Our Shared Responsibility
Sunstone has a reputation. For good or ill, those who know of Sunstone see it in a light that many of those who have actual experience with Sunstone do not.
This isn’t unusual, especially in a world that places so many demands on our time. Judgments are made rapidly, many times with just a superficial understanding or on the basis of quick or passing comments. Labels are attached, lines drawn.
Some things we can control. To the extent the Editor and staff at Sunstone can guide the discussion in constructive ways, they certainly try to do so. But it isn’t always possible (nor desirable) in an open forum – a forum that prizes vigorous contestation of ideas, one that stands by the principle that truth will emerge from an active and vibrant spiritual and intellectual marketplace. With forums such as the Symposium and this Blog, Sunstone gives voice to – and places trust in – those who wrestle with spiritual issues.
But with that voice comes a responsibility. A responsibility that is reflected in the direction that Sunstone is moving, and one that is outlined in this Blog’s Comment Policy. As this forum continues to grow, it is important to remember that for every voice we hear, there are numerous voices silently observing, reading, listening, and finding their own spiritual path. These voices are seeking answers, hoping for resolution, and navigating their way along a path that others have already tread. There is great wisdom and perspective available from those who have emerged from this path as persons of integrity and faith. There is also wisdom and value in our collective journey, sharing among those of us who are in the midst of this path now.
As such we have a responsibility for careful and respectful dialog. A responsibility to model, to the extent we are able, healthy faith development and spiritual insights. This is neither to suggest a certain outcome nor a pre-defined goal, and it certainly does not presuppose any particular stance on any particular issue. It does, however, require that we frame our comments in a constructive, rather than destructive, manner.
Does this mean that we, as forum participants, need to censor ourselves or be “investigator safe”? No – but while we need not censor content, we should pay careful attention to tone. Perhaps the most significant portion of the comment policy – and this policy extends to all of Sunstone’s forums – is that posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.
Sunstone as an institution has great value. Its value lies in the potential to frame spiritual and intellectual discussions relevant to Mormonism in an honest and constructive way. Sunstone has historically addressed difficult questions, sometimes shedding new and significant light on an issue, sometimes becoming mired. The important thing is that Sunstone is engaged, it is active in the arena of ideas, and it will continue to be so involved.
In the coming months you will begin to see new and exciting initiatives emerging from Sunstone. It is uniquely positioned to be an effective middle ground for open and honest inquiry. It’s an exciting time, and we hope you will continue to add your voice to this forum. But, as more and more voices join this discussion, it is critical that we are mindful of engaging with each other in a respectful and constructive manner.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:46 am
There’s a discussion very similar to this going on on the Association for Mormon Letters email list. It’s interesting because of how varying people’s views of dismissive or offensive comments seem to be.
One list member wrote:
“I found Elder David A. Bednar’s talk, “And None Shall Offend Them,” to be a refreshing departure from the growing cultural norm being cultivated among us to always speak sensitively and carefully. He places squarely on the shoulders of the hearer the responsibility for the reaction. I think this is just as it should be.”
and
“I tend to treat people the way I like to be treated and I don’t like to be treated with kid gloves.
“Strange, isn’t it? I feel respected by people who tell me where to get off. I feel disrespected by people who are afraid to tell me what they think.”
Another wrote:
“I [...] think it’s [...] important to communicate truth in a way that predisposes people to listen and understand what we’re saying. Spontaneous honesty, bluntness, knee-jerk reactions–all of these, in my experience, interfere with clear communication (when talking about matters where emotions run high) far more often than they facilitate it. I believe that in general, my carefully thought-out responses are more truthful than my knee-jerk reactions–partly because I try to take the time to think about where the other person is coming from, and how the other person is likely to interpret what I’m saying. The importance of delivery (when it comes to communication), as I see it, is precisely *because* the goal is to tell the truth.”
I think both of these comments are good. It seems to me that our true feelings and thoughts are always in flux. They can be changed by by reading something, or by delving deeply into your own thoughts through writing. I’m not saying that you get closer to what you actually think. I’m saying that things are always changing.
So In a way, I’d disagree with the idea that we’re trying to uncover truth around here. At least, that isn’t my goal. I think a better forumuation is to say that I’m trying to build up the story of my spiritual and intellectual life. Getting to the right place isn’t very important to me; going on an interesting journey is. I think that if people could drop their insistence that “truth prevail immediately,” we’d have a lot better discussions. We’d spend more time trying to understand each other (and we all have interesting stories to tell) rather that trying to gain the high ground.
