John Dehlin did a five hour exit story podcast episode with Brooke and Josh Miller, a 30 something, exMormon couple from Saratoga Springs, Utah. What piqued my interest was the teaser that it featured “their attempt to seek support and answers from Spencer Fluhman of the BYU Maxwell Institute”.
If you want to hear the portion that discusses Fluhman, skip to the three hour mark. There’s a few interesting aspects of this that prompted me to write up this analysis.
Fluhman’s nuanced perspective
The Millers talked very graciously about Fluhman. He’s a great guy. He was very empathetic. He promised to answer everything he could, but was humble enough to acknowledge he might not have all the answers. They felt he was very honest.
They were very surprised at what they thought were very nuanced answers from Fluhman on some of the tough CES Letter type issues: BOM historicity, Masonic origins for LDS temple ceremonies, Joseph Smith’s use of the word “translation”, etc.
I think there might be an ethical concern about the way Fluhman’s conversation was recorded and shared, so I’m not going to be too specific on Fluhman’s answers. Suffice it to say, he was more nuanced than what you might hear from the starchy, old high priest in your ward. But only slightly more nuanced than what you might hear from FairMormon. And a lot less nuanced than me.
Nuance scale
Score yourself on this test to give yourself an official CIT Nuanced Mormon score.
God: God is an exalted man, he creates spirit children through sex with multiple wives, and we have the potential to be God in the exact same way (20 points). God has material body and LDS teaching on godhead is accurate, but doctrine on God as an exalted man, eternal polygamy, and creation through spiritual sex is considered speculative (15). God’s characteristics are not that knowable, but he is likely similar to the LDS-Christian concept with maybe a little difference, Jesus is divine (10). God exists but we probably don’t know much about what he is; the historical Jesus is not divine, but the Cosmic Christ is real (5). God exists in a pantheistic, collective conscious kind of way (2). God doesn’t exist (0).
Scripture and science: Scriptures are always literally true; evolution science is evil (20 points). Noah’s flood wasn’t global but everything else is pretty much literal; evolution science is suspect (15). Genesis 1-9 is all symbolic, but everything else is mostly literal; science is accurate. (12). OT is mostly symbolic, NT is mostly historically accurate, the BOM is partially historical and partially an expansion by Joseph (10). OT, BOM, Book of Abraham is not historical, but New Testament is historical (5). No scripture including New Testament is expected to be historically accurate. (0)
Prophets: Always speak to God; rarely or never commit serious sin (20). Sometimes speak to God; are extremely pious relatively (15). Rarely speak to God (8). Most likely never speak directly to God (0).
LDS Exclusivity: LDS is exclusive God’s one true church (20). LDS church may not be exclusively true, but was ordained by God for a specific reason and the priesthood and ordinances are important in an eternal way (10). LDS is not exclusive in any way (0).
First Vision: 1838 account is most accurate (20). 1832 account is most accurate (10). Joseph had some kind of spiritual experience that was important to him (5). Joseph never had any kind of special spiritual experience at all (0).
What’s your score? Wouldn’t it be great if all Mormons would write their score on their forehead before they speak, just so we know what they mean. I know the Church is true, and I’m a 100. OK, I get it. I know the Church is true, and I’m a 50. Ah, I see. I know the Church is true, and I’m a 10. Hmm, interesting.
I don’t know where Fluhman would rank, but I assume that the Millers pre faith crisis would be very, very high. Fluhman would be lower. And I’m way lower than that.
Ethical behavior
There is a question about how ethical the podcast episode was, due to the fact that the Millers recorded the interview with Fluhman and didn’t receive permission to release the audio or transcript. A few people in the nuanced but active LDS category seemed to be upset about the info that was shared.
Generally, I didn’t think the Millers crossed the line of decency, but there were a few times I felt Dehlin might have. Dehlin promised not to use the recording or the transcript but then seemed to read from the transcript a couple times, using very specific language, and in a way that seemed like he was intentionally trying to embarrass Fluhman. And when the Millers were talking about how great Fluhman is but lamenting how few people get to hear his perspective, Dehlin responded “yeah, ESPECIALLY NOW” and turns to the camera and laughed, implying that Fluhman and others will be reticent to minister to those in faith crisis after this podcast episode. I don’t think this was an ethical breach for Dehlin, but I think it shows he’s not a friend to the nuanced Mormon. Come on, John, give us some love. You showed us some in that Tom Christofferson interview. It was lacking here.
The Nuanced Message
The most interesting issues and questions that come out of this episode for me are related to how the nuanced Mormon message is communicated.
I don’t know if Fluhman is truly that nuanced. But let’s use this example, because I have seen the same dynamic play out over and over.
Neo Apologist X says something nuancy in a low key setting like a fireside, or a conversation. Or they say something that might be nauncy in a more formal setting, but it’s done vaguish. Some people converse and say isn’t that interesting, Neo Apologist X is quite nuanced, I wonder if that means it’s OK if I’m nuanced too. Then others rush in, no “Neo Apologist X is not that nuanced at all!” Even when it seems very clear to all. And even when we’re all on the same nuanced “team”. There are some that seem deathly afraid to acknowledge the nuanced view publicly or attribute a nuanced perspective to any high profile Mormons.
