35 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Friday, May 24, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
I don’t think it hurts the church. I live in Cedar City—165 miles north of Vegas. A lot of people who live here are from there and it’s a small world for church members in southern Utah and Nevada. A member of our ward knew Reid and didn’t like him at all. He’s pretty widely disliked here—and I suspect in most of Nevada. I might be wrong, but I think Vegas is the population center of Nevada and is largely Democrat. My Democrat friends in Vegas like Reid. I’ve heard that he has changed a lot, though, and that those LDS who know him have mixed emotions. But that’s politics. For me, Devyn, the larger issue is how your teacher responded. I’m troubled by my impatience with crap that gets tossed out in meetings and the contention it brings into my life. I can live with disagreeing opinions but not the implication that if I disagree, I’m a sinner—-I’m the problem. I sit in meetings and think “shut your mouth; don’t say it”—sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Cheiko Okazaki was able to dissent charitably, with grace and dignity and she earned respect. But she was the exception and while I can roll with how negatively I’m perceived, I’m disgusted with those who, like your teacher, toss out a scripture and shut the door. Maddening. |
Yeah we probably have too big a phiobia about disagreement. Not all disagreement is contentious or negative, nor should it be perceived that way. There are people (looking at many Mormons over the age of 60 here) who seem to be unable to disagree without being a**holes, but we should welcome debate and disagreement as an opportunity to learn from each other. |
Anne – interesting commentary on Reid – How much of that dislike is based on political differences? I used to shut my mouth, but am vocal most of the time now. MCQ – agreed, there is a fear of disagreement. Ironically, in the HP group where I sit, I am the only one under 60 (or 70) for that matter, but they are pretty cordial about disagreeing. |
I would suspect the older crowd is fearful of contention due to their personal knowledge and experience with members leaving the church after the ban had been lifted. |
It’s probably most of it, Devyn. The closer we get to the election, the more I hear about how bad the Democrats are. I wish my Republican friends could hear themselves speak of Obama with the same words my Democrat friends spoke of Bush. I just don’t like the looks of Harry Reid, myself. |
Not to put too fine a point on the “disputation”, but Harry Reid was the one who picked pu the religion stone and hurled it. To the best of my knowledge, Romney has not called into question the degree to which Reid exemplifies or sullies their shared religion. Personally I find Senator Reid to be a hopelessly corrupt shameless politican. That said, I don’t see it as within my pervue to assess the degree to which he practices his faith. |
Cordeiro – fair point that Harry started the war. Of course, I wonder what the back story is between these two. |
There doesn’t seem to be any back story. Reid said during the last campaign that he’d never met Romney. What we see on the surface&mdashRomney is the Republican nominee and Reid is a national Democratic leader—explains things amply. |
Come on John – I was hoping for something like – they were both in the same ward and had a massive argument over Adam God Theory in High Priests Group and the bad blood has continued. That would be more fun than a purely political answer. |
Devyn, I agree with the instructor. In his view, apparently, the disagreement in the class had progressed to contention. a church meeting is not the place to contend, and not the place to say that an apostle who was speaking over the pulpit at gen conf was wrong. Its one thing to say his analogy was tenuous from a scientific standpoint, but calling him wrong may be going a bit too far. You need to be much more diplomatic than that. One of the things that God HATES is when someone “sows discord among brethren”, Proverbs 6:19. It’s one thing to discuss different viewpoints, but when it starts to border, or cross the line, to contention or argument, it does need to shut down at church. |
