A lot of people in online Mormon spaces have been talking this week about a failed project (a new podcast called Mormon News Weekly) that Patrick Mason announced via Twitter he had decided to step away from. It was intended to be a weekly discussion between him, Jana Reiss and John Dehlin. The three of them were interested in providing different perspectives about news stories. Hearing that Patrick Mason, who is highly respected in both faithful and post-Mormon spaces, decided to step away signals a growing difficulty in breaching the ideological divides the Church membership faces. We are losing our ability to talk to people we disagree with.
These divides appear to be linked to the growing political partisan divide. A podcast I was very excited about underwent the same exact scenario a few months ago. Mike Pesca (whose podcast The Gist is one of my faves) created a three person discussion podcast called “Not Even Mad” with fellow hosts Virginia Heffernan and Jamie Kirchick. Although Mike expressed his disappointment that it didn’t last long and sort of fell apart, Virginia said at one point that she felt like she was pulling her punches to keep the format friendly. I imagine that partisan listeners may have objected to hear their own vociferous viewpoints “watered down” enough to have a civil conversation with “the enemy.” If so, that’s basically what happened according to Patrick Mason:
1/ A couple weeks ago I announced my participation in the new podcast “Mormon News Weekly” with @johndehlin and @janariess. Today I’m announcing that I’m stepping away from the show.
2/ When I posted my tweet about the show, I honestly expected a moderate response. I conceived of the project as being a modest affair–3 people sitting around and talking about the news. While of course we sought listeners, our intention was never to create a lot of drama.
3/ What we did seek was peace. Frustrated and overwhelmed by the polarization we see in almost every segment of our society, we wanted to experiment with something different.
4/ What it would look like for three people, with varying relationships to the LDS Church, to have a civil conversation about that week’s main LDS-related stories? We would naturally disagree, but we would do so with civility and generosity toward one another and our subjects.
5/ The sad fact is that many active Latter-day Saints and many post-/ex-Mormons have increasingly found themselves unable to talk with one another. Indeed, sometimes it seems we barely know one another. Empathy has too often been replaced with anger, communication with contempt.
6/ But whether we like it or not, whether in real or virtual spaces we’re neighbors—and often family members. What would it look like for neighbors who have been locked in a destructive cycle of mutual animosity to begin to reestablish a relationship?
7/ Maybe it would look like just talking with one another, even about inconsequential things like the news. As John & I formulated the idea for the show, we had in mind all the people who are starving for civil discourse and gratified whenever and wherever they can find it.
8/ So why stop? Why pull out after only two episodes (which we have since taken down from YouTube)? It’s because I now realize after a tough couple weeks that I had focused so much on the positive potential of the show that I hadn’t fully counted the cost—to myself and others.
9/ I was frankly surprised by the visceral reactions to my announcement. I was heartened by the many positive responses and took seriously the many constructive criticisms of the project; it was definitely a work-in-progress.
10/ But I was stunned by the mean-spirited accusations and characterizations peddled by self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy and by people so brave and confident of their convictions that they post under the guise of anonymity.
11/ So many people were quick to issue public condemnations rather than reach out to me privately, even though my e-mail address is easy to find. Sticks and stones and all that…but it turns out that words do hurt, and often more people than just the intended target.
12/ Ultimately, however, I didn’t come to this decision because of my critics. I came to this decision because of my friends. People who know me, who trust me, who want my good, who shape me, who ask questions of me, who make me better.
13/ Those honest and private conversations, in the spirit of Matt. 18:15, led me to realize that more than a few people felt that when I turned to face Jana & especially John, I was turning my back on them. That in seeking to transform conflict I only exacerbated it.
14/ That’s not what I intended. It’s hard to be in the middle. I’m still learning how to build bridges between people who have been genuinely hurt and are so suspicious of the other side that seeing me engage (rather than fight) feels like betrayal or a loss of faith.
15/ Even after many years of heartfelt (and often heart-wrenching) conversations, I frankly underestimated the size of the divide between (some) Latter-day Saints and (some) post-/ex-Mormons and the ongoing pain that lives on both sides. It’s fair to say I was a bit naive.
16/ I believe in making peace. With Pres. Nelson, I believe that peace-makers (not just peace-wishers) are badly needed today, and that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a special responsibility in this sphere.
17/ But peace-making is tricky, risky, taxing work. Sometimes it’s hard to know when is the right time or what is the right forum. It’s possible to have sincerely good intent and still say or do something that pains or confuses people.
18/ I won’t give up on making peace. I hope you won’t either. Find someone who’s different from you and engage in an ongoing conversation with civility and generosity. Seeing someone else’s humanity and then treating them with dignity is one of the best gifts you can give them.
19/ I have so much love for John and Jana, and total respect for the way they came to this project with sincerity and a genuine desire to model healthier conversations. I wish you could have all listened in on some of the private chats we had along the way.
20/ Jana and John have been incredibly gracious in response to my decision to step away. If they choose to continue the conversation (stay tuned for further developments), I’ll be cheering them on.
21/21 In the end, I apologize to anyone I’ve hurt, confused, or disappointed through either starting or stopping my involvement in this project. I’ll keep trying to do and be better. In the meantime, let’s all try our hardest to be good, kind, and generous to one another.
Patrick Mason’s explanation on Twitter
I have some ideas how we’ve gotten to this point, but I’m not at all sure how we get back to a better place. In part, I think it’s fair to blame the polarization that was exploited by Trump leading the way to saying the most inflammatory things possible, making it OK to openly defend some things that have always been lurking below the surface: racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, Naziism and white supremacy, and increasingly homo- and transphobia. Likewise, those on the left have become increasingly intolerant of conservatives who may be lashing out in their bewilderment or who may not understand unfamiliar concepts or may feel fearful of what a future without their beloved traditions (not said in sarcasm) and institutions in charge might bring. Feeling disoriented isn’t a crime.
We don’t need to write people off on either side of the divide just because they need more time and to hear some different perspectives than their own. The problem is, again, that we’ve emboldened hate speech. People who only superficially understand the opposing perspective are rewarded for attacking those whose ideas they dislike. We’ve replaced curiosity with personal attacks and listening with strawman arguments. People are persuadable. I shared the story of Megan Phelps-Roper in my post two weeks ago, and if her mind could be changed, anyone’s can.[1]
There are many reasons people avoid engaging with people whose opinions differ:
Fear of conflict. Mormons in particular seem to be prone to this. While Mason describes wanting to be a “peace-maker” and not a “peace-wisher” per the recent Pres. Nelson talk, avoiding engaging with different viewpoints doesn’t feel like the path to success. But yes, it can take a toll.
Confirmation bias. People find it painful to be confronted with information that undermines whatever their worldview is.
Stereotyping. It’s as easy to paint all conservatives as bigots as it is for them to pain all liberals as hedonists.
Prejudice. A few years ago, a study showed that people were actually more open to their child marrying someone of a different religion than a different political party. (Protip: it’s getting nearly impossible to tell the difference between religion and political party at this point).
Lack of empathy. People stop listening when they can imagine the other side doesn’t have good intentions or if they believe that the argument isn’t felt as a threat by the other party.
Closed-mindedness. Unfortunately, the Church encourages a closed-minded attitude in members when we hear dismissive attitudes about “outside sources,” people of other faiths, or those who have left the Church.
Polarization. We are more openly divided than ever before, largely due to the widening gap between political parties. Even independents disagree with each other, making a third party unlikely to succeed.
Tribalism. When people over-identify with their “in-group,” they may view any critique as a call to arms, requiring hostility towards outsiders to protect the group. As a result, dialogue is futile with those who take this stance.
Lack of trust. People trust different sources. Nobody knows everything about everything. Particularly in religious groups, too much trust is placed in non-experts, but even in science, some opinions are considered off-limits to question or uncontested. Our overconfidence in sources we’ve decided to trust that others may distrust makes it hard to find common ground.
Emotionality. People can find these dialogues emotionally triggering, too painful for them to continue to listen to. They resort to shouting down each other rather than listening and engaging out of a sense of self-preservation.
Given that Church discussions have, at least since correlation and probably before that, been tightly controlled to prevent too much “freelancing” (or many would say, actual thinking), it’s hard to see how we create any kind of discussion around controversial topics.[2] Even here at W&T, where moderation is light, we’ve had many recent posts where the comments have illustrate the problems of intolerance of other opinions.