Fluhman, Givens, Bushman, Miller, Hardy, Mason, Peck, Uchtdorf. These are the names of some high profile Mormons with perspectives that could be considered nuanced. Do we need to pretend they’re not really nuanced?
Why?
One valid comment on this:
One aspect is that in order for someone to exert influence on mainstream members, they have to be seen as “safe.” Which means they must keep up an appearance of fairly orthodox beliefs and (definitely) deference to the brethren.
So when people start going around designating influential people as new order Mormons, or unorthodox, or non-literal believers, that easily throws up a red flag for leaders and mainstream members. It affects the level of influence that person can then exert.
Yes, I think that captures it. That’s why the term Neo-Apologist is treated by some like a dirty word.
What to do about it?
Because the nuanced Mormon message gets pushed underground, most members don’t know it’s available. When I went through faith crisis ten years ago, I wanted to stay Mormon, but I wasn’t sure it was possible. All I saw was binary, black-white, all true all false, stay or leave kind of options.
I read Terryl Givens and Adam Miller and it kind of rang true, but it mostly confused the hell out of me and frustrated me.
It took me going outside the Mormon tradition to understand the nuanced Mormon perspective. Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg. John Dominic Crossan’s Parable of Christ. Pete Enns: “the Bible is what it sounds like when God lets his children tell the story”. They spelled it out clearly. And it was mind blowing and life changing for me. Now I could take those principles and apply them back to my Mormonism.
Joseph Smith could be revered as bringing us important truth without believing the 1838 First Vision Account literally or in Book of Mormon historicity. Prophets could be sustained without the belief that they literally speak for God and while acknowledging they are mortal men doing the best they can, “looking through a glass, darkly”. Scriptures and prophets messages can be perceived as not being God-breathed but also received for their positive value without judging them as fraudulent or ridiculous. I can find extreme value and meaning in living the Christ-centered Mormon life and believe the Church is true without thinking it is God’s exclusive one, true Church. I can get a temple recommend, teach lessons, and engage in my ward while viewing things metaphorically that others take literally.
But how do we get the message out?
At a point during the interview with the Millers, I actually got a little emotional. I can tell they are good people. Brooke related how she cried as she took a long drive after realizing she had to leave the Church and the heartache she felt over her child not being baptized or serving a mission. I want these people in my church. I don’t want them to leave. It hurts to see good people leaving the Church. They said if they had understood the nuanced perspective earlier before they had made a decision, they might have stayed. They kept expressing shock at some of the things Fluhman told them, when many of these things are really not even that nuanced, and in my opinion, believed by a large portion of members.
How do we reach the Millers BEFORE they read the CES Letter? How do we provide nuanced perspectives to the mainstream church to help people process faith crisis and not cause faith crisis?
Wheat & Tares 
Hmmmm…..nice article – thought provoking. Unfortunately for me, I think I’ve reached a point where I’m largely unable to reconcile my belief in a “creator of all things”; who also demands a “nuanced narrative” to describe his works. Mormonism is in a really tight spot.
“nuancy” — I kinda like that word, but am having a little trouble coming up with a principled reason for that when I so much dislike “ponderize.” Maybe I should be looking for a more nuanced reason.
55.
It might have been lower had your question on prophets and God been phrased the other way about. I’m pretty sure they speak to him every time they pray, which I’m assuming is multiple times daily, it’s the extent to which God speaks to them and they speak for God that’s the issue isn’t it?
HH good catch. We need a good test for this.
Unless LDS Church leaders are more honest about the mistakes and fallibility of past leaders and the practices/doctrine, including polygamy, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blacks and the priesthood, Book of Abraham, blood atonement, discriminatory practices involving women and non-whites, First Vision variations, Book of Mormon translation, etc., we will continue to lose members. Church leaders should uphold the same standards of honesty that they require of their temple-going members.
10-10-8-10-5= 43 for me. I like your nuance test. I have no idea how to reach people. The members in my ward do not respond well to any inoculation attempts. I tried to make space in GD for a different interpretation of the Adam and Eve narrative a few weeks ago and an ultra orthodox high councilman corrected me with a “I know the Bible is true, the Pearl of Great Price is true, and the temple ceremony is true”. Your assessment is also correct about losing influence once someone thinks you are a wolf disguised as a sheep. I am afraid the old guard is going to have to die off so that every time something deemed controversial comes up, it can actually be discussed and not shut down right away. I am envious of places where real discussions can happen.
I am about to take a vow of silence in church because it is evident that most members do not like to think critically about their own religion. I think that is common with the nuance crowd. They stick around to help bring nuance in and then get discouraged when they are drowned out by a bunch of ignorant “I know” members. There is an art to it and some can pull it off better than others. Apparently I suck at it.
