On this inauguration day, I recall how President Donald Trump has promised he will unite a divided America throughout his campaign. He told racist vandalizers and harassers to “stop it.” On Thanksgiving he made a special plea for unity. Yet, inasmuch as he has incited fearing the other, has failed to reach out with empathy, and also failed to demonstrate what that unity looks like, these calls are hollow.
How does a divided people become one without compromising their distinct values? What does a successful conversation look like between two deeply opposed people? How can the square pegs unify with those who only see round holes? Our civil discourse skills are in a famine. Is it possible to get to where politics or religion can be as enlightening and pleasant a conversation topic with extended family as the weather or which uncle’s nose did junior inherit? When Elder Oaks has to remind Mormon parents to let their children “be friends with children of other faiths,” our ability to be friendly with “the other side” is in dire need for self-evaluation.
Like all skills and especially social skills, we learn through examples. There are few examples of civil and thoughtful public disagreements. It is not politically expedient (ask Bernie Sanders about those emails). It “feels good” to score a few cheap points for our team.[1]
Successful cross aisle dialogue is difficult. Here are some examples. The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah hosted a normally fiery conservative internet star Tomi Lahren to a civil discussion where either side presented their view points, without “any illusions that they were going to find much common ground, nor that they would convince the other of their views.”[2] The divisiveness came later when partisan media sites each declared how their chosen cheerleader “skewered” the other side.[3] But watch it for yourself. No impalements actually occurred. A few years ago, John Stewart, as a guest on CNN’s crossfire, effectively demonstrated their utter failure to promote mature debate, on a show explicitly designed to instigate debate.[4]
Will you be my wing man for this civil discussion?
In Mormon discussions, Patrick Mason and John Dehlin created a new blog, Inside/Out, hosted on Patheos. Mason, who wrote the book on how to a
Christ-like engage with those who leave or are thinking of leaving the church, demonstrates how to do this with one of the most prominent ex-Mormons alive. In one discussion, Dehlin brings out a common, but highly polemical analogy, comparing the church to a pyramid scheme, with nothing but snake oil to sell. Mason graciously listened and sought for understanding before affirming his position, and demonstrably disagreeing with the comparison. Dehlin followed by conceding points without betraying his underlying values.
Others recently have written excellent discussions for how to show love and communicate with those who have left the church.[5] Mormon scholar Julie Smith’s 2016 book Iron Sharpens Iron is a collection of “fictionalized dialogues between the various voices of scripture illustrate how these differences and disagreements are not flaws of the texts but are rather essential features of the canon.”[6]
Social psychologist Johnathan Haidt, in a Ted Talk, discussed how America can find unity and heal after a historically divisive election. First, he noted the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats “strongly dislike” the other side and view them as dangerous and with disgust. Disgust is an othering; it dehumanizes; it allows the possessor of the feeling to be morally justified a refusal to engage with their opponent. The solution is to overcome our powerful tribal instincts and develop greater empathy. “The opposite of disgust is love. Empathy is a very popular word on the left, in particular for the preferred classes of victims. That’s easy to do because you get points for that. But empathy really should get you points if you do it when it’s hard to do.” Healing the left-right divide by civil dialogue with bona fide Trump supporters surely is a difficult thing to do.
Civil Dialogue at Church
Our church culture is missing this ever more important and vital skill. We mistake conformity for unity. There do not exist public examples of cordial internal disagreement. It has been generations since the brethren have actively disagreed in public. Orson Pratt publicly opposed Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine.[7] James Talmage, B. H. Roberts, and John Widtsoe publicly disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith on evolution[8]. However, with the growth of the church came a further need for greater coordination and efficiency. Disagreements became more muted, and behind closed doors. Hugh B. Brown’s public disagreements with Ezra Taft Benson were subtler. (The same cannot be said for Elder Benson).[9] Today, we hear acknowledgements that they disagree, sometimes greatly, but that is done away from the public.[10] I grant that a functioning institution requires room to air disagreements privately. My point is one of degrees and magnitudes. Is it not possible to allow for more open discussion and contrasting viewpoints than what presently is seen?
This is not an appropriate dialogue technique.