We seem unable to discuss anything except where all agree with the answers. Perhaps because some have such a narrow view of what is optional. I was asked to teach HP on Sunday (first time in years and probably last) using a talk by Pres Uchtdorf on the WHY of the Gospel. Which to me was saying the church is a means to help us live the Gospel. So it seemd obvious we needed to know what was church and what was gospel. So I made some columns on the board titled principle, gospel, temple, church, culture, and asked which column some things went in. Someone immediately wanted beards, and white shirts in the culture column. Love god and love fellow man, no problem. I asked where “for the strength of youth” should go. HP Group leader immediately said scripture/ Gospel, others said no don’t think so . We had the same for the “family Proclamation” scripture from group leader so I had him read the comference talk by Boyd Packer where he originally said it was revelation but when printed it said “a guide” he didn’t accept that and said it was scripture. There was not contention, no anger, which I think is required for contention. I didn’t even get to where conservative politics fitted. When I finished the lesson, the HP group leader had the final word by saying everything taught in church was gospel and I should not have been trying to say otherwise. I have been thinking about it since and, taking into account that even when he reads that an apostle says something is a guide, if he believes it is scripture, then it can not be questioned without it being contention. He has on a number of occasions told me my information was from the devil because it wasn’t what he believed, even when it was backed up by someone else as true. I believe we filter anything we hear/see through our beliefs and so we hear different messages. Someone who believes the church is perfect ( he says it) can only see any questions as of the devil and contentious. I think this is a terrible problem because these are the kind of people we tend to call to position of authority in the church. This HP leader has been a Bishop and on a stake presidency. We are due for a change of Bishop and I am scared he might be it. |
So, in Sunday School, just yesterday, the teacher used the word “liberal” as a synonym for “wicked” on several occasions. It was mostly used to describe the Gadianton robbers. I moved back to Utah from the East Coast a couple of months ago. There, I would have challenged this instantly. Here, I still don’t feel like I have the street cred to call people on crap like this. Or maybe I’m a coward. I’m sure my wife appreciated my keeping my mouth shut, though. It probably saved me a lot of angry calls to repentance. Anyway, I avoided contention… and I regret it. |
I think this is a real problem, and Bookslinger, I respect your giving the conservative POV but you’re wrong, the pendulum has swung too far toward stamping out any dissent or disagreement as “contention.” Not every disagreement is contention, there are examples of loving and respectful disagreement in the scriptures, and brethren correcting each other without rancor. That HPG leader in Geoff’s comment is exerciseing unrighteous dominion and he is in the wrong. And Orwell’s SS teacher is equally wrong. We ought to be able to find a charitable way to say so. I had a GD teacher that I thought was teaching false doctrine once. I approached the bishop about it and he told me to talk to the guy myself in as charitable a way as I could. I did and had a good discussion with him. I’m not sure I convinced him of anything, but I showed him that there were alternate points of view on the subject. I suspect he will think about it more carefully before teaching that lesson again. It was not a contentious discussion at all. We need more of that, not less. |
10. Bookslinger – I have to respectfully disagree, without being contentious. You would not say that prior leaders were wrong for saying things like “the civil rights movement is a communist plot”, etc. We should call it out when they are wrong – saying that Elder Nelson is wrong on something (scientific) he knows very little about is fine and should be encouraged. Your view that the leaders are infallible is why others think we are a cult. 11. Geoff – Sounds like your experience was like mine – Sorry that occurred. 12. Orwell – I have certainly regretted not saying things previously. Interestingly, I have not regretted saying anything in a GD like setting (but have regretted lots of other things I have said…) 13. MCQ – well said! Always nice when I agree with you – makes it much easier :) |
I’m the guy who gets up and walks out when something like Orwell’s experience occues. |
I’ve called out teachers who were criticizing liberals (also a euphemism for Democrat) in Church classes. I’ve walked out of meetings, too, but I think it serves the Lord better to find a way to point out the incorrectness of such teachings. Again, Cheiko was awesome at that. I most often use humor, but sometimes I’m ticked. The right question can wake people up to what’s occurring, too. I’ve sat in meetings where the few Democrats in the back row had tears in their eyes and thanked me for speaking up. I might have brought contention into the room, but I frankly think God feels pretty contentious when He hears that going on. I might have asked, in Orwell’s situation “how does my hatred and condemnation of liberals—and it’s pretty clear you’re speaking of Democrats—-bring me to Christ, which is the main purpose of our church?” Orwell, Utah is a good news/bad news state. It’s worth it to me and my oneriness is pretty widely (with a huge exasperated sigh) accepted. You can get away with a lot if you mostly conform. It’s lonely at times, but this post has reinforced my conviction that we must speak up. |