I don’t blame the members either. Most of them just don’t have the time or energy to care. As long as they have God’s list of what it takes to get back to heaven and they have their card to show conformity to that list, the rest is all trivial. “Quit looking beyond the mark” they say. Maybe they will reconsider when one of their own children can’t reconcile difficult aspects of our religion, and completely run from not only Mormonism, but from God also. I frankly don’t give a damn. Mormonism works well for me. I want my kids to have a relationship with the divine. This is not a problem for just Mormons either. Nuance is important even if my kids choose a different faith to worship God in. Science is not going away.
Side note. I received Jonathan Stapely’s new book “Power of Godliness” today. Even though I am in the middle of a great Karen Armstrong book and John Turner’s book “Brigham Young”, I started reading it and could not put it down. Great book so far.
I consider myself around a 0 on your scale. Honest question: What’s your definition of nuance? It seems like it means to not really believe, but to be able to speak out of both sides of your mouth so you don’t get kicked out of the church. Or, believing differently but fitting it into the mormon narrative. Either way, it seems like a large part of being “nuanced” is being controlled by fear. And doesn’t it bother you to have to define your beliefs in relation to the mainstream beliefs of the church? “I believe in prophets, but differently.” What is the appeal for most people in those types of beliefs?
It kind of bothers me that we feel the need to protect the “Neo-apologist” crowd. I understand the impulse, but it rubs me the wrong way. Shouldn’t we want people to be held responsible for their teachings? Are we afraid that the church will kick them out? If it did, wouldn’t that be useful information for us to know?
It’s not that I want these people to leave the church. It would be great if their ideas became more prevalent. But keeping them secret isn’t a good strategy to make that happen. Amplifying these people and their ideas might be a bit riskier, but I think it’s the only way to make it a viable alternative to the mainstream narrative of the church.
Oh and what is your score?
I’m getting the impression that how nuanced you can be and still be mainstream varies from location to location. Given your scale, I’d say I’d come out on average as a 14 (with occasional 10s and 20s). Which, to me, qualifies as a true believer. I don’t feel any pressure that I’m “not in line”. Not having listened to the podcast (and I can’t stand more than about 20 minutes of Dehlin at a time), I get the impression Fluhman would consider himself a true believer as well. Not sure how Dehlin scores a gotcha here trying to out him. Also, I think it’s incumbent upon nuanced Mormons, if they are indeed more sophisticated, to have patience and tolerance for those less educated than them. We’re all supposed to be uplifting each other, and that means offering, not insisting upon, our personal perspectives.
Churchistrue. Adam Miller and the Givens confused the hell out of me too! I love how Pete Enns and Marcus Borg bluntly make the points that the Givens and Miller seem to be very gently hinting at in a round-about way. I couldn’t make it through The Crucible of Doubt.
It’s a bit of a Catch-22. Our current narrative and binary teaching creates very committed members (which is what it was designed to do), but when people learn the historical information that tears down that narrative, so many are too disillusioned to rebuild. I listened to most of this interview and felt like if the Millers had heard these things earlier in their quest, they could have had a chance of rewriting the narrative in a way that worked for them and sticking around. It feels like with so many of these Mormon Stories interviews, no one has answers for people and when they tell their family that they are leaving the Church, their family sets up a meeting with a GA or a scholar, but at that point they have usually decided to leave and it’s too late to rebuild a nuanced narrative. I think we need to have better resources when people start asking initial questions. Leaders should know these issues inside and out. But, as Greg Prince has said, some people die from inoculation. We also need to better accept a broader spectrum of belief. You want to be an atheist and still come and be a part of the community? We’d love to have you! You believe 30% of it? We’re glad you do, we want to give you a calling and welcome your comments in Sunday School. We’re still really scared of people who aren’t all in and too many questioning people get shamed or are made to feel crazy with their very natural questions. If there were all kinds of members in a ward (non-believers, partial believers, true believers), there might be more natural support inside the Church.
derek. I’m basically using the term in this case to mean unorthodox relative to traditional Mo’s. My beliefs are my beliefs. When comparing to atheists, I communicate them relative to their beliefs. When I compare them to Hindu’s or Catholic’s, I communicate them relative to that. Likewise, when I compare them to more traditional believing Mo’s, it’s useful to communicate them in terms of being more unorthodox or nuanced. The appeal for me in Mormonism is huge. I explain a little in the article. But being Mormon and my beliefs in it are important to me and make my life better. You are talking like this is unique to Mormonism, but I see range of orthodoxy within just about every religious tradition, from very literal to more metaphorical. My score ranges from probably close to 30 on a good day to close to 0 on a bad day. I have hope but I fight doubt.
“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”
http://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/12.htm
So, where does that put the Bible on the scale of nuance?
😉
ff yes, I’ve thought a lot about this, and I don’t know any great solutions, and you’ve described the issues well. A good baby step would be like you suggest would be to plan the message “faith is hard, some people go through change in beliefs such that evolution seems very valid and the Old Testament can’t be taken literally yet they still believe in God, some go through change in belief such that they can’t believe in BOM historicity, but they still believe the BOM is inspired and accept it as scripture, some start to doubt the historical Jesus but accept Christ as their Savior as the representation of God on Earth. We are not giving priority to these beliefs but we want all to know those are valid ways to express faith in the restored Church and we want you all to stay and participate.”