Additionally, on a local level, our ward services limit the level of civil disagreement. There has been a growing effort for Ward Counsels to allow all participants an opportunity to speak their minds and not to render an automaton rubber stamp to whatever the bishop says[11]. Sunday school can afford more opportunity to voice unique individual viewpoints. Yet, how often, when one makes a new or different comment, is their either a call to return to the correlated manual or a silent unspoken discomfort. How rare to have an actual engaging of ideas where all “are edified and rejoice together”[12] from being exposed to new points of view.
General conference has had many calls for civil dialogue with those with whom we disagree politically and morally[13]. I applaud these calls. Yet, without a culture of healthy disagreement within our Sunday school classes and quorums, our counsels, over local and general pulpits, or in our families and neighborhoods, how can we hope to have these discussions with those not of our shared world view?
We are commanded to be one[14], but we are not commanded to be the same[15]. We must learn this skill. It is vital for our democracy. It is vital for our faith community. It is the essential component in exercising charity. It is how we become like Christ.
[1] See Stephen Colbert’s election night speech.
[2] http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/4/13807584/daily-show-tomi-lahren-interview
[3] See for example: Alternet’s “completely owns” Huffington Post’s “expertly skewers” Esquire’s “dismantled” GQ’s “Went to war” Slate’s “Spars” Salon’s “Blasts” The Wrap’s “Tear each other apart” NY Daily News’ “Grilled” IJ Review’s “Under the Skin” Western Journalism’s “Stands Her Ground”
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
[5] See Mette Harrison’s guest post at Flunking Sainthood
Also see Kristy Money’s Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed
[6] https://www.amazon.com/As-Iron-Sharpens-Listening-Scripture/dp/1589585011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481067015&sr=8-1&keywords=julie+smith+iron
[7] See Bergera (Dialogue, 1980)
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution#Roberts.E2.80.93Smith.E2.80.93Talmage_dispute
[9] See Quinn (Dialogue, 1993)
[10] In a 2015 Stake Conference I attended, Elder Nelson said they disagreed all the time. “I mean; we can’t even decide what way is best to shave our faces.” Although, not very reassuring that substantive disagreements do occur, perhaps he meant it humorously.
[11] https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/counseling-with-our-councils?lang=eng&_r=1
[12] D&C 50:22
[13] See Jeff Swift’s post which includes quotations from Newsroom (2009) Elder Cook (2010); Elder Cook (2012); Elder Zwick (2014); Elder Oaks (2014) Elder Kearon (2016)
[14] D&C 38: 27
[15] 1 Corinthians 12: 12-27
Christopher Clarke
Christopher is a doctorate student in economics at Washington State University. He grew up in Las Vegas, NV. He is a husband to his wife and a father to two boys. He plays the organ at church, the piano at home, and the ukelele when no one is looking. He sometimes blogs at http://bit.ly/2iDPCAf and reads books at Goodreads (http://bit.ly/2jqcdxj)
All posts by Christopher Clarke
Amen Chistopher!
The last time I bore my testimony in church (a relatively rare occurence) I said that the older I become the more questions I have and the fewer answers I find but that today I choose to believe. The very next person to share their testimony said vigorously they have no questions, no doubts etc and the usual “the church is true.” Though I try to not take things personally, it felt somewhat like a rebuke. I’ve come to avoiding Sunday School and Relief Society in part because I don’t feel free to share my thoughts and I don’t want to “disrupt” or “spoil” the experience for others.
I try to expose myself to sources and views that are different than my own because I want to understand others to find common ground. And, often, I can find common ground. But I think there is a lot of black/white thinking within the church culture (and society at large) that prevents
us from building bridges. I fault right-winged radio in particular for fomenting divisiviness, incivility and perpetuating untruths. I am often shocked that so many LDS senior citizens can listen regularly to the likes of Rush Limbaugh etc. I greatly value programs which can host people with opposing opinions in a thoughtful, civil conversation. (most often NPR)
Mason discussed this In relation to Mother Teresa’s private dark doubts. Her experiences have been shared in conference, more than once. But, Mason makes a new observation. “The body of Christ is immeasurably stronger, and indeed even more redemptive, because of the willing service of a woman who for very long stretches never received answers to her prayers. The tragedy is that Teresa suffered alone and in silence…. Perhaps she would have been seen and treated as a second-class citizen by some people within her church, not worthy to do the work entrusted to her.” (p. 38)
Partisan media is part of the problem. It exists on the left, too. Mother Jones, Occupy Democrats, and even Salon, sometimes, can be equally as divisive. Although, they do not have as large a following as conservative talk radio.