By the way, for an absolutely fascinating read on just this subject, read the first few chapters of Wayne Booth’s autobiography _My Many Selves_.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I’m adjusting my name again. “Zhenya” is Russian for “Gene”. But, in English I’d rather be addressed as “Eugene” these days (since only my brother and my very old friends call me “Gene” any more)
That said, I want to say “hear!, hear!” to both Rory and Stephen.
Rory reminds us “that posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.” Which reminds me of Ken Wilber’s statement that “No one is smart enough to be wrong all the time.”
Stephen asserts “I think that if people could drop their insistence that ‘truth prevail immediately’, we’d have a lot better discussions.” Which reminds me of Wilber’s assersion “that the amazing fact is that truth alone will NOT set you free. Truthfulness will set you free.”
I thank Dan W for pointing me to Wilber at the 2005 SL Sunstone symposium. Wilber’s “transcend and include” formula for eternal progression is powerfully full of Light.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Rory states:
Perhaps the most significant portion of the comment policy – and this policy extends to all of Sunstone’s forums – is that posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.
I ponder:
I’ve held the opinion through much of my life that this policy is the correct one to pursue. However, in recent years I’ve begun to question it. The simple fact of the matter is, a lot of “ideas and beliefs” which some people “hold sacred” are just downright goofy. Is it not possible to respect a person, and his/her right to believe in anything they choose, while at the same time holding *some* beliefs to be completely wrong?
Another aspect of this, which I believe applies especially to Mormons, is that a person might disagree with the “sacred” beliefs of others while at the same time respecting those beliefs. Upon my departure from Mormonism I wrote a number of my long-time LDS friends informing them of my decision, and the reasons for it. Most replied that they respected my decision. A couple of them immediately accused me of disrespecting/denigrating their “sacred” beliefs, which I most certainly did not.
The knife of respect cuts both ways: While we should respect the ideas and beliefs which others hold to be “sacred”, we should not assume that those who disagree with those beliefs are automatically being disrespectful, and we should also respect the right of others to disagree, even reject some beliefs which some of us hold to be “sacred.”
October 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Preston says: The knife of respect cuts both ways…
To sharpen the two-edged blade of your knife (sword?) of respect, wasn’t if Voltaire who said “I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Does anyone out there in our Mormon culture/society have a better statement than this? I think not, unless you can add “or excommunication” after the word “death”.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
What Voltaire said might apply to society in general (or, at least it should), but it doesn’t apply within a church setting. Pres. Hinckley has said as much. IIRC, he told an interviewer that people may have their doubts, but they shouldn’t express them in public.
I can tell you from experience that asking the wrong questions in church can lead to some less-than-friendly responses. I first witnessed this many years ago in a ward in Oklahoma. One of the members of the Gospel Doctrine class persisted in asking some pointed questions about the Pearl of Great Price. The teacher threw down his manual and stomped out of class in a fit. Later, the man who asked the questions was called before the Stake Presidency and excommunicated. (BTW, I was called to replace the teacher who stomped out. It took me a number of years to find out that the person asking the questions had a legitimate point.)
But, to respond to your question: I am not aware of many people who will defend one’s right to speak one’s mind in church classes to the point of excommunication.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I appreciate this post from Rory and the thoughtful responses it has generated. Rory’s use of the term, “investigator safe” reminded me of the editorial I wrote with that very title a few years ago (March 2004, Sunstone). I always hesitate to link to something I’ve written, but in this case, I’ll venture it for the sake of those who may read this blog but never comment, or who wonder about the riskiness of Sunstone’s trying to be an “open forum.” Even if you ultimately judge our kind of venture to be unwise or impossible, you can at least know why I want to keep working at it.
Zhenya/Eugene asks if there’s a statement within LDS culture/society better than Voltaire’s about disagreeing but still defending another’s right to speak. I’m not sure it’s better, but what came to mind was the story Sterling McMurrin tells of a meeting with David O. McKay, who had heard that some of the brethren were intent on seeing McMurrin excommunicated for his various public stances challenging certain Church policies and teachings. McKay (Church president at the time) is reported to have said, “They cannot do this to you! All I will say is that if they put you on trial for excommunication, I will be there as the first witness on your behalf” (Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin, Signature Books, 1996, pp.198-99).
Cheers,
Dan Wotherspoon
October 12th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Dan, Thanks for that great story about President McKay’s defense of McMurrin. He is one of my heros and the last legit president of the Church, as far as I’m concerned. Isn’t this story in Greg Prince’s recent biography of McKay?