Personally, I stop wanting to engage when I feel that we can’t agree on common ground about things like basic human dignity and the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. I usually try to keep on keeping on, but it can be wearing. Thinking back to debates about things like trans or gay rights, to the people who are being impacted, it is often a real matter of life and death. Allowing those not involved to have a voice in decisions that harm others but not themselves feels utterly immoral. And yet, if we don’t talk, nobody will be persuaded, which takes time, patience, and something like charity. It also takes seeing past the argument to the human being, and it takes an open enough mind to at least find common ground, even if the core disagreement is unresolved.
- Do you think Mormons are more fragile about talking to those who disagree or roughly the same as everyone else?
- Which of these reasons to avoid dialogue ring most true for you?
- Have you found yourself unable to engage with the opposing viewpoint on some topics?
- What do you think would improve the ability for true peace-making and discussion of difficult topics?
Discuss.
[1] If you forgot who she is, she was raised in the Westboro Baptist Church and had been protesting soldier’s funerals and other inflammatory things since age 5, holding up signs that said “God hates F*gs.”
[2] The gold standard for this probably belongs to Judaism which really takes grappling with their religious texts seriously. Maybe Mormonism hasn’t matured enough yet. Maybe we haven’t been through enough adversity yet to respect differences of opinion.
Wheat & Tares 
I completely agree that the political divide has infiltrated LDS culture. Not living in the Mormon Corridor I really only see the divide on line. Cultural Mormonism has much less sway on the East Coast, especially in urban areas. What I personally find so distressing is the Twitter commentary of the Des Nat and the rabid anti-Mormon types. I have no problem whatsoever looking at Church culture and history with a scholarly, and critical eye. The fact is history is nuanced and rarely crystal clear and yet when I go on Twitter (not much these days) the defenders and the haters are repulsive.
As to Patrick and Jana I respect them both immensely. Dehlin not so much. I used to listen to him a fair amount but now only sparingly. I have very little patience for people who profit from the Church, including CES, tour promoters, GA’s who write books that are utter pablum, and the Dehlin’s of the world. John makes a lot of money off the Church. I have friends that have been on Mormon Stories and almost universally speak negatively of the experience. I recall a podcast with Rod Decker the Utah political reporter. It was ok until the end when Dehlin was pushing Decker to say things that were highly critical. Decker kept pushing back. He is not a “believer” but he spoke favorably about his experiences as a young man and the people he had interacted with as a reporter. That was not good enough for John. Likewise I know some situations were Dehlin has flat out lied! I know because I know the parties involved and happen to know facts and details. It was not a misstatement but a bald faced lie. I better example of how a believer and unbeliever can positively interact is the new Data over Dogma podcast. It is fantastic. I support Patrick’s decision. However, I would have liked to see if the podcast could have worked to heal the divide.
I was fortunate to be raised in a home where my Father had a wide range of friends in and out of the church, including some that would be considered anti” by some. He never had a problem with maintaining the relationships even amidst disagreement. Nothing was off limits in terms of discussion about doctrine, policy, practice, history. I don’t find a lot of folks these days that have the ability to walk that line and I believe that is largely the influence of social media. Its astounding how many cowards there are on Twitter that have a fake profile. Where are the Lowell Benions and Sterling McMurins of this generation. Who were able to maintain friendships despite differing views?
As to the questions:
Yes Mormons can be more fragile, depending on their worldview. If they are stuck in the smiley face primary sticker phase of development. But that is no different than conservative evangelicals. I am the general counsel to our local inter-faith group. The evangelicals will not participate becase they view the group as too liberal, Christians in name only. I just read the book “Power Worshipers” about the rise of Christian Nationalism. It describes this issue perfectly.
I have no problem with dialogue but I draw the line at hate and disrespect. And to be frank, in todays world my litmus test is if someone believes the 2000 election was stolen, I will not engage with them. They are frankly incapable of rational thought and dialogue. The Mormon History Association is a great example of how to bridge the divide, especially on an intellectual level. The cultural divide is much harder.
Peacemaking, I fear is in danger. If we could just let people live and let live, we’d be a lot better off. That comes back to my issues with Dehlin. He can’t do that, he always wants to get a dig in.
Rant over.
” I think it’s fair to blame the polarization that was exploited by Trump”
You had me impressed until this line. Trump is a jerk and deserving of much criticism. But extreme polarization existed long before Trump and will persist long after he leaves the stage. Trump is unique among Republican politicians in that he fights back. To call that exploitation is disingenuous. Trump had many lies told about him. He has every right to call out the lies and the liars.
Please consider that prior to Trump, Republican politicians like Romney, McCain and Bush considered it beneath themselves to respond to smears and yet Romney, McCain and Bush were smeared by disgusting lies. Their “dignity” was exploited by their enemies to successfully damage them politically.
Censorship, cancellation, and vile “say anything” slander are evidence of our fractured society. The most common instances of censorship take place in the mainstream media and on college campuses.
There is a long pattern of “Liberal” universities unable to entertain diverse voices because the student body, with violence and threats of violence, chase away speakers crying “hate speech”. This most recently occurred at Stanford where a speech by a Federal judge was shutdown. The NY Times has an excellent article I highly recommend reading.
“Stuart Kyle Duncan — a federal appeals court judge appointed by Donald Trump — visited Stanford Law School this month to give a talk. It didn’t go well.
Students frequently interrupted him with heckling. One protester called for his daughters to be raped, Duncan said. When he asked Stanford administrators to calm the crowd, the associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion walked to the lectern and instead began her remarks by criticizing him. “For many people here, your work has caused harm,” she told him.”
Personally, I came of age at the time the Supreme Court ruled the Nazis could hold a public rally in Skokie, Illinois. The political left championed that decision. My school teachers used that case to remind us students that freedom of speech was critical to the freedom and liberty of the country.
That was forty years ago and my have things changed! Many on the political left turned and have joined with those on the political right to support censorship and “cancel” culture. American culture is much less supportive of freedom of expression than it once was. Why?
In my opinion the critical social change was the elevation of individual needs above societal interests. Avoiding personal offense became more important than ensuring ideas and opinions can be openly shared. The only way to prevent people being offended is censorship. And that’s what we have today. The same social policing used to protect Bill and Bonnie from words that offend is used by institutions like the LDS church to shutdown and disparage honest inquiry.
Disciple, the OP didn’t claim polarization didn’t exist before Trump. You had me until you totally put words in the OP’s mouth to push your own reading of things, which was, like, your second sentence.
I can understand discussions that lead to nowhere. Growing up in the South, I know from experience that it’s hard to establish a dialogue with evangelicals when they believe that my faith is from the pit of hell. If I’m not open to their interpretation of the Bible, then I’m a “servant of Satan.” Whenever I crossed their path, they looked at me with utter contempt. Despite the fact that my family has been in the same three counties for 300 years, we’re still seen as “yankees” and “carpetbaggers” simply because we’re from a different faith. This animosity became so bad that during the Raleigh Temple open house in 2019, undercover SBI agents had to be stationed throughout in order to deter any threats.
Despite all of this negativity, I still don’t have any feelings of anger towards them. I only feel sadness that they missed opportunities to establish meaningful relationships with others who don’t share their worldview. Hopefully, we can rise above our rigid perspectives on others so that we can open ourselves up to genuine interactions.
I don’t think Mormons are more fragile, except on a couple of specific topics, about which they have been told since birth that they have THE TRUTH. I lean left and lean very nuanced/PIMO at church but see fault of talking past each other coming from all points of the spectrum.
The exceptions are things that everyone will recognize – suggesting that something in church history or interpretation/application of doctrine isn’t exactly how that one guy/gal in your ward has always seen it, and they will (often rudely) correct your misunderstanding of what is actually true.