I’m a 20 on the nuance scale. Jan, I suspect that if the church leaders were as honest as you wish they were (and I’ll admit, I wish they would be that honest also) that the church would nearly cease to exist as an organization as we know it. I think the number of members who would leave would make the current “exodus” look like an inconsequential trickle. The narrative that the church has constructed would fall apart if the church was honest about polygamy, the priesthood ban, Adam-God theory, Book of Abraham, etc. Indeed, maybe that would be for the best, because I believe that much of the current narrative simply isn’t true anyway. Better maybe to strip away the moldy walls and what is left of the building to be salvaged than to continue acting like the walls aren’t becoming a major health hazard.
I got a 55 too, Hedgehog. I was really hoping the nuance scale would be defined at the end like in a quiz from a teen magazine. Just tell me what kind of Mormon I am! Maybe I don’t understand what TBM means to the bloggernacle, but I would consider myself a nuanced TBM. What that means to me is that I see and acknowledge problems in Church history, current church policy, the way we interpret scripture, etc., but I have had numerous spiritual experiences that tell me that God knows me, Christ is my Savior, that God wants me in the Mormon church, that my difficult questions can be answered by God, that God speaks to us in priesthood blessings, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the church and it’s ordinances bring me closer to God. I wish the church would acknowledge that what I described is possible and would allow for more nuanced curricula at church.
Church members who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, see the Church as His Church, sustain Joseph Smith as a prophet, believe the Book of Mormon to be a record, and so forth, generally want to be taught by others who will respect and strengthen that faith. They don’t want to be “taught” by those who would subvert that faith.
There is a lot of room in the Church, but those who teach in the name of the Church have to do so sincerely and with fidelity.
When I have opinions that differ from the general position, I don’t teach those opinions to others and I don’t expect others to adopt or honor my opinions. I might share some of them privately, but I tend to keep an attitude of wondering and pondering. Overwhelmingly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is good, and I want to respect that goodness as I serve and continue to learn.
The strict options seem to narrow to me,
On many even if I lean towards one score, I’m open minded to a step up or down.
I don’t know what this “nuance” test is supposed to do? is a middle-ground score most nuanced, and either too high or too low a lack of nuance?
Because I can’t imagine either the top ranking answers nor the bottom ranking answers as being at all nuanced.
I was thinking the exact same thing as Andrew. A 0 is not at all nuanced–it’s just as black & white as a 100! I have to think a middle score is the most nuanced. But hey, I’ll play. I’m probably close to a 48. It’s hard to say because on a few of these I disagree with the combinations as written.
Church is True, I have generally been a fan of your work, but in so far as Givens and Miller “lost you” your nuance scale lost me. Your article basically says the nuanced position is inherently a skeptical position. I agree with Angela C, skeptic and believer can fail to have nuance. Also, your article seems not to consider the differences between nuanced and persuasive. I can’t imagine thinkers that are more nuanced than Miller or Givens. Of course I also think scholars such as Dan Vogel and Fawn Brodie are nuanced thinkers. I think your writing on the Book of Mormon is highly nuanced. That said, Givens, Miller, Vogel, Brodie, and even you make arguments that though nuanced I might find persuasive or not persuasive. Nuanced thinkers come from all walks, but you may be more persuaded by one school of thought or another. However, I find your assertion that Spencer Fluhman is less nuanced then you unpersuasive. You may prefer your own hypothesis of the data to his, but Fluhman is not working with less nuance.
Andrew, Angela, Jason B. “Nuanced” in the Mormon world has traditionally (at least to me–maybe I totally misunderstood) meant something related to unorthodox or non-traditional. It’s true, it’s not a perfectly accurate usage of the word. I think you know what I mean by it, based on my usage. But in case you didn’t. Scratch nuanced in your mind and replace it with those words or something like “variance on the disbelief spectrum towards metaphorical belief or disbelief”. Does that help? Also, I see a lot of people butt hurt over the idea that another person might be more nuanced than them on this scale, as if it means they’re not as smart or inferior somehow. No. It’s just a way to distinguish and characterize. Not for the purpose of feeling superior or separation for separation sake. But for the purpose of someone like me 10 years ago or someone like the Millers a a year ago to read a high profile “Nuanced” Mormon’s take on Mormonism and actually understand what they’re saying. Or to go to church and see there are people in my ward making comments in gospel doctrine or bearing testimony in testimony meeting with a view that I’m evolving towards but I had no idea fit within the Mormon tent spectrum, because the number’s not on their forehead and the words they use don’t tip me off about their number. Because we’re not direct yet in our tradition, unlike folks like Borg-Crossan-Enns. I’m not making a case that all should be “nuanced”. I’m just kind of thinking out loud what it would be like if this concept was more accessible within the tradition.