Ironically our church holds agency so dear we believe God cast ⅓ of his children out of heaven for it. Yet, we have a hard time embracing it in this life. It seems that choosing to believe is acting as an agent who has reviewed what appears to be the facts and drawn their own conclusions. However, if we are so certain of our knowledge then we can simply be objects acted on by it with no need to review, ponder, apply, discuss and revise. From where I sit, choosing to believe is taking a more active role as a disciple of Christ and is far that places us in territory that is far from black and white, which may be uncomfortable at times.
I agree with you on many points, and I appreciate the sentiments of hoping for a space in which to disagree at church. I’m currently a Gospel doctrine teacher in my ward. But, I will say that the cultural conditioning of the last 70 years have made it so that speaking one’s mind has serious social consequences. It can also lead to “spiritual” consequences given the leanings of a priesthood leader.
I think Moroni 6 with the line, “And the Church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to talk one with another concerning the welfare of their souls” is probably one of the most important scriptures in the entirety of the Book of Mormon. We’re supposed to speak to each other about the welfare of our souls, and not front like all is well, all is well all the time. As a result of this fronting, people are reluctant to ever admit in front of others (unless it’s already been “resolved”) that there ever is/was a problem that they’re facing. I regularly shock my Gospel Doctrine class members by telling them things like “I’m a lifelong skeptic” and “you’ll never hear me say ‘I know something is true'” because I don’t know these things.” I once gave a talk a “Ministering that Matters” wherein I was supposed to use some GA’s GC talk as inspiration, so I took the title and gave an entire talk about how you minister to someone who is in the middle of a faith crisis and doesn’t believe or know that everything is “true.”
I share all of this because this stuff has been on my mind and my wife sent me this link, and I felt a kinship with what you’ve written, though I’m not sure if there’s a cohesiveness to what I’ve added here.
It made enough sense. Thank you for your comment. It is incredibly delicate to play faith politics. We all play it, though, no matter what stage of faith one is at. Sometimes those who have serious questions will play faith politics the other way; too easily discounting the experiences and conclusions of those in Fowler’s earlier stages.
I, too, echo the possibly serious social and “spiritual” consequences if one does not follow the pre-established narrative and is too open and honest about it. How difficult is it to implement Pres. Uchtdorf’s discussion on Potemkin Villages? That is neat that have some success in navigating that, given our current cultural climate.
Yes. I was thinking more of just tv and radio. I would say MSNBC is more liberally biased. Once we consider print or on-line media there are many more choices on either side.
The “I know…” or “I know with every fiber of my being…” culture of our church should be conducive for open honest discussion, but as the first comment pointed out it more often prevents honest feelings from being shared. This arises from misunderstanding what it means to know something. Our assumption that we know what it means to know something blinds us from the imperfections in our knowledge. For example, knowing something is true in either a scientific or religious context does not me we understand it, and can apply it appropriately in a vast array of differing contexts.
In philosophy, the Gettier Problem shows that our justified beliefs do not necessarily lead to true knowledge and that false premises can also lead to true conclusions. Thus, knowing that something is true does not mean all of our premises leading to the conclusion are also true. Even when we are certain of our conclusions we need to be open to revising our premises and our understanding of them. In other words, no matter how certain we are of our knowledge it will be revised until we comprehend things as God does, a unattainable in this life life.
For example, we may be certain that Joseph Smith is/was a prophet of God and of the restoration. However, our initial understanding of what it means “to be prophet” may need some revision after an in depth study of history. The premises or concepts that defined “a prophet” may not allow for things like the Kirtland Safety Society failing. In these moments it is important to ask if the prophet has failed us or if our understanding of what a prophet has failed us. Have put him up on an undue pedestal? It would be a great blessing if we could show up to Sunday School and actually revise that which we “know” in order to comprehend things slightly more like God does. How wonderful it would be for a Sunday School comment to be as open and honest as “I am struggling with the fact the bank failed. I thought Joseph Smith was a prophet, how could this be?” Sadly such honest seeking is too often shamed.
I think Liz Wiseman said it well in her BYU devotional titled The Power of Not Knowing “Yes, “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36), but it is in seeking, not knowing, that we find truth. In that space is where we discover the true glory of God.” We can too often treat knowing as if it is an end rather than an ongoing process with plenty of room for other’s thoughts, opinions, and yes even doubts.