I don’t personally see this “truth reinforcement” in church conversations across political ideologies or social issues, but that is mostly because I don’t have those conversations at church. Just no point in engaging on those topics when 90% of the group leans one way.
hawkgrrrl – you have no idea how we’ve come to this point yet you blame Trump 🙂 OK, that’s the very problem. Bringing politics into this. It’s the issues, the left vs. right ideologies. It’s the ‘conflict cultures’ – us vs. them, only two choices. The directionally motivated reasoning and deep emotions and over-identification with one ideology. Moral relativism – imposing one’s views on others because ‘we know best’ – just like church leaders, political groups have become very culty and seek to impose their ideal worldview on others. Imposing change on others violates human laws of freedom to choose who we want to be. No one has that right, regardless of how deeply they are convinced. It is the emotional dimension of attitudes and beliefs driving all this conflict. Culture conflicts – leaving the church and moving to ‘anti-Mormon’ or atheist is an example. There are so many other potential ways to see the world and life. The problem, from my perspective, is that many of us are actually too dependent emotionally and mentally; we need others to accept us, like us, and look up to us that we allow the weaknesses (uncontrolled anger, blaming, immaturity, etc.) to control our own emotions. Yes, that’d emotional dependency. We all need to become independent emotionally and mentally; to find internal sources of security – not external – not the church, not prophets, not political parties/ideologies, not in-group members. Internal security so we can move to the highest level of maturity – interdependence – which is the correct mental map of human nature. We can only thrive when we go for mutual benefit by seeking to truly empathize and understand others, and we need internal emotional security (identity) to have a changeless core that can risk being changed, in order to really listen (be open to change). It’s our own insecurity and selfish interests that cause us to be right or wrong. People with a fixed mindset can’t stand being ‘wrong’ because it takes away from a fixed view of self. A growth mindset is open and willing to learn, not be right. Private victories with self come before public victories and interdependence. I don’t want any religion or political party or political leader to tell me who I am or what matters in life. My integrity isn’t based on compliance with a group or movement; it’s based on my values and sound principles (honesty, respect, mutual benefit, humility to learn, etc.). What looks like independence from Mormonism is actually counter-dependence or rebellion, I believe (at first). We’re still dependent on what others think so we try to force them to accept our newly acquired ideologies and adopt new language from a new sub-culture (counter-culture) with its ‘better’ ideals and strategies for a utopian world – just like Jim Jones – no racism, not inequality, etc. – using authoritarian style and threats of canceling or destroying those who don’t go along with the new order. I’ve seen this craziness; threats to destroy because ‘we are right morally’ – just like Hitler and other cult leaders. Always in the name of a higher way of life. When the problem is ‘out there’ the solution is ‘out there’ and we stop looking at ourselves and how we might grow, mature, and break away from all groups/ideologies and actually decide for ourselves – choosing from many options in life. Leaving a religion doesn’t mean we have to join the opposition. We can walk away from all of it and choose parts from many religions or other teachings to become who we want. No cult hopping, no seeking to impose control on others – it doesn’t work according to leading scholars.
There are so many issues that neither side can resolve. A false dichotomy – only two choices? No. Don’t give away power to the weaknesses and dependencies of others.
Some people’s reading skills of the OP, sheesh. I mean, I’m not happy with the status quo in regards to current levels of discourse in the country, but I put an enormous amount of blame on people’s critical thinking skills. When commenters put words in the OP’s mouth, I either wonder if reading comprehension is the failure or if it’s intentional or unintentional projecting. Either way, we’re in a bad spot when people can’t even read words correctly without going off.
We are living in a hard world. Fox News openly promotes lies as truth and shames opposition. MSNBC will point out the problems of Fox with some Fox like tactics thus clouding the water. LDS leaders don’t really communicate by example but by testimony. In other words there is no discussion. We are told to handle differences with kindness but there really aren’t any examples of this particularly when leaders talk about using muskets to defend our “truths” or that those that think differently and are “falling away” are lazy. So it appears our society is caught in a verbal/ideological trench war with very little movement along the lines. Also Mormons are not encouraged to think for themselves. It’s always what do the prophets say. Even if you point out what the scriptures say, it doesn’t really matter if there is a prophet with a different view.
So culturally Mormons really have very little experience with conversations where there is give and take, respect, empathy, and even listening. The standard is to stand your ground with a testimony, to ponder and pray until you accept whatever “truth” is being stated by someone in a leadership position, and to not question statements, actions, or policies of the church and with that the corresponding. political dogma that comes from a lack of diverse opinions. Finally there is the assumption of “one revealed truth” which makes it really hard to change your opinion without feeling you’ve betrayed God. Even those that have left the church, I think, still have that view except it’s a more “universal” rather than “revealed” truth they are fighting to defend.
What to do? I wanted to believe a podcast leading the way to have better conversation would be the thing. I think the reality of it is we need to have the conversations one on one which will take a lot longer for any change to happen. The sad thing is even if the prophet made a statement and modelled a better way, many Mormons would ignore him, just like they did with vaccines and masks. Some even going so far as saying he was a fallen prophet.
I am not one of Patrick Mason’s friends, nor do I know any of them, so I have no idea what their actual objections to John Dehlin are. Similarly, I have had no interaction with John Dehlin myself–everything I know about him I learned in the Bloggernacle.
That said, the very existence of this blog speaks to the difficulty of engaging productively with Dehlin. Many readers are likely unaware that the original permabloggers here were refugees from a Dehlin-run blog. They did not leave because he was being too anti-Mormon. They left because, according to their own accounts, he was behaving in a dishonorable manner that they found intolerable. That was not an isolated incident. In the first comment above, Lawrence describes other dishonorable behavior on Dehlin’s part. That changes the math, in my opinion. There are honorable people (including Jana Reiss and Patrick Mason) in the orthodox, heterodox, and ex-mo camps. They should be engaging with one another. But I am not convinced that engaging with dishonorable people can ever result in real peace. A ceasefire is likely the best possible outcome and if you can achieve that by simply walking away, why not do it?
A great and timely post. I think you’re right about the political divide infiltrating LDS culture, but I think there’s also something here that may be true of religions in general, as well as Mormonism in particular: the divide between the believer and the non-believer is at least as significant as any political associations a given religion may have. I say that because I think one really important factor (that’s implicated in your mention of confirmation bias) when it comes to Mormonism is its extraordinary (and antithetical to productive discourse) emphasis on the truth of its claims. Mormonism doesn’t think of itself as a set of beliefs; it thinks of itself as a beacon of truth and light in an otherwise corrupt and fallen world. That means that any dialogue, idea or conversation that puts even the slightest pressure on that “truth” is going to be automatically dismissed. The nefarious brilliance of Mormonism, in other words, is that the “fact” of its “truth” gives the Mormon believer the idea that any attempt at challenging orthodox Mormon ideas is actually not a challenge; it’s an assault on the “truth” and therefore it is to be dismissed/resisted/etc. at all costs because it is seen as an attempt to destroy faith rather than create a space for productive dialogue. That also means that, for many believing Mormons, to even engage in a discussion that challenges Mormonism’s truth claims is to engage in spiritually harmful dialogue.
That, I think, is a big part of the problem here. There’s no common ground for a lot of these discussions because a significant subset of Mormon believers don’t realize or understand that their belief is merely a belief; they’ve been taught that their belief is “truth” and therefore it is not to be challenged or called into question. So, to answer one of your questions, at least in my experience, Mormons ARE more fragile when it comes to talking to those who disagree with them for precisely the reason I mention. And don’t forget, most Mormons (and indeed a lot of other religious folks) are used to employing justifications for their beliefs, not logical, thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments in favor of their beliefs. That’s a huge difference. If a believer is using some sort of twisted logic or bizarre proof-texting to justify their “truth”, it’s easy to see why the same believer might try to use the same tactics to engage in a reasoned debate about an issue (political or otherwise) related to their religion and think that they’re being logical, reasonable, etc. when they’re really just using flawed methods to justify their zealotry. And that makes having productive conversations really challenging.
Brian,
Why did the op include a line about Trump exploiting political divide? All media and all politics is engaged in dividing the people and creating contention. Why single out Trump?
The article is worth reading and considering. But the author creates a distraction with the mention of Trump as an exploiter. The example of Trump that applies to the article is that people and institutions lost their minds about Trump, as if he was the devil incarnate. It became acceptable to not only attack Trump for breathing, but to attack, censor and cancel anyone who did not pledge opposition to Trump! The response to Trump is much more illustrative of uncivil American society than Trump himself.
The paragraph continues stating “Trump leading the way to saying the most inflammatory things possible, making it OK to openly defend some things that have always been lurking below the surface: racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, Naziism and white supremacy, and increasingly homo- and transphobia.”