Preston, you say I am not aware of many people who will defend one’s right to speak one’s mind in church classes to the point of excommunication.
You are responding to one. And you have put your finger on the single most important issue facing our culture and society: the primacy of individual conscience.
In the annual Ventura Stake Conference of January 1992, I had the temerity to raise my hand opposing sustaining the First Presidency and the local stake presidency. Mine was the only hand so raised in that audience of 5,000.I had become aware of an official policy of harrassment of the Mormon intellectual community in terms of intimidating the leaders of Dialogue, Sunstone and other independant publlications, which I could not by any stretch of my imagination support in good conscience. For me there was no alternative. I was warned by a good friend that I would be excommunicated, but I didn’t believe him. “After all”, I answered, “this is not like the Soviet Union.” Or is it? They sustained their leaders in a similar way–and also treated their intellectuals with the same intimidating attitudes as does Salt Lake.
It turned out that the warning was not baseless. I was called to appear before the stake presidency and high council, and for six gruelling hours stood my ground before a KGB-like interrogation. You think that an exaggeration? Take a look at my Amazon.com review of British historian David Stafford’s recent book Spies Beneath Berlin. I know something about the KGB and how they work. Then compare their techniques to the Ventura stake president’s methods in my case. (BTW, the stake president was also the Ventura County Deputy Sheriff.)
A record of these procedeeings can be found in the U of Utah Special Collections library, as well as on my website. They are also now used by the Church, to my surprise and puzzlement. These proceedings were recorded by one of my best friends, who was allowed to sit with me as support. I could not have asked for a better friend. He was a professional at recording such events and began doing so when he realized how the meeting was progressilng. The stake president was unaware that a separate, independant record was being made. It looks like the Church now prefers my friend’s account over that of the stake clerk for that event. It was sent to Church Headquarters by Lavina Fielding Anderson. Can you figure?!! How anyone in ecclesiastical office can defend such behavior is beyond me. It needs to be brought into the light, so that the members of the Church can clearly see what goes on in the shadows of such meetings.
We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Zhenya/Eugene says:
We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.
I respond:
There are situations in which it takes *real* courage to “live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.” However, this shouldn’t be necessary in a church setting. After all, churches, including the LDS church, only have such authority over us as we are willing to grant them.
ISTM that the conduct of your stake presidency and high council was rather reprehensible. They seem to have forgotten that the LDS church is an all-volunteer organization. Nobody can be forced to follow the dictates of ecclesiastical leaders, and to attempt to do so will ultimately result in failure.
FWIW, I was one of those who was unafraid of how I was seen. It was utterly confusing to stake and local authorities when I responded to their questions that the answer was “none of their business.”
October 12th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Slow down, guys! Let’s look at the blog thread we’re in here. Rory makes a terrific statement reminding us about responsibility in how we represent ourselves and ideas (”careful, respectful dialogue”), that Sunstone is primarily a constructive endeavor, that it’s important to remember the blog’s comment policy about respect for others and what they hold sacred—then we get a post about a Church president being the last “legitimate” prophet and a story that invokes KGB-like tactics? Perhaps these are statements that you’d ultimately be able to defend, but I can’t sustain the direction this thread is headed. So please note my hand raised in opposition.
I do think the McMurrin story is in Prince’s McKay biography. I thought of that when I posted earlier but didn’t/still don’t have a copy nearby to double check and find the page number.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Hey Preston, I’m obviously older than you, since I don’t know what ISTM or FWIW means.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Sorry Dan, but let’s not end up being a bunch of wimps.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Wimpy? Just noting the irony of “last legit” and KGB references appearing in this particular thread which is about careful, reasoned, constructive conversation. I’m not trying to excommunicate anyone, or any particular topics, just issuing my objection in the same manner you felt you couldn’t support what was happening back in 1992.
You said, “We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.” I’m simply noting how this struck me and I’m not afraid to be seen saying it.
Cheers!
Dan
October 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I’m with Dan on this one - and his response is more tempered than my initial reaction.
I’ll be frank and “transparent” - I think Sunstone is better when the discussion includes individuals from all camps - active/inactive/non, orthodox/heterodox, LDS/CoC, etc. That is the reason for my post advocating an awareness of tone. Again, not censorship. Tone.