One more point of clarification. Nuanced most accurately means a non-binary, or multi-faceted view of something. In Mormonism, it’s usually associated with a position that’s in the middle. Somewhere not as extreme as the most literal, traditional believers on one side. And somewhere not as extreme as the most literal, binary thinking atheists or critics on the other side. I failed to clarify that the nuance scale is to score Mo’s. So you only take the test if you’re a positively engaged Mo. Which implies a considerable amount of nuance, even if you are a 0 score.
Church is True- I think that was the miscommunication. In my circles nuance implied complexity and I was unaware of that in some circles it was code for unorthodox. It is funny how though we all speak English we speak different languages.
“Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation,” says Kuhn. Tony Hillerman titled his autobiography “Seldom Disappointed” based on his mother’s frequent comment that “If you don’t expect much you won’t be disappointed.” And there was Jesus commenting that before setting out to judge other people, we ought to first remove the beam from our own eye, and then “shall ye see clearly.” And finally my favorite Brigham Young quote, “If there is one principle that I would urge upon this people in a way that it would remain with them that would be to understand people as they are, and not as you are.”
What all of these statements have in common involves a recognition that we ought to worry about our own limitations first. My own life journey has lacked episodes of extreme disillusion and bitterness or sense of victimhood, because whenever I ran across something in or about the church (to me, an assembly, a gathering of people, rather than a Big Book of What to Think) that I did not expect, I asked myself, “What should I expect?” And that sort of investigation has always made a difference, the difference between shattering disillusion and enlightening mind expansion.
For instance, how nuanced should it be to set my expectations of church leadership by actually reading D&C 1 where is formally sets out the “mine authority and the authority of my servants” as imperfect, incomplete, in the hands of people that “inasmuch as they have erred it shall be made manifest”, that “inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed” (revelation not being a given, but subject to inquiry and expedience), and where truth, revelation, and human virtue are expressly not exclusive to this gathering. Dehlin, I noticed, in his enlightened state claimed a few years back that he would rather roll on tacks that believe that the LDS were the “one and only true church.” The sentiment overlooks the fairly significant and inescapable fact that the phrase he objects to does not appear in D&C 1:30, which, I notice, has to do with relative well pleasingness (not absolute exclusiveness) with respect to the kinds of things the Bible associates with “true” and “living.” That is, true vine, true treasure, living bread, living waters, tree of life, living way through the veil, living stones, truth and life, and so forth. Priesthood, revelation, symbolic ordinances, covenants, temple, the things in that in obvious fact and practice actually do distinguish LDS culture from other faiths.
When I lived in Kansas and participated in the LDS Literature list, Veda Hale sent me a summary of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. It’s based on a study of incoming students to Harvard, and considers how they cope with the change from their provincial backgrounds and the very different university environment. Of the Nine Positions, consider the first two:
***
POSITION 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is “Out there”. The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.
Transition 1-2 – Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority’s job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.
(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the “guts to catch up with leaps of mind.” When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)
POSITION 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)
Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.
***
It seems to me that you don’t have to listen to very many LDS exit narratives to see common themes and to see the immediate relevance. And this changes the boundaries of the game from the implied toxic flaws specific to LDS culture to the inescapable nature of human development.
Up through POSITION 4,
“ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)”
Veda’s summary discusses all range of things that go on between 4 and 5. Here I won’t go into what happens after 5 (though I have elsewhere argued in an Interpreter essay that Joseph Smith teachings and example lead directly to Position 9, but Position 5 is very much worth pondering:
***
POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.
The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don’t yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.
THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.
If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has “righteous” hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.
If the person at this point doesn’t retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.
Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about “goodness” of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. “For the students reporting their recovery of care,…their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world’s appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside.” (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)
POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.
FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.
***
But briefly, the church as an assembly of people, a human institution, includes a great deal of human nature, and therefore, is subject to both human development and bureaucratic intertia. If I don’t expect too much, I won’t be disappointed. If I have realistic expectations, I won’t be disappointed. There is no way any human assembly composed of people of diverse backgrounds, ages, educations, and so forth, can formally institutionalize the existence of a population consisting entirely of people who need no further development, and who, therefore, will never display weakness, ignorance, imperfection. If the narrative I tell about my relationship with that institute is based on a realistic understanding, I will have much less of an adversarial tone. I don’t need to blind myself to the weaknesses, nor understate the virtues. I don’t need to wait on the formal institution to give me knowledge that I can find on my own, as soon as I decide to take responsibility and make a personal effort. Indeed, it is easy to find members of that assembly who are both ready and willing to help me. Kuhn also talks about “the choice between competing political institutions, the choice between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life.” And a paradigm is defined by standard examples, that is stories that we tell within a given framework, a set of background assumptions and expectations. And so what politicians call “controlling the narrative” is really about advocating for a mode of community life. Exit narratives serve as passports to a different community.