Well hold on! Is the author for open conversation or against it? The political left rushes to censor conversation it does not want by labeling it, and here the author is providing justification for those labels!
Those labels are the rational for stopping the conversation! To promote more conversation the use of labels needs to be rejected. And yet the author is using them to present a negative view of a group of people. I don’t see that as constructive or helpful to promoting more conversation.
Disciple, why did the OP single Trump out? Look, I’m the kind of progressive guy who goes on 1-2 hr walks every week with my Libertarian friend, and your depiction of Trump and reactions to Trump aren’t exactly based on logic and facts, but on emotion (and probably tribalism). The OP is attacking a group of ideas, not people. Read that list again. I mean, if you want to defend those ideas (which you are calling labels), go ahead. We can call racist remarks racist and still have dialogue. Ideally, though, we then explain why those remarks are racist and help people work through their baggage and ignorance. But, yeah, people (as you’ve demonstrated) respond very forcefully to people calling out sinful ideas. That doesn’t make them less sinful. I don’t think we should be calling people racist, white supremacists, etc., but we should call out instances of those: eg, someone said a racists thing, instead of ‘that person is racist.’
“Do you think Mormons are more fragile about talking to those who disagree or roughly the same as everyone else?”
I don’t think Mormons are necessarily more fragile – all of society seems fragile at the moment. I would say there are some topics that tend to be closely guarded, and it’s easy for someone in bad faith to press one of those buttons. It can be hard to discern when someone is engaging in earnest on a topic or when they just want to start a fight.
————————————————————–
“Which of these reasons to avoid dialogue ring most true for you?”
It’s a tangled up mess of all of them. I find tribalism to be especially pervasive – tribalism has gutted the idea of nuance.
It’s very easy to find a tribe that always agrees with you on the internet, and social media does an efficient job of funneling you more of the same to hold your attention. There’s the shift in news media from reporting what’s happening to 24/7 speculation about what might happen. Then there’s the puritanical secular Calvinism that has filled the void with the decline in many religions…Also, there’s the decay of academia as a sanctuary for open and rigorous debate of ALL ideas. It’s a mess.
————————————————————–
“Have you found yourself unable to engage with the opposing viewpoint on some topics?”
I’ve found that many people are willing to engage and try, at least up to a point. The roving internet mobs showing up and wanting to break sh*t certainly don’t help.
Personally, I think some of the best ideas come from vigorous and often heated debate, but when done anonymously on the internet it’s easy to dehumanize the other side rather than try for genuine understanding (even if you disagree at the end). Plus you can always go back to your internet tribe to recharge your supply of confirmation bias.
————————————————————–
“What do you think would improve the ability for true peace-making and discussion of difficult topics?”
Massive natural disasters? Those seem to bring people together, at least for a moment.
More seriously though, I don’t know that any of us can take on this leviathan in its current state, but we can try to pick at the corners of it. Attempting to be self-aware and trying to at least notice our own cognitive biases when they inevitably show up. Also, understanding that mobs are made up of individuals…we may not be able to take on the whole mob, but there are probably some individuals in there worth engaging with.
There are pockets of the internet and society where people are sick and tired of divisiveness. They’re not as easy to find in all the noise, but they do exist. Some people with bigger names are joining in too. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to use his platform to build a positive corner of the internet that is based entirely on building others up and helping them live healthier happier lives. David Byrne (from The Talking Heads) hired a bunch of professional journalists to start a news site (called Reasons to be Cheerful) dedicated to solutions-based journalism to fight against endless negative news.
We can slowly move the needle in a more positive direction – there are plenty of people who are sick and tired of the current dynamic…we just need to be the change we want to see, and find the other islands of people who feel the same way (even though their opinions may differ from ours). We can always learn from others, even people we may dislike or vehemently disagree with.
I just have to laugh at how quickly this became inflamed over Donald Trump. He certainly didn’t create the divide (and the OP didn’t say he did), but he led a masterclass on exploiting it to accumulate power. Whether you love him or loathe him for it, and no matter where you stand politically, it’s still worth understanding and analyzing how he did it.
To be clear, I am in no way expressing my political position here, just observing how incredible it is that just invoking his name immediately generates a reaction.
I am having a hard time reading the comments because I see good points, then a terrible misunderstanding, then a good point, then OMG, how can they think that, then a damned good point.
THAT is the problem. There is truth on both sides and misunderstanding on both sides, yet we can’t take being told that we are wrong about something because we know we are right about things that seem similar. And we get scared because we feel attacked when someone shares a different idea and so we fight back.
So, if we are going to have conversations like this, we need to take correction, as well as just express how we think the other side is wrong. Start with the assumption that you are wrong and try to learn where.
So, I think Trump took advantage of the fear that people had, and by doing so, he convinced people they were right to be afraid. Show me where that is not correct. Some things they were right to be afraid, but others they were wrong and now they are sure they are right, so trump made things worse by closing people’s minds. Prove me wrong with facts or think about my point and admit there s truth there. I would love to be wrong about Trump because he had some good ideas but he increased people’s hate.
Brian,
You write “We can call racist remarks racist and still have dialogue”
Oh really. Your idea of open conversation is to begin with the premise that the other side is intrinsically biased against others due to their skin color. Should you not begin with the premise that you need to better understand what the other person is saying?
This is why many conclude high minded calls for civility are disingenuous. You call on others to drop their biases and fears, but you are unwilling to do that yourself. For you are morally right and just and those who disagree with you must change.
True dialogue would respect the reasons other give for ther opinion. Open dialogue cannot happen if it begins with the judgment of guilt.
Anna,
Every politician does precisely what you describe which is to exploit people’s fear for political gain. This strategy was perhaps best reflected in a 2012 political ad which showed a Republican politician – made to appear like GOP leader Paul Ryan – literally pushing “granny” off a cliff.
It shows bias – tribalism in fact – to isolate Trump as particularly divisive when being divisive and agitating people is the fundamental nature of American politics. Those sincerely wanting to improve the level of conversation in American society need to show awareness that ugliness is not uniquely attached to any one person or group.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/08/12/liberal-group-throws-granny-off-cliff-again/
Anna: You’re right, there are issues on both sides and Trump didn’t create the problem. But, he did exploit the divisions that we’ve had in our society and covered for whatever reason. I think the speed at which we went from having a “Black” president and thinking we maybe finally were over the issues that lead to the Civil Rights crisis which came to a head in the 50s/60s, to having horrible division, hate, and lies that came out of the 2016 election and Trump’s term in office has been mind boggling. No one wants to look at themselves as being a part of the hate but people also have a hard time looking at our society and wondering why they aren’t getting a good slice of the pie too. Hence the finger pointing and the exploitation of scapegoats. There was also extreme stress put on the church because of the cognitive dissonance caused by many thinking and stating how you couldn’t be a democrat and a good member of the church and then contrasting that with what the republican party was saying and doing.
So we have had a very turbulent period in history these past few years. People’s values have been assaulted on many sides and they have had to either change how they think about things or double down on their beliefs or possibly recognize our old beliefs might need to be changes with reluctance. All of this has heightened emotions and made even simple consolations to the other side hard.
So it’s not just Trump because there are others following in his footsteps and it seems to have become a way of doing political business. There is also pushback to the tactics used and there is serious discussion about working together and solving problems. But, I think the wounds are still raw from the past few years and it’s hard to give ground. It’s also hard not to blow up small issues into huge issues. We need to define what we really are. Who are “We the People…..? Does it include marginalized groups like LGBTQ or Transgender? Can we confront our history where we’ve made mistakes without tearing our society apart or do we ignore it and hope the problems just go away? Are we going to think more deeply about issues instead of reacting to words and descriptions like woke, liberal, or socialist which don’t really address anything but are used to fire up emotions.
This division we have in our society is bigger than one person, one party, one ideology, one nation, or one God. It is something though that has consequences that history has shown can cause us much pain and suffering. It’s time to work to heal the divisions, taking the blame where blame is do and advocating for the things that move forward ALL OF US with respect and dignity.
Disciple, if someone said, “Black people are lazy,” that is a racist remark and I can say so. That’s not high-minded.
My honest response would be (and has been), “Um . . . that seems sort of racist, what makes you say that?”