There are certainly different ways to say the same thing. Using inflammatory diction tends to marginalize the discussion, and the forum is thus diminished.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I agree with the above comment: getting personal/rude can drive potential contributors away from the conversation (or at least divert it from its original path) and could be considered a type of censorship.
Rory, the restriction that concerns me the most is the one that you highlight in your post:
First of all, respect and sanctity are both highly subjective. Many members extend the blanket of the sacred to cover aspects of Church culture. It would be impossible to create an environment in which every element that was sacred to every Mormon were respected. I think that Sunstone attempts to feel out what is an viable balance between what is not offensive to the majority of its readers and participants while still allowing for a greater freedom of expression than is allowed in typical LDS venues. It’s difficult to satisfy everyone. And like it or not, Sunstone offends Mormons regularly (many by its very existence).
I take inspiration from the old stories of the Zen monk who, after his priestly companion acknowledged that a statue of the Buddha was just wood, began chopping it up for the fire, and after his hapless friend acquiesced that there was nothing sacred about the paper on which some scriptures were written, used it to wipe his butt. Our sacred cows need to be slaughtered on occasion, or at least tipped. I believe that we should be on guard against sanctifying too much–it is possible that we will find that at the root of at least some of the sanctification is the deliberate attempt to protect something from well-deserved criticism.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
John,
Fair enough - I would only counter that respect for someone’s beliefs does not equate to placing a discussion or even strong contention about those beliefs off limits. It does dictate a certain decorum to facilitate mutual communication. Such is the only manner I see to be faithful to the ideal of “faith seeking understanding.”
I confess this is a very fuzzy line, and it is certainly a qualitative judgement.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Rory, (with parenthetic references for Zhenya/Eugene)
ISTM (”it seems to me”) that the line isn’t all that “fuzzy.” I can clearly see that there is a difference between saying, “I think that your beliefs are mistaken” and saying, “your beliefs are stupid,” or, “only an idiot would believe that.” FWIW (”for what it’s worth”), I also believe that one can spell out the reasons why one believes that other beliefs are wrong without being rude or offensive.
The problem with Mormon culture, in my experience, is that almost *any* disagreement is labeled as “contention” and is therefore to be avoided at all costs. I must confess that I never found a way to disagree with somebody in an LDS setting without causing at least one person to be upset. Perhaps it’s just my normally “contentious” behavior.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Hey, guys, I accept Dan’s gentle chastening. You can see why I didn’t go into politics or public relations, eh? In so saying I hope we don’t swallow the camel of abuse and intimidation while straining at the gnat of “tone”. Did anyone bother to check out the facts I raised?
In my enthusiasm for David McKay, I forgot to add my admiration for Spencer Kimball. I remember back in 1975 when I first returned to the Church after a ten year absense, I found myself in an EQ meeting in Los Angeles stake where the SP was John Carmack, a prince of a man. (We used to have the most rousing discussions and debates!) Anyway, during the EQ meeting (I, newly baptised, had not yet had a “restoration of [all] blessings”–that wouldn’t come for another 5 years), I heard what I thought was the most dangerous statement that could be made in the Church: The EQ president casually said , “When it comes to matters of ultimate authority, the Prophet’s conscience supercedes our own.”
My reaction was an instanteneous and energetic “NO!!” . It shocked the guys in the meeting and I’m sure they wondered what in the world I was doing there. After I got home I wrote an impassioned letter to Pres. Kimball asking him to communicate to the Church about this issue. My distress was not that such a statement had been made. My distress was that no but me objected to it. .Whether or not Pres. Kimball ever received my letter, I was gratilfied months later when he delivered a conference address called >”Our Own Liahona––We each have a personal Liahona, our conscience, to unfailingly guid us through the wilderness and storms of life.”
Some of the brethren at the highest levels seem to have forgotten that counsel these days. Two years after this conference address, Pres. Kimball had the unprecidented courage to make a sea change in the Church’s direction regarding the priesthood.
I rest my case for the moment.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I once belonged to a forum that I valued very much at the time. I’m still grateful for the environment it provided for me to explore my religious angst. The forum had only one rule: and I quote:
“We encourage people to explore the limits of their personal belief, and to feel free to express that belief as they engage in mutually supportive dialogue with other members of the forum. However, opinions regarding sensitive issues such as religious preference, sexual orientation, political issues, etc. should always be couched as simply that, personal opinions, rather than as matters of fact. The line has been crossed when someone ceases saying, “This is what I believe,” and begins saying, “This is what YOU should believe.”
Admittedly, they didn’t always follow their own rules, but the rule was enough of a presence to make discussion very productive.