How do we provide a nuanced perspective to the members of the Church before they have a faith crisis? We teach them nuance while they are young. Even Primary children are ready to be taught multiple perspectives on gospel topics. I know many people in my ward shun the “lowly” calling of Primary Teacher, but in my opinion, it is one of the most important callings in the Church.
KC. You’re kind of a good case example for the point here. No offense, but no one knows what the hell you’re talking about. 🙂 Take the orthodoxy test and get a score and tell us the score. I’m guessing somewhere 30ish maybe lower. It helps translate what you’re saying. Kuhn…expectations…Margaret Barker…I’m a 30 means something totally different than Kuhn…expectations…Margaret Barker…I’m an 80.
Autumn is 100% correct.
When I taught about translation of the BoM to my kids, I said Seer Stone instead of U&T. When someone tells them, did you know Joseph looked in hat at stone, they may not know about the hat, but the stone they’ll know. Better than what the LDS art shows now.
I told the kids that when we recovered the BoA, it didn’t match up with what Egyptologists know and then gave them some prevailing theories.
Last and most important, I taught them that God leaves us with many things to allow us to be able to doubt because that is essential to having true free agency and showing real faith. Then read them The King and the Maiden by Søren Kierkegaard.
I understood Kevin plainly enough. In fact, his was probably the most nuanced position here, mostly because he understands the various stages of belief better than most that I know. I used the word nuance somewhat ironically here, because the word is being parsed, dissected and driven into the ground. My research in the past has focused on the way that words are used. In fact, one of my first guest posts here at W&T was about the misuse of the word terrorist (which the Democratic Senator from Connecticut just displayed once again.) My research into the BoM also examines the use of the word robber. I’ve written about the misuse of the word war monger and investment as well. (Politicians love to use investment as code for: throw other people’s money at the problem and look like a hero to get myself reelected.)
The point I’m making is that nuance is used for its ability to speak in code or in short hand, more for its clinical definition and ability to explain. As I alluded to on facebook to Neal, nuance in this case from churchistrue is meant to mean more of unorthodox or at least people who are safe to share the unorthodox beliefs that some members have. Most people use the standard definition of the word which means complex, multifaceted, and subtle. When the word becomes short hand for what you think is a set of beliefs that isn’t widely understood or recognized, as Jason B. mentioned above, I think its time to stop using the short hand. Instead you should take a little time to explain what you mean when you say Uctdorf is nuanced instead of making that word do the heavy lifting for you. It will avoid confusion, make your pieces more analytically precise, and further the discussion much better.
My next post will be on the subject of irony. Let’s see how many comments we can generate arguing over the definition of that. 🙂
Morgan (and Neal) I understand your criticism. My bad. Would you have any objections to the piece if I would have used a different word? or invented a new word and clearly defined it? I got the feeling from Neal that his objection was more over the identification of a distinction. period. He seems very resistant to identifying Givens or Bushman or Uchtdorf as ABCXYZ (whatever word we’re using that I misused as nuance). Which actually is exactly the issue I’m addressing here. Why do people seem so resistant to identifying that distinction?
I was surprised that when I quote the Bible on how most prophets have tenuous revelation paths compared to the clarity Moses had (thus interjecting nuance into the text) that I got so many downvotes.
I think we’re downvoting you specifically, Stephen. Not the Bible. Just kidding. I upvoted you.
Stephen, I liked your quote. It needs a post of its own
I’m a 17. Which is lower than I expectd, but part of that is on some questions I didn’t fit tightly in any of the boxes. And I think that is the problem with the word nuance. Used in Mormonism it seems like like it’s supposed to mean a very specific type of Mormon. When the truth is that being non-orthodox actually is a huge Spectrum. So what one person believes or thinks can be vastly different than the next person.
What interest me even more though, is your question on how those of us who are non-orthodox can help those on the first steps of a faith crisis. This seems such an opportunity for christ-like charity. But so far my attempts have gotten me shuffled away to a put-away-the-hymnals calling and ignored.
The quiz draws weird lines. I think id’ be somewhere in the 75-90 range, but it’s difficult when you don’t fit the boxes.
Oh, and this – “I don’t think this was an ethical breach for Dehlin” – I don’t think it was an ethical breach either; you have to first have ethics to break them. He seems to make a habit of finding exactly where the ethical lines are, then taking one big step over them, saying that the line was wrong in the first place.
I think rather in terms of people who see the Gospel as equal to the Church, and so is all about obedience to a set of rules. When something upsets that view there is no other option available except to leave.
There is an other view which is the love, grace, joy version as taught by Christ. Uchtdorf I think teaches this, and others to some extent, but no one explains that it is a completely different way to understand the Church. Obedience people think it is part of what they believe.
We seem to like unity, so it is not acceptable to say this is completely different way to understand that you might move to by degrees if you can no longer accept the obedience version. But a different way to understand would help those in a faith crisis. Yes I agree that presenting a completely different way of living the Gospel within the Church will not get a positive response from leadership.
My loss of trust of the obedience version started with my mission call to a place that my family was moved to by the church, so I got a second call.