Or, we can just write, “You mentioned Trump. My triggers took over and I made false claims about what you wrote”, which is sort of what you did to the OP. And when people addressed that, you ignored it and moved on. And then you seemed to carry that same frustration forward to then mischaracterized the OP, charging that it was attacking people, when it was attacking ideas. When I pointed it out, you again ignored it and moved on.
I’m not a Coddling of the American Mind sort of person. The evidence here, though, seems that such and accusation is that you might be projecting that on to me.
I mean, we can have a conversation. I’m sorry you don’t seem to think adults can do that and still call evil, evil. To each their own.
Does anyone else find it ironic and unfortunate just how quickly the comments section devolved into just the kind of ridiculous conversation that the OP was trying to discuss?
@A Disciple – You misread the OP’s piece and intent. Trump didn’t start the fire. However, his exploitation of existing divisions to accumulate power gave license to some extremist elements to try to move their views into the mainstream. Think of Trump what you will but it’s hard to argue that he left the country less divided – that’s the point. He a contemporary example used in an attempt to illustrate a point in the post…he’s not the point of the post.
@Brian – You are virtue signaling with your long walks with libertarians and also missing the point. I get that you are trying to say that we should focus on ideas and not attack people – this is correct in principle, but it’s not how your comments are coming across. It’s a valid observation on the part of @A Disciple that labels and words like “racist”/”homophobic”/etc. are sometimes used to bludgeon opposition rather than form a productive dialog. You are also correct that we should be able to discuss why certain ideas may be bigoted…
You’re both in the same trench arguing with each other…surely we can do better here.
I didn’t say it was JUST Trump or that he started it or no other politician ever did it. Nobody who replied to me even tried to show me how I was wrong, you just misinterpreted what I said. Problem repeated. And repeated. Nobody listens, they just try to be right. Trump exploited people’s fears and reinforced those fears. He made a bad situation worse. Try to understand WHY those who think Trump is a disaster think that. You can’t do it if you won’t see what they are saying.
I can see why people think he is wonderful, but most who hate him refuse to see that. So, those of you who think he is wonderful and jump in to defend him from criticism need to listen to that criticism and think about it. And those who hate him need to understand why people think he is wonderful and to do that people need to listen. That is what I am saying, is both sides need to listen, not just react emotionally.
Mentioning his name is stopping communication because everyone on both sides reacts emotionally to either defend him or hate him. He has become a triggering conversation stopper. Back up and control your emotional reaction and listen to the other side.
Pirate,
I read the finger pointing at Trump as saying that because people became deranged with Trump being elected then all the crazy people did and felt is Trump’s fault. That is scapegoating. It is rationalizing the actions of individuals by blaming another person. Also, it is true Trump did give a voice to the concerns of blue collar Americans. These used to be Democrats. Now speaking for lesser educated white people is said to be “exploitation”. If so, then would we say politicians speaking for seniors, or blacks, or Hispanics is also exploitation? Do we apply a common standard in our political judgements or do we make up rules to justify our conclusions?
The tone of the comments reflect the conflicted message of the OP. This is unfortunate and likely would have been avoided if the OP had avoided political labels and revealed political bias. And to make clear, I do not like Donald Trump! I defended him where he deserved defense, applauded his successful policies and I have strongly disagreed with just about everything he has done since March 2020. But Trump is no longer president and hopefully never will be again and yet social division and strife persists.
I long for the return to a civility where substantive issues can be discussed. Where disagreement is acceptable and not viewed as a personal threat or danger. The OP provides constructive advice in this regard and the example of Patrick Mason is illustrative of the current challenge.
As it concerns the LDS church we can identify specific church policies that squelch conversation. There is the precedent of the church swiftly excommunicating members who openly question the leadership. There is the stated position that leaders should never be criticized. There are internal policies that make it impossible for members to have concerns elevated privately – they just get bounced back to local leadership.
It is sad to conclude that people supportive of the church and who prize their church membership and activity must anonymously engage in critical conversation about the church. This is a very unhealthy situation for the church, as it enables the leadership to cast all complaints as the voices of enemies. Now, in no means do I believe the church should be run as a democracy. But forcing complaints and concerns to the “back alley” creates a false confidence where actual trust is weakened.
And maybe to answer Hawk Girl’s title question about “can we talk?” No, we are not capable of talking rationally, because obviously we don’t listen to the other side, just react with defensive emotion and anger. This conversation proves it.
It would be nice for people from different sides to be able to discuss issues and find common ground.
Sadly, it has become rare in society today. I feel sorry that young people today are growing up in an environment where there are few, if any, examples of that occurring.
I t seems to me that civility began to decline with the advent of cable tv — blurring the line between news and talk shows. The internet accelerated the decline.
Earlier generations had more common sources of info— the major networks— with professional and ethical journalists.
Fear of conflict has become real to me. I made the mistake of opening up to a friend with my church related questions and was met with a barrage of personal attacks. I have no problem with someone disagreeing about issues but when it becomes personal— like suggesting you need your head examined etc it puts a stop to a discussion.
I don’t see things changing as long as people can make money or gain power from promoting garbage.
(Several years ago I enjoyed Dehlin’s original program. But, I too lost interest in the direction it was going. I wasn’t aware of the program with Reiss and Mason)).
“I Know The Church Is True”. -Amy, 3 years old, any fast and testimony meeting, anywhere
Brother Sky, you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head.
These comments are cracking me up!
For a post about being peacemakers and seeing other people’s perspectives, the comments have turned into a bit of a shitshow haven’t they? People having conversations with others who see things differently is something we all want — but none of us want to DO IT (“At least not with people who think ________ and we’re justified in our positions because they are causing harm!” 🙂 I love it!
I mean, I’m no genius, and I may be wrong about this, but I believe that any productive conversation probably needs to start with an admission of “I’m no genius and I may be wrong about this…” 🙂
Wow, lots to unpack here. I’m going to suggest we try to engage with ideas we find interesting in the comments without getting defensive, to the extent possible, and so that’s what I’ll try to do here.
Brother Sky: Your comment reminded me of the old adage that religions are kinder to heathens than to heretics. A heathen is seen as “innocent” and having potential to convert. A heretic is seen as a traitor.
lastlemming: I just wanted to clarify that personally I think the conflagration our blogging team had with JD was more of a tactical disagreement. I’m not sure I agree with the word “dishonorable.” He can be quite emotional and mercurial, and I don’t disagree with some of the other observations about his blogging becoming very pushy at times in his interviewing style; he seems like he wants his subjects to say specific things.
Pirate Priest: Your joke about natural disasters bringing people together might be more plausible if we hadn’t see the exact opposite happen during the pandemic. Now, who knows. 9/11 made us all feel like Americans again, holding hands and facing a common external threat. Those days feel long gone.
A Disciple: I’m not very interested in continuing to talk about Trump specifically here, so let’s talk concepts. Moving on, you lauded him for “fighting back” in contrast to what other conservative leaders did, seeing themselves above the fray. That’s an important aspect of this discussion. What do we do when we perceive we are being smeared, threatened or are losing “face”? The norm has shifted. It used to be “sticks and stones,” and now it feels like let’s actually use real sticks and real stones.
I noticed, though, that while you see it as positive to “fight back” against critics, you seem less willing to extend that courtesy to speech on the left in terms of calling racist speech racist, etc. There are often falsehoods spread about marginalized groups; the harms to these groups are often dismissed or minimized. It seems likely that we disagree on the borders of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
This brings up a variety of open questions. I completely agree with you that I dislike the idea that we would cancel debates of ideas on campuses, and I agree that we need to allow protests and even hate speech as legal; it’s part of the foundation of our country. Let the best ideas win.
But what about when those ideas incite harm against others? What about denying marginalized groups access to public goods, or denying them basic human dignity and respect? Is it OK to use the “n” word? In what contexts is it OK? What about calling women names? Using the “f” slur against gay people? When a speaker is invited to a campus, in what context is their speech viewed? As an endorsement of their platform? What do we owe to the students in terms of how these things are sponsored? I’m not arguing for a specific approach here, just pointing out the complicating factors that should be discussed. I agree in part with Jonathan Haidt (in the Coddling of the American Mind) that we aren’t doing college students any favors if we slap “trigger” labels on everything to prevent them from hearing “bad” opinions, but I’m also sympathetic to the fact that there is a lot of trauma out there, and we’ve been terrible at dealing with it throughout history.