Or you could ask “so God told you that the Democrats, including the ones in this room, are damned? Have you called the prophet to let him in on that?” You could have a lot of fun playing with a teacher’s head with small innocent questions. Of course, his head might explode. |
annegb – I wish you were in my ward! |
Me, too, because then I would be in England. I bet I could take up a collection among my leadership to send me :). |
I think the real problem in your HP Group is your instructor! If you were not contentious, as you saw it, then he shouldn’t have scolded you. If you WERE contentious, then why in heck did he wait till the end of the class time to do anything about it? It’s his responsibility to guide the discussion, to get it back on track if it was derailed, to correct doctrinal errors, and so on. What was he doing, if not that? And why wasn’t he doing his job? If the so-called contention wasn’t serious enough to call a foul during discussion, it wasn’t serious enough to say anything at the end when it was too late to do anything about it. Phooey on him. |
If we don’t allow any level of disagreement then whoever says something stupid first wins by default. Clearly this is not a worthwhile strategy. Personally I cringed during the evolution/printshop example. It certainly merits a frank discussion of its merits and shortcomings. |
Devyn, I didn’t say disagreement is contention, nor did I say that leaders are infallible. Many people do appear to think all disagreement is contention, but I’m not one of them. It all depends on how the disagreement is handled. If not handled correctly, disagreement can progress into contention if one or more parties to the discussion allow it. It’s possible to use diplomatic language to express disagreement without the harshness of “You’re/He’s WRONG!” It’s one thing to disagree among ourselves. Disagreement with leaders is a special situation, since we make a committment to sustain them, which is why I suggested a more diplomatic response than “he’s wrong”. There are more gentle and diplomatic ways to disagree. It would seem to me that the teacher who conducted your lesson, and the person who presides at your meeting would have the right to make the call if something progresses to contention. If you disagreed with their call, well then there’s another oppotunity to practice diplomacy, and see if you have the power to righteously persuade the person to see things your way. Working out disagreements in a righteous non-contentious way is important to study and master. Failure to do so can lead to apostasy of oneself and of others. If a leader uses unrighteous dominion to handle disagreements, he can lose members of the flock. If a member turns bitter and starts to back-bite, he risks personal apostasy, and that of family members. Too many of us, including me, use avoidance as a coping mechanism, which doesn’t really solve anything. But it is often very much easier to keep quiet and pretend disagreements don’t exist. As I see it, the problem isn’t so much disagreements, and misunderstandings, but how you handle them. It’s a rare skill to handle them well. |
I wouldn’t be real comfortable in a class where we discussed what’s wrong with an apostle’s speech, even if I do think that way pretty often. But really, who can rein in high priests? Devyn, your teacher performed the discussion equivalent of a ring-and-run. I’d love to see us get better at candid, yet diplomatic, discussion. The bloggernacle does a lot to move us in that direction. |
The nacle isn’t always diplomatic, but at least discussion happens. I would rather see discusion happening, and sometimes have to apologize for crossing the line into contention, than to see it all just paved over like in most church classes. In the early days of the church, it wouldn’t have been unusual at all for someone to say that an apostle, or even the prophet was wrong about something. JS was even called in front of a council and told he was wrong formally. We can sustain leaders without pretending they are perfect. They aren’t, and most of them know it very well. |
The nacle is often like this cartoon: http://xkcd.com/386/ “I can’t go to bed yet. Someone on the Internet is wrong.” |
That’s old as hell Bookslinger. Get new material. |
We can sustain leaders without pretending they are perfect. They aren’t, and most of them know it very well. |
We can sustain leaders without pretending they are perfect. They aren’t, and most of them know it very well.