When I returned in 1970 the church was strongly pushing getting married and we were married 6 weeks after return, though my wife was councelled not to marry me, by her bishop, because of cultural intermarriage(a version of opposition to interracial marriage), she was white English and I was white Australian. The church was also strongly against birth control, so our first 3 children were born before our 4th anniversity, and before I had a full time job. My wifes doctor told us she would not survive another pregnancy but bishop said we knew what church teachings were, luckily SP said we had agency, and could choose to keep wife alive by using birth control. Now wouldn’t ask.
Each cultural miss step by the church moves us further away from the obedience version. Now believe we should eliminate all discrimination, because all are alike unto God, who loves us, and we are here to learn to love as he does. We are not here to learn obedience, but to love as God does.
Most Bishops are obedience types who refuse to understand that there could be another way to live the Gospel. I have had one try to excommunicate me and 2 others refuse me temple recommends. On each occasion they were over ruled, but I must be on a blacklist because I have not had a calling or given a talk in 8 years. I am a temple cleaning supervisor.
I’m amused, Church Is True, that you would comment on ethical breaches, considering that you spent years blogging under a false identity, with a false name, a fake picture, and a fake biography. Is “Randall Bowen” still the name you go by, or did you retire that? What about the fake picture of the smiling middle aged white guy? Have you disclosed your real identity yet, as you said last year that you would?
churchistrue,
I think the distinction between how you’re using nuanced is actually EXTREMELY relevant to your post, because to the extent “nuanced” means
This term is essentially confused enough to be useless.
Because there’s a HUGE difference between alternative understandings but having literal beliefs (e.g., whenever people try to pick at quotes from Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens, inferring that either of them have metaphorical beliefs…when really, that’s always an opportunistic reading of them), vs having metaphorical beliefs, vs having disbelief.
Having disbelief just makes you a nonbeliever. There isn’t necessarily any nuance in that, and if we were to try to put nuance on a scale (which I’m not sure we can even do like you want), then disbelief certainly isn’t “more nuanced” than the other positions I mentioned in the previous paragraph. (I mean, I guess my issue is that I don’t think nuance relates to a position. You can hold a TBM position in a nuanced way, and you can hold an exmormon position in a non-nuanced way. And obviously, the reverses of both are true. And then there are positions “in between” but these aren’t necessarily nuanced. Nuance is more a posture about a position, rather than a position itself)
(And, for whatever it’s worth, I don’t think your followup comment necessarily helps. That is…
To me, this gets at another conflation that I find bothersome — that of “new order mormons” vs “middle way Mormons” vs “liberal/progressive Mormons” and so on. But there’s a difference between someone who is a complete disbeliever who participates in mormonism for reasons completely unrelated to beliefs or religious motivations (e.g., family, friends, job, etc.,) and someone who has nontraditional views about Mormonism but still participates in it as a religion. This actually gets into why folks speak past each other. John Dehlin routinely questions why “unorthodox” members would even still participate in the church, attributing it to things like fear of family disruption, fear of loss of livelihood/job, or simple privilege. That’s because at the core, *John Dehlin doesn’t understand religion and faith*. The scale makes me suspect something similar here.)
Again, I’m not saying whether one is better than any other, or whether people should strive to be nuanced. I’m just saying that there is a definition of “nuance” that seems to be a buzzword or dogwhistle for disbelief that muddies the water (as your post is trying to address) and causes us to draw garbage conclusions. Like, I think it’s fair to say that Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman are thoughtful, even nuanced folks — IF we don’t conflate “nuance” with an implicit idea that they are secretly disbelievers or trending toward disbelief somehow. I do not think they are in any sense disbelievers, even if they routinely write/focus on things other than conventional belief.
I don’t want to understate this — people don’t want to identify as nuanced, or as neo-apologist, or as whatever the term du jour is, because there are these connotations about disbelief that don’t really capture what those folks are trying to do. It’s REALLY easy to understand why Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, etc., don’t want to be identified as “ABCXYZ” if “ABCXYZ” ends up really just being “disbeliever” or “disloyal” (which, honestly, in a Mormon context, I’d say are linked together…)
Let me put it another way. The quote you have in your original post highlights what I’m saying:
This sort of language implies a sort of Machiavellian scheming where these folks are trying to “exert influence on mainstream members” and trying to maintain the appearance of safe orthodoxy that these individuals do not have. I mean, I think there are some people who do precisely this Machiavellian scheming, whether consciously or unconsciously, so I understand WHY it’s easy to project that on to others. And I also understand that it’s easy to think that someone wasn’t doing that, and then when they get excommunicated, they seem to do a 180 and want to burn everything to the ground. (E.g., was Kate Kelly a sincere believer in the value of the priesthood and women’s ordination from an authentically Mormon rather than a political/secular position? I want to say yes, but Kate Kelly as exmo causes me to have serious questions.)