Can We Talk? Nope. Mormons want to talk about Exmormons, not with us. Wherever we happen to be, Mormons will intentionally avoid engaging, rather than risk other Mormons seeing them treat an exmo with kindness and dignity.
Just one more comment about the “Trump” effect in conversations, sorry. But, how can you really have a conversation that calls for the “facts” when it seems we live in an age where we pick our own facts and ignore anyone else’s no matter how many believe that set of facts. I’ve seen over the past few years in the church and in comments in Utah Newspaper and TV news comment boards people with their own facts calling others names about masks, vaccines, Covid, Climate Change, elections, CRT, the Clinton/Obama child abuse ring, LGBTQ issues, marriage equality, Clarence Thomas, and we could go on and on. We even have a term that legitimizes this calling our view “alternative facts” where we can total disregard “what is” and spin it our own way. It’s really hard to have a good conversation when we each have our own facts and won’t let go at the same time demanding “facts” to prove us wrong which we can disregard when presented to us. Name calling, name dropping, and redefinitions of words like “woke” are then used to discredit us. So it’s not just conversation that needs to change but having an agreement about what constitutes truth, facts, or data that is reliable and trusted by all. If we can agree that 1+1=2 than we disagree about what we are going to do with it and talk about that but where can a conversation go if one person thinks it’s 2 and someone else says it’s 3 and a third denies it even exists.
Hoo boy, this comment section. Way to prove Hawkgrrrl’s point.
Here’s another data point to illustrate where we’re at: a family member who lives in Canada recently got called to serve a mission in a different part of Canada. Except of course he needs to pop down to the States to attend the MTC.
His belief system is orthodox. But because he lives in a country with universal health care……. yeah. Lots of grief while at the MTC for being “socialist.” From fellow American missionaries who are also going to be serving in Canada.
(Here’s some basic high school Social Studies knowledge: Canada is not socialist. Also, socialism and communism aren’t the same thing.)
Yeah, I know we’re talking about the behaviour of a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year olds. But I think the story points to a larger problem. Politics has gotten a lot nastier and it’s affecting how we worship together.
“Church members and Donald Trump” is a legitimate topic. But I think Mormon News Weekly’s failure to launch has deeper roots that go back to the “Us vs. them” attitude of the early Church. Some of this “polarization” was due to the Pandora’s box of polygamy, among other reasons. There was also a deep suspicion of “apostates.” See Sidney Rigdon’s Salt Sermon as one example. In more recent years, we have had the hardline political polarization of Ezra Taft Benson, as well as the rigid dogma and stern authoritarianism of Elders Peterson, Stapley, McConkie, Packer et al. This followed by Elder Holland’s “musket” sermon. Trump threw gas on a fire, but he did not start it. Would be nice for the Church and its leaders to reflect on the cartoon possum Pogo’s admission that “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Would make a great general conference talk, but I am not holding my breath.
I’ve got say I’m disappointed that Patrick Mason walked away but I’m not surprised. I’m more surprised that people on this site are blaming John Dehlin. I hope you got to see the episodes they recorded before they were taken down. John was incredible gracious and Patrick even said as much on the show. Apparently that was the problem. His twitter blew up in a frenzy of negativity over this. Most definitely Mormons are more fragile. I was really hoping Nelson’s talk would spark some actionable resolve but it appears it will become a forgettable episode spoken of only in context of honorary awards.
I look to the Book of Mormon for answers. Recently while reading from Nephi’s prophecies I was struck by these words. I’ve read them many times before but I came away from this reading thinking we may be nearing a time when church leaders will use these verses to tell church members we have crossed the line.
5 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying: Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent it shall be well with them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard that whoso repenteth not must perish.
6 Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.
7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.
(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 14:5 – 7)
The Savior in 3 Nephi 16 addresses the Gentiles and warns in words that we had better not take lightly what will happen when the Gentiles shall sin against “my gospel.” I think he is speaking to those who accept the gospel then shall “sin against my gospel”.
Corou: I think with the episodes they did being taken down, people will jump to conclusions based on previous experience with or impressions of John. The Tweets by Patrick definitely did not place the blame on John, so that’s a good callout.
I’m a former bishop that was released about 4 or 5 years ago. I served as the bishop for over 5 years. Before that I was a counselor in the bishopric and before that I was the eq president. My wife served in the RS presidency, multiple YW presidencies, and as nursery leader. I’m only sharing this to demonstrate how extensively me and my family were once integrated in to our ward. Our ward is not one where a lot of people move in and out. I’d say of the current attending members at least 75% of them are people who were in the ward when I was their bishop. I know most of these people intimately. They know me intimately. My current bishop served as the ward clerk and as a counselor in my bishopric. I worked with many of these people for literally hundreds of hours. They heard my testimony on a very regular basis. They are my friends.
For a variety of reasons, almost entirely having to do with the church as an institution, me and my family have stepped away from the church. My wife and I asked that we not be called to anything and/or have refused callings when extended. For about a year and a half or so we attended church about half of the Sundays in any given month, but more recently we have not been at all.
As an anecdotal testament to the membership of the church avoiding any kind of confrontation at all costs, not one person in the current leadership (or anyone else for that matter) has asked the simple question “why?” Do they vehemently express that they miss us and how good it is to see us when we show up to something or see us in the store? Sure. Do they pay extra special attention to our kids when they attend an activity? Yes. We are definitely, and sufficiently, projected. But not one person has asked us why we stopped coming and won’t take a calling.
I find this baffling. The only reasons I can come up with to explain this is that they are afraid to hear the explanation because it will require them to have a conversation with someone who they know was completely bought-in, but now isn’t. They know me and that I would never leave if it weren’t for very good reasons, so they are afraid to find out what those reasons are. The more probable explanation is that they assume they know the answer already, because what else would it be except “the gays” and the priesthood/temple ban? If they are just assuming that is the reason, then their failure/refusal to confirm it is just another version of conflict avoidance.
Anyway… yes, our default to avoid any sort of disagreement (“contention”) at all costs is a real thing, and it cuts against any ability we would otherwise have to expand our understanding of another’s perspective, but perhaps that’s the point.
Here’s the truth as I see it: conservatism sees that the world changing. That change involves the rejection of false narratives, the rejection of manipulation, the rejection of money grubbing, the rejection of misogyny, the rejection of homophobia, and the rejection of racism. The progress in rejecting such behavior and thought is halting and sometimes there are set backs. But the world has seen, through empirical evidence that a world rejecting such behavior and dogma is better for a greater number of people, and so that’s the future most people are embracing. The conservatives, for at least 90 years have been reactionary. They see such progress as a threat to their power. Since 1968, with the election of Nixon, a man completely unfit to lead this or any other nation, conservatism has been in a losing battle. They no longer can control with fear and intimidation. Sometimes in that period between 1968 and now there was a tipping point: more people believed in the hope and promise of truth than believed in the fear and hate. What we see today is the last gasp of conservatism. Within my lifetime it will utterly transform itself and acquese to progress while embracing truth it will seek to carve out space for the superstition of its members, acknowledging that it no longer has the power to dictate to the nation as a whole and simply trying to preserve the quaint institutions that harbor vestiges of its former doctrine.
Well I am not jumping into this fray except to say that I don’t think anyone is saying that John did something during the podcast that made
Patrick leave. Rather, that the very presence of John on the podcast caused a bunch of Patrick’s friends / colleagues to freak out. Nothing to do with the content.
Seems like the radical orthodoxy(TM) crowd didn’t want Patrick hanging out with John.
Someone tell me why Trump is wonderful. I think he’s terrible, but I’m willing to consider rational arguments to the contrary.
@Builderwill Respectfully, I just don’t see this all as the final death throes of conservatism. Globally speaking freedom and individual rights are in retreat while populism and authoritarianism are on the rise.
Putin & Xi Jinping are both in charge until they die…Even Zuckerberg has setup Facebook so he can never be fired no matter what he does. The Arab spring was a dud. The US Capitol was invaded by a mob and a clown in a viking hat.
Much of the current “liberal” side is just as authoritarian as the conservative side…They’re too busy playing red team vs blue team to be effective at much of anything anyway.
Independent news sources around the world are being silenced and closed down. Regimes are locking down parts of the internet they don’t like (Even Utah is taking a stab at this one).