Nicely put. Funny enough, we had a discussion in our combined 3rd hour this past Sunday that was partially about sustaining others. When the 1st Counselor of the Bishopric (who was leading the discussion) asked how we can sustain our leaders, I stated that “sustain” doesn’t equal “agreeing with.” We can support and sustain leaders without agreeing with them. We do so by not criticizing them publicly and by doing our best to follow their counsel. Church leaders screw up just like everyone else (heaven knows I screwed up a TON as a RS President). It’s even ok to go and talk with a Bishop or other leader about his/her decisions or mandates if we don’t agree. The ticket is how we go about doing this. Privately is ok. Calling out the Bishop or RS President during testimony meeting is not! |
I have no idea what’s going on with the posting… Feel free to delete the duplicates, Devyn. :) |
If no one was being attacked or argumentative, then the HP teacher did not understand the meaning of contention, which he confused with disagreement. In Nephi 3, the Savior is not condemning disagreement, but “the spirit of contention”—the kind that leads to angry, hostile, and bitter “disputations,” which takes on many forms. The real danger is with those personalities (both teachers and students) who feel their views are absolute and/or take offense when differences arise. A good teacher in church is often a good facilitator/moderator and also realizes that different viewpoints exist. The HP teacher allowed discussion to commence and then slammed/chastised the class to wrap it all up. That’s just poor moderating. On the other hand, a good student tolerates a teacher’s shortcomings, makes helpful comments/insights, asks questions, respectfully disagrees without being disagreeable, “is not puffed up, seeketh not [his/her] own, is not easily provoked,” and rejoices in the truth. After all, all of us—teachers and students—are, or should be, seekers of truth. Even apostles and GAs have disagreements, but they are still “one.” It is possible to be “one” in church, and still have disagreements, but having true charity is the key. |
22. Bookslinger – Perhaps I overinterpreted your note. You are right that being diplomatic is important (although sometimes things are so blatantly wrong or silly, that I shoot first and think later). 23. Greedy reader – I think some are not comfortable discussing an apostle’s speech, but High Priests usually don’t. |
PPP – your comment was so nice it is worth reading twice… 30 – Tiger – well said |
Thanks, Devyn! :) BTW, I forgot to mention that the 1st Counselor wasn’t too impressed with my comment. He kind of did an “Um, ok…” type of response. Of course, even my own mother disagrees with me on the aggreeing vs. supporting elements of sustaining. |
MCQ, #26: xkcd.com/386. is a timeless classic, worthy of being quoted like Shakespeare or scripture. |
Devyn, annegb is in my ward and I’m blessed. She’s not joking when she says people may just put up a donation to send her to England. I wouldn’t donate because I’m greedy and I like her to much. I disagree with the way your teacher handled the situation. If he didn’t like what was being said he, like others have mentioned, should of shut the conversation down pronto. I love debates. Maybe I like them to much because I once got in a little debate with annegb daughter…. um, I made her cry. I was shocked because I’ve never made anyone cry before. Apart of me was proud the other part of me was absolutely mortified that I did it in church. Debates can cross the line but if you have a good moderator it seldom goes to that level. I find absolutely nothing wrong with discussing and disagreeing with what general authorities say over the pulpit. There was a talk, I think it was yesterday, that I was listening to and thought if this talk is every ‘studied’ in RS you must not attend this lesson. Actually last Sundays talk that we studied pissed me the hell off. It was about getting revelation and apparently the only way to recieve revelation is to be meek and pure, not angry, not loud, not this way, or this way, but only this one way…and I thought…who is this guy talking too? The God I talk to listens to me when I’m angry, hurt, sad, happy, loud, and I have gotten revelation being in all of those places. I just kept my mouth shut. Debate away, sometimes that’s the only way one can really understand what is being said. |
