In another discussion (on Sam B’s post at BCC about Middle Way Mormons), I made the assertion that we have more in common with the people in the pews around us than we think. We often hear unthinking party line answers to questions, or approved and scripted ways of discussing topics. That’s deceptive because giving correlated answers doesn’t mean we don’t have our own thoughts, experiences and ideas, or that we don’t actually view things from our own perspective, just that we know how to give the pre-approved answers to questions.
I was asked by commenter Loursat what tips I had for starting conversations to find other people who have a more nuanced view of things. Here are the discussions I have actually had that led to a more nuanced conversation with others:
- Discussing the plight of gay Mormons, including pointing out the pitfalls of mixed orientation marriages which were the go-to solution until quite recently
- Stating my belief that polygamy is not and never was divine (because it’s so damaging to women, nearly everyone is careful in how they defend it if they even try)
- Discussing a point of counsel from a church leader that just doesn’t sound right but isn’t a barn-burner either. (e.g. Kimball stating that it doesn’t matter who you marry so long as they are a worthy member in good standing)
- Talking about church leaders whose messages most resonate for us as a contrast with those who do not for whatever reason (we’ve all got favorites, and there are deep reasons for this)
- Pointing out differences of opinion between church leaders on various topics that allow for disagreement (e.g. evolution was attacked by both JFS and BKP but is taught as scientific fact at BYU)
- Discussing now defunct policies that nearly everyone agrees were terrible (e.g. Priesthood ban, and even the church’s opposition to the ERA). Knowing the history better than they do and simply pointing out that the facts differ from the narrative.
- Talking about a historical event that was divisive to early church members and wondering what I would have done in that situation (always entails pointing out information not included in the common narrative).
- Talking about events in scripture that point to an unreliable narrator, bringing into question whether the historical information presented really happened. (My favorites are Ammon cutting off all those arms but nobody dies, and Nephi cutting off Laban’s head before taking the clothes off the body.)
- Reminiscing about cultural things that have changed in my lifetime, things that have become assumptions, but that weren’t always. (e.g. modesty standards, activities committee, budgets).
It’s all in how you approach it, though. I find these topics interesting to discuss, and most people in the church seem to also. I don’t care if they agree with me or not. I just say what I think, and let them have their own conclusions. Being willing to state something that isn’t the party line (but without anger or an agenda to change the other person) is the starting point. So the “how” is probably more important than the “what.” Here’s the how:
- Raise topics you are actually interested in talking about, that you can see there are different sides, but your view is a less “approved” one.
- Be curious and listen well. Ask thoughtful questions. Model respect.
- Don’t try to persuade the other person. Just share your own view and be interested in theirs. Don’t argue.
- Know what you are talking about, generally. Nobody likes a game of what if with someone who doesn’t have their facts straight. Be patient if they don’t have all the information you do.
- Be open-minded.
Have you had discussions like this where you found that someone you thought was very black & white was actually more open-minded than you expected? What tips would you add?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I tried sharing with a “friend” about my shift from TBM to something more nuanced and how it is not helpful to be shut down with the common response “you just need to pray and read your scriptures.” I tried to explain that I understand that works for some people in most all instances but for people like me just being allowed to express alternative experiences is more helpful in my faith journey. (And, I didn’t even mention polygamy or the more controversial aspects of our church—except how the campaign to support Prop 8 was conducted in our local stake).
Wow. Big mistake. The response was to personally attack me and tell me I needed to humble myself etc Weeks later she offered a qualified apology saying she couldn’t fully apologize.
Most/all members in our current ward and my siblings believe the priesthood ban and polygamy were sanctioned by God and appropriate for its time, though we don’t necessarily know the reasons why. We agree leaders are not infallible but they can’t comprehend any possible instances where leaders possibly made mistakes.
Needless to say, I’m less involved in church (though I still have a calling) including on a social level.
Hawkgirl I think your suggestions are helpful but are not necessarily going to work in every ward or LDS family culture.
(And when I say “sanctioned by God” I mean approved by God).
Lois, I have sometimes wondered how the judgmental attackers in some of our wards would respond if the immediate counter was to call them on their, often ignorant (literally), judging in violation of Matthew 7:1-2. Of course, one difficulty in calling such judging to another’s attention, is that it is itself an act of judging. Maybe that can be avoided with some tentative wording. The one time I remember doing it with respect to a teacher in EQ, I didn’t soften it, but he and the group reacted well and the discussion became positive and uplifting in place of the negative approach the teacher had been pursuing. Usually, I just bite my tongue — or leave.