Cancel culture has basically all the purifying and purging tendencies of 16th century Puritanism…this time with the rules of purity being set by the whims of Twitter mobs.
Globalization has successfully increased the concentration of power and wealth for the already powerful and wealthy – the opposite way we thought it’d go even just 15 years ago.
I don’t mean to sound bleak, but there are very serious issues brewing and the inability of “The People” to talk about hard things opens the door for the shadows that have darkened our doors before.
That said there are some amazing people out there doing some amazing things. We just need to listen, learn, and compromise.
It seems to me that those controlling the money are only too happy to foster divisions, and the making of scapegoats amongst all marginalised groups. Much the same process is happening here in the UK at the moment, and it isn’t pretty. Whilst pointing the finger of blame at any and all, they’re walking away with the wealth. It’s all so tiring. A couple of recent newspaper articles are relevant to this point, whilst addressing a recent political kerfuffle.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/diane-abbott-letter-shows-antiracism-reduced-to-decrying-white-privilege
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/27/diane-abbott-racism-letter-racial-politics
Definitely read to the end of the second article. Divide and conquer, as they say.
Two thumbs up to what The Pirate Priest wrote @ 11:12pm and Two thumbs up to Instereo’s comments @ 6:29 pm
Pirate writes “Independent news sources around the world are being silenced and closed down.”
Instero writes “It’s not just conversation that needs to change but having an agreement about what constitutes truth, facts, or data that is reliable and trusted by all.”
These two things are closely related. What is true? What does the data show? If people cannot agree on what the evidence actually is, it is impossible to have intelligent conversations. All discourse simply becomes a battle of wits – of sophistry, which really means all conversation devolves into babbling nitwits, and boy am I good at nitwittery!
The inability of society to agree on facts and the inability to have trusted, independent, sources of reporting is a huge obstacle to social progress. Various leaders and pundits can promote ideas for greater civility, but the inability to agree on the evidence is a massive stumbling block.
Tribalism is the natural course of societies with broken trust. When people lose confidence in public institutions (a free press being the greatest public institution) they turn to private answers. America, as in almost all countries, has a media heavily influenced by political and corporate forces. This leads people to question what is reported, and so we turn to the cacophony of alternate sources. We each find messaging that agrees with our sentiments, but we collectively do not share common ground.
But why do people respond to disagreement with anger and venom? That is a puzzle to me. I can perfectly understand dislike for something. But why does dislike transform into hate? Where does that impulse come from?
I actually think this was a constructive OP and comment thread. I appreciate all who contributed. I’m going to leave the last word to Carl Sagan. A man who had a great mind and perspective on the world. A perspective I have come to appreciate more with age. We must each gain confidence in ourselves to discern truth from error. This is our greatest individual challenge and it requires constant effort and discipline. And if we don’t choose to think for ourselves, others will think for us. Carl Sagan explains:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
@a disciple, love Carl Sagan too and think that what he says about being bamboozled has a lot of relevance for members of the LDS church.
It’s very very difficult to challenge one’s own beliefs. Cognitive biases are real and it’s VERY uncomfortable to have to sit with contradiction in our beliefs and feelings…And that confirmation-bias dopamine feels amazing (and is easy to find these days).
Having a nuanced view is ok…good even. The LDS church, or any church/organization, can do/teach some good things while also being wrong on other things. It can be a positive force in your life and not be the right answer for someone else (or vice versa). We can still listen and learn and discuss.
We CAN and must talk to each other. Carl Sagan was right that we need to watch out for charlatans. We also shouldn’t feed trolls…but most people are just trying to figure things out like the rest of us.
Well, hawkgrrrl, you have a new (to me) post here, pattered after the old ones. Thanks for explaining about the podcast, I had no idea. I have mixed feelings as one does, but I’m all out of pontoons or whatever one floats their pontificating on. My only thought is that I see almost every one of us seeking to have wounded sensibilities acknowledged, affirmed, and addressed, and one big failing is the ability to “accurately” assess a hierarchy of importance on the morass of wounded sensitivities. No quick fixes there.
anecdotal,
“But not one person has asked us why we stopped coming and won’t take a calling.”
I’ve no doubt that part of the reason some folks don’t ask that question is because they want to avoid conflict–which (IMO) is a good thing so long as it’s not taken to an extreme. Even so, do you think it’s possible that some folks in your ward don’t want to judge you? That they want you to know they care about you regardless of whatever it is that has pushed you away?
The reason I say this is because my experience — and I rarely attend because of reasons beyond my control — is that my friends in the ward have never judged me for not being there. And as in your experience–they’re always really happy to see me on those rare occasions when I do show up.
That said, however things go for you–I wish you and your family the best.
Even so, come back, brother.
Builderwill,
“Sometime in that period between 1968 and now there was a tipping point: more people believed in the hope and promise of truth than believed in the fear and hate.”
I think the social upheaval that followed World War II was inevitable. We could only go so far in our efforts to build a respectable society without the underpinnings of pure religion. And so it was only natural that the rising generation would not be able to tolerate what appeared to them to be blatant hypocrisy. Even so, the adversary has a way of piggybacking on virtue. He carefully rides the hind side of the wave — where he remains unnoticed while the world gawks at the beautiful crest and spectacular crash — until it’s too late and the father of sin appears on our shores. And so, amid everything that was good and true at that critical period of change was an “incidental” casualty that was the real target of the evil one: the family. And since those days and on through to the present the family has been and continues to be shredded to pieces. And through it all the prophets have warned us and are forewarning us against the destruction of the family. These are perhaps the most sobering words ever spoken in our lifetimes:
“We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Integral to Mormon theology is that they are engaged in a war- and in a war, you do not fraternize. You seek to destroy. When Nelson talks of “peacemakers”, what he really means (until events prove otherwise) is “magnanimous victors”. Nothing will ever change until the Q-15 tell the members that we re not in the Last Days and that there is no such thing as the Last Days.
slskipper,
You say there is no such thing as the Last Days, but civilizations / societies fail. Is failure avoidable? That is the great question.
The Book of Mormon makes the case that righteous leadership’s can change the course of history. King Mosiah and then king Benjamin preserved the Nephite people with the sword. Then Captain Moroni did similar. Nephi and Lehi saw looming doom and they opted to preach. They had successs among the Lamanites but not with the Nephites. Thereafter there were good years and bad years and eventually the great majority fell into wickedness and society collapsed. This collapse happened twice – first at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and the second several centuries after Jesus visited the surviving remnant of Nephites & Lamanites.
Per the Book of Mormon, societal failure is inevitable, but can be delayed. Per “Last Days” prophecy, societal failure is inevitable and cannot be delayed but Jesus will only come when society has failed, which is inevitable. Per the history of the world societal failure of some degree or another is inevitable but failure can be avoided by wise governance. Unfortunately, people inevitably screw up and this brings societal destruction and devastation.
Regardless of religion, a wise people should energetically oppose those ideas and activities that would put their society at risk. WWII and the events preceding it are an illustrative example.
It is true Christian theology argues there exists a war – a conflict – between good and evil. The literal interpretation of this conflict existed in various forms in 19th century Missouri, Nauvoo and Utah. In the 20th and 21st century this conflict has been presented as figurative. In my long experience in the LDS church one thing I can say about Mormons is they have no heart for physical conflict, except on the basketball court. So I’m not sure what you base your stark assessment of Mormon / Mormon culture on. Modern Mormons want to be liked and the last thing they are looking for is a war.
A Disciple: I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you find Steve Bannon extremely compelling. Personally, I think the BOM’s “pride cycle’ to be kind of run of the mill as far as scripture goes. There are similar examples in the Bible, but I’m not one to use these stories to predict future events per se. There are lessons to be learned here, but that doesn’t mean we have a template for the downfall of society. Last I checked, human pride is a pretty constant feature.