But what I want to emphasize is that I don’t think that most of the folks placed in the “neo-apologist” bucket are operating that way. The Givens aren’t just feigning deference to the brethren — no, because they are actual believers, they actually have deference to the brethren. Repeatedly, folks called neo-apologists will self-report that to them, their understanding of Mormonism seems entirely in alignment with orthodoxy. So it’s the *rest of us* who are reading into a discrepancy that requires “keeping up appearances”. Essentially, this is true of typical apologetics. We outsiders want to emphasize how apologetic answers don’t match up with what is in CES manuals, etc., but even “traditional” apologists fully believe that their apologetics bolster orthodoxy rather than making any parallel theology.
Andrew, thanks for the reply. I always like bantering with you because you are a smart, thoughtful guy, and we don’t see eye to eye on things, so it provides a good opportunity for me to expand my point of view. I started to type out a response and realized I absolutely need to stop procrastinating some real life work or I’m not going to get to watch my son’s basketball game later today. So I’m going to think on this more and maybe turn it into a follow up blog post.
I teach 4th Sunday RS and hope to use the space to draw a wider circle of inclusion.
I’m probably reasonably nuanced and offensively nuanced to some, but we’re haemorrhaging our brightest and best here and it’s getting lonely.
My intention is not to make anyone uncomfortable with their own mode of belief, but to accept them all.
Will be a tough one to pull off, but I’ve had some appreciation for my lessons so far.
My question is; ‘How can we use the gospel to heal ourselves and each other?’
We now have more less active friends than active. I wonder how long we can last.
Handle,
Best wishes in your lesson.
”I wonder how long we can last.” That is a choice.
“Nuance” is the new “And it came to pass”… no more than rigamarole phraseology deployed to impress the rubes. But kudos to OP for coining “nuancy”: as neologisms go, that one’s a keeper, and an apt description of the silliness being defended by self-appointed nuance enforcement officers.
I had several conversations with Spencer Fluhman as I was trying to figure the whole faith & church thing out. I was very impressed by his perspective on things. I would guess that he and the other “nuanced” Mormons you listed would rank anywhere from 20 to 50 on your scale. It would be very helpful if more church members were exposed to and understood this kind of mindset. That said, I think you pointed out something very important in talking about how we often explain away the nuance and how nuanced members can’t really openly express their nuance in public settings : “Nuanced” members like Fluhman or Adam Miller have a neat message that anyone from 0-100 on your scale can potentially get on board with, but members near the 100 end typically don’t realize that what’s being said has an underlying system of belief that is different from their own very fundamental views. I see some of these people as having core beliefs very similar to mine, but it’s hard to pick up on the nuance unless you yourself are nuanced.
Ah , dear Chairman Ji, how could I possibly know this without you? Such fellow feeling is precisely why I remain.
Handle, I’m glad. Your comment suggested that the low quality of Church members was wearing you down, and that you might not be able to endure. They might not be able to assuage your loneliness, but you might be able to lift them.
On the nuance scale I am pretty close to zero. The combination of church teachings/policies I don’t agree with, historical issues I can’t reconcile, boredom with church meetings and a lack of spiritual experiences to counter the other negative factors has changed my “testimony” for good. But I still have one. I believe the church is good, not “true”. And I go because it makes my wife happy and to stay in touch with friends. Half of my children (teenagers) have stopped attending. But I tell them – I don’t care if you go to church, I care what kind of person you are and what values you hold. And we talk about those values. I wish the church focused more on values and let on itself. Every talk and lesson on Sunday was about the Church.
Dehlin never loved you/nuanced believers. When he claimed to have had fundamentalist/literalist beliefs he didn’t love you. When he turned that literalist view into his straw-man of the entire church, he didn’t love you. Anything but his straw-man version of Church doctrine and belief is a threat to his life’s work: play the smartest truth-teller in the room and collect a tiny bit of coin for it.
He came to his unbelief many, many years ago, and has found a self-gratifying niche in flattering discontent ex or soon to be exLDS folks. I saw it after he took down his original Mormon Stories podcast episodes (the faith-promoting ones with people who were LDS but non-literalist). I saw it when I listened to him on LDS Church-critical podcasts (metaphorically) toasting his disbelief with the exLDS hosts (then immediately make a new Mormon Stories podcast talking about his “rebuilt” faith). Every move since then (staylds, un-church meetings, targeted podcast agenda, “leaks”, rants against former OSFoundation associates on anti-mormon message boards, his martyrdom, etc) has been to draw emotional and financial support from the discontent. He foments that discontent for his own ego and gain.
It makes me sad that he’s getting his kicks off the backs of hurt and blinded people like the Millers.
From ur description of Dehlin’s arch smile to the camera, I might interpret it as signifying JD’s awareness of the not-unsmall viewership numbers that his granddaddy-of-’em-all (among liberal- -to- questioning-, etc.-, Mo podcasts) website gets…its ironic message maybe conveying sump’in like “But… ah! HERE, by MY WORK the director of the Max. Inst., Prof. J. Spencer Fluhman’s, nuanced views WILL attain more renown amongst the greater “questioning” Mormon community at large!”
I.e., per JD, his is “the most popular and longest running podcast within Mormonism.”