locked up, your wife and your children might have been boycotted by “the community,” and might have been compelled to seek refuge on Indian reservations where federal agents would shield them from suggestions to exercise their “free will.”
Brigham Young conducted himself like anyone else who holds unaccountable power. He did not respect the freedom of people who disagreed with him. That’s only human.
Whatever Young might have meant with his conception story, clearly, it justifies his authoritarian behavior invoking divine authority. It seems to me that one has to consider Young’s relationship to power to close the hermeneutic cycle that renders the conception account meaningful.
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/31/robert-millet-krista-tippet-pt-2-mormon-missionary-work-targeted-at-helping-people-accept-jesus-as-their-savior/
just throwing this link out here.