Slskipper, you write about not fraternizing with the enemy, without saying who the enemy is. You will recall that the apostle John told Jesus that he had seen someone casting out devils in Jesus’ name, but obviously not of their fellowship, and John forbade him. “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” I can easily see an active Latter-day Saint person thinking that people in other faiths who do “Christian” things are against us, because they don’t have authority, so they say that other faith groups “play church” (a particularly offensive comment, but we promoted Brad Wilcox at the last conference, so evidently his demeaning words are appreciated by his superiors). But in Luke, we read about this guy who was not part of Jesus’ “authorized” group (like Methodists or Catholics or Buddhists aren’t part of our faith grou) and who did good works in the name of Jesus, and Jesus seemed to be OK with it. Was Jesus fraternizing with the enemy? I don’t dare make such an accusation, and I am slow to call people my enemy. Satan is the enemy, but people may be deluded or trapped or ensnared by him, and I’d rather treat them as friends with the hope of rescuing them, rather than calling them the enemy and refusing to fraternize with them, or perhaps better yet to kill them with spiritual bullets of unkindness. I respectfully do not think that Pres. Nelson would equate being peacemakers with being magnanimous victors. Before I can be a victor, I have to defeat my foe. I’d rather walk with him and try to bring him to our side, than to defeat him, and then show kindness after destroying him.
Angela,
I am unaware of Steve Bannon’s worldview so I’ll need your assistance to explain why I should have an affinity to it.
I’ll take a stab and guess that from the progressive viewpoint, concern about societal collapse is a “right-wing” fixation. And while that is an accurate stereotype, be advised that in reality societies fail and we have many examples from modern history.
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. This Communist empire only lasted 80 years and reaped tremendous death and destruction during the years it lasted. The Japanese empire failed with defeat in WWII. The Nazi German empire failed with its defeat in WWII. The German Weimar Republic failed in the 1920s due to hyperinflation brought on by Germany’s defeat in WWII. Cambodia and Laos were devastated by the Pol Pot regime of the 1970s. And at the hands of the US government, Iraq, Iran and Libya and other nations have experienced massive societal changes due to military invasion, overthrow of their governments and related civil war.
All of this has taken place in the past 100 years.
May our generation be wiser, and lucky.
slskipper, astute observation.
Also Mormon last days have nothing to do with civilizations collapsing. We are talking Jesus coming back. Not the same.
“Playing church”…wtf. I wish the Pope had been there to slap Brad Wilcox upside the head with the collective force of a billion Catholics.
Mormons make up 0.02% of the world population…that’s 1/5 of one percentage point. Yet some of us have the audacity to claim that everyone else faking it…unbelievable.
@Georgis I feel like that part of the NT doesn’t get enough emphasis. Very relevant to the OP. Thanks for pointing it out.
A Disciple: Yes, you are more or less citing his perspective. Bannon’s big on the idea that the world works in time cycles, or turnings, and every 80 years something new happens that radically changes everything. Part of his politics is his desire to hasten the next upheaval: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaWYO_FG9Ec
Late to discussion.
Somewhere along the lines there are points of agreement, I believe. Trying to convince a full believer that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century is likely to be a fruitless discussion with lots of talking past one another and talking in circles. However, can we agree that no one should be shamed or blamed for no longer believing in the Book of Mormon and that coercion and manipulation are unproductive and mean ways of getting someone to believe and participate? I would hope so.
There is also the matter of the Overton window, the range of acceptable disagreement in a given group. Flat Earthers are and should be excluded from mainstream academic disciplines of physics and astronomy. In academia, Flat Eartherism simply isn’t accepted nor is it given a platform, nor is it even listened to with any seriousness. Are the Flat Earthers being wronged or denied their freedom of speech? No. Groups shouldn’t be forced to include every possible viewpoint on a given matter. Nor would that even be plausible, productive, or desirable. It would be chaos. Could there or should there be discussion groups between acclaimed astrophysicists and Flat Earthers? Not necessarily. The concern is in part giving the Flat Earthers a platform that they don’t deserve, exposure to a much wider audience than they deserve. Plus, there is no way that we should expect any self-respecting astrophysicist to treat flat earther arguments as if they have any merit whatsoever. And such it is with Mormonism. The Overton window just doesn’t permit good faith interactions between believing and non-believing on the hot-button issues in any depth. I’ve tried in private many times to engage apologists, and to little avail. I can’t imagine something happening in a public setting. To most non-believing academics, many of the central truth claims of Mormonism are like flat eartherism. And to many solidly believing Mormonism, the non-believers just don’t get it. They haven’t seen what they’ve seen and haven’t felt what they’ve felt. The Overton window issue applies to the Mormon community as well. I’ve never seen a congregation or one of the BYUs invite a speaker who lays out a strong case against the Mormon church’s central truth claims. They don’t want to platform them, or give any validity to them before a believing church or student audience.
A Disciple:
“The Book of Mormon makes the case that righteous leadership’s can change the course of history.”
If that is the case that it is making, it makes a pretty poor case. The righteous groups in the Book of Mormon always seemed to just eek out an existence against much larger and often more dominant groups that were not righteous such as the Lamanites, wicked groups of Nephites, and other -ites. Eventually the righteous groups dwindled and were killed off. Can we say that they really changed the course of history, even just within a Book of Mormon framework?
Speaking historically, outside the framework of the Book of Mormon, unfortunately, about every large political entity achieved part of its greatness through war, savagery, and destruction of enemy groups. The US is no exception. You could make the case that the US may have achieved “greatness” through less savagery than other “great” nations. But still.
I do think that high cost religions based primarily on dogma and truth claims (ie. Mormons and evangelicals) produce more fragility around disagreement among their ranks, than do lower cost religions based on things like tradition, “high church” liturgy, and community (ie. Mainline protestants, Catholics [to an extent], and particularly Judaism). This is because in the former, the stakes are so high if one publicly deviates from dogma. Orthodox Mormons see opposing – or even nuanced views as a threat, and prefer to silence those who hold them rather than engage with their views while keeping those individuals wthin the fold. Lower cost traditions, in contrast tend to hold room for disagreement, even welcoming it as part of a collective “wrestle” with the divine. For example, one could be a committed Jewish atheist and still be fully welcome in their community (yes, I do realize there is a strong ethnic identity element there, but still). On the other hand, if someone were to get up in F&T meeting and say something like, “I just finished reading the Book of Mormon again and can’t wait to revisit some of my other favorite works of inspired fiction, such as the Screwtape Letters… well, we all know what would happen. The hallmark of a mature religious tradition is how well it engages with new or opposing ideas, ideally with curiosity and compassion, rather than fear and censorship. Unfortunately, Mormons have a long way to go, and I’m afraid may never get there.
@mat You are right about rigidity also being a source of fragility… porcelain tile is tough and rigid, but those properties also make it fragile under certain conditions. More flexible belief systems have different conditional strengths and weaknesses.
In an LDS context, especially on the missionary side, there’s the teaching that the BoM is the keystone text…that if it’s true, then ALL of it has to be true…if it’s not true, then none of it is true. It’s very binary. (Often followed by, “I know it’s true, now go pray until you know it’s true”). Then there’s a whole series of other things that MUST be 100% true as a result.
I used to teach that to others…Now I find it to be reductive sophomore logic that gets the church into trouble outside of its own bubble. But it’s the foundational belief of many many people…and maybe I’m the one who is wrong.
Maybe one day we’ll discover a “Welcome to Zarahemla” sign in the jungle…maybe we won’t. That’s not really the point of faith anyway. It’s still possible to be inspired by the stories even if we can’t scientifically prove they are literally & historically true.
Speaking of C.S. Lewis stories, The Great Divorce is also amazing. I like to imagine that there really is a bus tour of heaven that people in hell can take (then stick around if they sort themselves out).
@pirate. It might just be me, but it seems like the church has quietly moved away from the whole keystone thing, as well as references to modern-day “Lamanites” etc. Even the translation process has become fuzzier in recent years compared to the simple he read the plates directly through those glasses thingies. I think the church would like to see all of these pesky details that haven’t held up to scrutiny go away. I actually think that a lot more tbm’s have serious doubts about the historicity of the BofM than are willing to admit it.
Personally I love John and Margi Dehlin. Mormon Stories Podcast(s) have most likely saved my life. God Bless Them. As for Patrick Mason and Jana Reiss – who by all accounts seem to be very nice people – are really pretty milquetoast. In reading the posts above….it’s readily apparent that we here are not one wit better than anyone else; in terms of being kind, listening carefully, allowing someone else to have a differing opinion and simply being gracious. For the most part Wheat and Tares is rapidly becoming just another liberal/political echo chamber….sad, really. This used to be the place to come.