While I have have had positive experience where I am with some of the things hawkgrrrl suggests, you are right that the church is not the same everywhere. In some places it is much more difficult than in others, to find other members with “a more nuanced view of things.” While I once moved to solve that problem, that option is not always available.
I’m always intrigued when people find Laban and Ammon’s stories even more faith promoting to them— surmising that Ammon and Nephi obviously received extra strength because chopping off an arm or a head (sans blood on the clothes!) with a sword is difficult even under ideal circumstances.
I wish I knew of a good way to fish for nuance at church when you’re not already active and embedded.
Kullervo, here’s one I’ve seen used — hang out in the hall/foyer class during Sunday School or PR/RS and listen to conversations for hints of nuance before engaging directly with selected individuals along the lines of hawkgrrrl’s suggestions. It has worked for some.
That said, when I visited my local ward a few weeks ago, a man came up to say hi and introduce himself, and he was obviously trying to figure out whether we (I was there with two of my kids) were church members from out of town or non-members visiting. My daughter pipes up with “We’re not Mormons!” to which the man replied “Well, nobody’s perfect!” I laughed and said, “the truth is, I have a long and complicated history with Mormonism,” and the woman sitting in the pew ahead of me turned around and said “Ha–don’t we all?” It was a funny and telling moment.
That said, I am in an east coast urban area, and I am curious about how the distribution of nuance tracks with geography. In my experience, you’re definitely more likely to find more liberal-thinking Mormons in more liberal-leaning areas.
Good suggestions for starting.
When I tried, I got shut down, or the teacher goes on to the next comment without responding in any real way.
I opened up to a RS counselor during a recent interview. I explained exactly how I felt and encouraged her as a leader to make room for different opinions. I encouraged her to lean into a conversation and make the space and support the person willing to try.
I have also emailed some of these blog posts to RS leaders, as a way to expose them to thoughts outside the box.
To find the nuanced or struggling, try walking the halls during class, you will find the people who don’t want to be in class. Or sit in your car during the 2nd and 3rd hour and see who comes out side or leaves, consistently. Of course I wouldn’t know why anyone is not in class or not inside, just as they wouldn’t know why I am out in my car, but it might be the person to strike up the conversation points with. The people who have found me in my car know why I am there.
I think your statement of “I don’t care if they agree with me or not” is a critical part. People can often sense your motive and if you are trying to “correct them and make them think correctly like me” it will raise more defensive responses. Now some will (over) react no matter how gentle you bring it up. Your mileage will vary.
One way to check your motivation is to think if someone replies with an exact opposite opinion if you can thank them for sharing their opinion.
Kullervo, I’ve noticed that urban wards tend to be more accepting of nuanced beliefs, especially when there is more racial and economic diversity there than one would find in a typical suburban Utah ward. When there is less conformity as a baseline, acceptance of nonstandard beliefs will naturally follow. I’ve also seen greater tolerance for nuance in small, struggling branches (where the leaders consider it a miracle if anyone shows up at all) and university wards/branches (outside of UT).
My wife and I pick our battles. One time when the GD teacher was ragging on the paid ministry of other churches, I spoke up about my Lutheran pastor grandfather, who was one of the most Christlike men I have know, and how his job as a pastor was a full time job. On another occasion, my wife stood up to another GD teacher who had brought in a copy of “National Review” and went on an anti-democrat tirade. She noted that Peter Cooke, a democrat, was called as a mission president soon after he lost his bid for Utah governor. She pointed out that if the q12 saw him worthy to be a mp as a Democrat, then he should not likewise condemn Democrats. Several people thanked my wife for her comment after class.
I don’t see how an unreliable narrator figures into the Ammon narrative. Nephi, sure, but Mormon was the one narrating Ammon’s story.
I wouldn’t presume that “nearly everyone agrees” that opposition to the ERA was terrible, given that the Church’s opposition came after Craig v. Boren was decided. I know a few feminist attorneys who question what the ERA would do that the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t do, and I think the Church was right to oppose a constitutional amendment with unknown effects; and I know many other members of the Church who agree.
Nuance is a rare commodity in Mormonism, both in individuals and in wards/stakes. Geography has something to do with it. California Mormonism is much more laid back than Mormon Corridor Mormonism, but in reality even a laid back Mormon is still pretty black and white about most churchy things.
GAs could change the culture if they tried really hard. They don’t try even a little most of the time, and this approach is observed and gets modeled by most SPs, who then pass it down or enforce it in their stakes. And it’s getting worse — the demotion of Pres. Uchtdorf is a sign of the new mental retrenchment. Change has to come from the top on this. Those who try to change it in the trenches, at the ward and stake level, either get marginalized or disciplined (unless you live in a particularly broad-minded stake or ward).
Come on, that’s super disingenuous. The LDS Church obviously does not make a general practice of opposing all potentially redundant constitutional amendments .
One way I have been able to bring in nuance is to make sure I have adequate backing from a current apostle or past prophet. It is hard to shame a comment when it is a verbatim quote from a president of the church or a living “prophet, seer and revelator.” Most members are not well read, so they do not have very good rejoinders when information from the Gospel Topics Essays or MormonandGay.lds.org. There is enough “official” published material to insert nuance into most discussions.
“Nuance is a rare commodity in Mormonism, both in individuals and in wards/stakes. Geography has something to do with it. California Mormonism is much more laid back than Mormon Corridor Mormonism, but in reality even a laid back Mormon is still pretty black and white about most churchy things”
While CA has a reputation for being more liberal or “laid back” the real truth about CA is that it is very diverse as a state. There are very conservative areas and more liberal areas, but even in the most liberal areas one can encounter a very conservative church culture and very black/white conservative leadership. I’ve found, living on both coasts, that many members/leadership have roots in UT (or Idaho) culture either because they lived there or attended BYU.
I find it surprising, as a church that sends missionaries all over the world, that we seem so narrow and rigid in our church culture.
Shouldn’t we expect the opposite–more open to flexibility? More allowance for differing thoughts/approaches, less judgementalism?
“Most members are not well read . . . ”
“. . . even a laid back Mormon is still pretty black and white about most churchy things.”
” . . .urban wards tend to be more accepting of nuanced beliefs, especially when there is more racial and economic diversity there than one would find in a typical suburban Utah ward. ”
Maybe the reason people aren’t having meaningful discussions with you is because they perceive you to be judgemental.
Making generalizations isn’t necessarily the same thing as making judgments.
My wife and I have selected 2 other couples and a single sister, from our very conservative ward and have them over for dinner. So we can discuss church stuff in greater detail. Will see how it goes. We were feeling very isolated.
If your objective is to surface people with the capacity for nuance, these work pretty well. But I think it’s even easier. Wear pants (women). Don’’t wear a tie (men). Wear a rainbow pin. Say out loud “that doesn’t work for me” (about almost anything). You don’t even have to make a potentially controversial positive statement, but just “I don’t agree” is enough). I find that people hunger for connection and will jump at hints.
If your objective is being accepted, that’s a larger task. A lot of the suggestions will position you as a nay-sayer and people don’t like those.
If your objective is finding agreement or changing minds, those are heavy lifts. I think they deserves a second posting., although the suggestions for “how” to approach are a really good start.
Geoff-Aus: I think inviting people over for dinner, even the missionaries, is often a good way to find kindred spirits. We had two elders over for dinner several months ago. When they discovered that my husband and I met on my mission, one elder asked, “Oh, was he one of your leaders?” I did an actual spit take in my laughter at that question. I quickly explained, “Elder, I don’t know about your mission, but in my mission the leaders were all pretty much a bunch of egotistical punks. If he had been one of my leaders, I can assure you we never would have gotten married.” Then I cackled some more about the very notion. The elder joined in and laughed with me. He said he didn’t think much had really changed from my mission to his.
My comment that most members are not well read was not meant as a judgment. I was referring to church history and theology. In my own family, my wife, who is a working professional with a college degree, has a nominal interest in church history. She is also very active and happy in the church, as am I. I have learned to respect the fact that my interest in church history, particularly in reading books that present numerous perspective (i.e. Rough Stone Rolling and No Man Know My History) is not a priority to many, if not most, members who have gained testimonies through their own personal experiences of the spirit. I don’t expect them to be interested, nor does their lack of interest mean that they should not have an opinion. However, it is hard to share in the nuance of the gospel if one has not been exposed to the gray areas of our history and doctrine. My hope is that the home study being introduced next year will bring the more nuanced views of the gospel as we all learn and delve into our scriptures and history more thoughtfully.
“My favorites are Ammon cutting off all those arms but nobody dies.”
Clearly arms means swords. They scoop then up and carry them to the king after all.
The Spanish word also my means (weapons/arms).
It says he killed some with the sling but those who he smote down his swords didn’t die.
I like Christian Kimball’s list of signals. Another one along the same lines is reading from a non-KJV Bible. I introduced myself to a person who was clearly uncorrelated after she gave a sacrament meeting talk in which she did this.