I try to follow this rule whenever I post. It’s really easy for me to tell my thoughts as if they were a matter of fact. It takes work for me to acknowledge that my thoughts are only a work in progress. I find that it stifles my ability to grow when I forget that important fact. It also seems to me that it stifles one’s ability to grow when one presents things in such a way that others feel like they can’t respond without looking stupid. You lose out on some valuable feedback.
It’s amazing the difference between (I’m using this example, because I know Eugene will take it the way I intend it), “How anyone in ecclesiastical office can defend such behavior is beyond me. It needs to be brought into the light, so that the members of the Church can clearly see what goes on in the shadows of such meetings,” and “I felt very betrayed by these men, I fear that other people have gone through the same thing. It’ s important to me to find these people and their stories so that we can start sharing them.” If you put it the second way, it allows the reader to respond with, “Gee, Eugene, I can see why that caused you so much pain, how has your interpretation of those events informed your life? Are there other ways to approach them?” And then we can find out more about Eugene, and Eugene can find out more about himself, instead of starting into an argument about whether Chuch courts are conducted like KGB interrogations.
When all is said and done, I think the most important thing we can do is help each other tell our stories, and learn to reinterpret them as our lives go on, rather than reinforce principles.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Well said, Stephen! I am trying to return as a “changed bee”.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Zhenya/Eugene recalls:
Anyway, during the EQ meeting (I, newly baptised, had not yet had a “restoration of [all] blessings”–that wouldn’t come for another 5 years), I heard what I thought was the most dangerous statement that could be made in the Church: The EQ president casually said , “When it comes to matters of ultimate authority, the Prophet’s conscience supercedes our own.”
I am reminded:
Back in the 1960s, I was living in a ward in Oklahoma. In a conversation with the full-time missionaries assigned to that ward I stated that the highest authority to which one must answer in this life or the next is one’s own conscience. Judging from their horrified response I would have thought that I had just stated the ultimate heresy. However, I believed it then, and I believe it now. Perhaps that’s a major reason why I’m no longer a member of the LDS church. Perhaps it’s just a matter of faulty memory, but istm that following one’s conscience was something I had grown up believing. Now, it appears that “Follow The Brethren” has become the dominant message. But, judging from the responses of others on this subject, the two should not have to be mutually exclusive. But, in my experience, they have become that way.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I have to admit, Preston, that I feel much the same way you do. Right after the passage about intelligent obedience there was another passage that said something like, “If a prophet tells me that a principle I have accepted is wrong, I’ll drop it immediately without question.” The guys in my class thought the two went hand in hand: simply, intelligent obedience is unquestoining obedience.
The most charitable interpretation I can give this is that the manual is presenting us with a paradox. That’s the job of religion right? To help us approach paradoxes? And isn’t it always most constructive to dwell in the most tension filled area of the paradox, rather than to defuse it?
What does one start to think, when one is presented on one hand with intelligent obedience and on the other with unquestioning obedience?
October 13th, 2006 at 4:01 am
Stephen and Preston, it is great of you two to hold the tension and to illuminate the paradox of this culture of ours. Allow me join you in the tension. It feels loaded with potential meaning to me.
It is very early in the morning and I have been awakened by my five-year-old self, who has just asked me an important question. “Why doesn’t my mama believe me?”
Five’s question brought to mind a long ago dream (March 1966) that I had on the eve of beginning a professional Jungian analysis. You understand that when one makes such a commitment to analysis, it is not unusual to have such a preliminary dream. This gives the analyst a map of the territory the the client’s unconscious wishes to explore and bring to light. One of the images in the dream was that of a small boy standing in a wind-swept desert,with huge dark storm clouds overhead. He is alone and holding onto a rope that goes into the dark clouds, not knowing what he is holding onto, but wondering why his mother does not believe him.
So, I am adding this self-aspect child to my blog name. I’ll call him “Five”. And, I assure him that the Zhenya part of me is listening to him very carefully these days. It is this child self-aspect who has tall, smiling, robed friends who often visit him to keep him company and to comfort him.
An idea ocurred to me after recalling this old dream. It has to do with how we might share our dreams with each other. In another blog stream some days ago, Stephen jumped in with a couple of dreams that seemed to me to be important for him. But the discussion waned. Dreams don’t wane. If any who are reading this are interested in exploring this idea, please email me at enk33@losalamos.com. Perhaps it could become a blog subject to present to Sunstone. If that doesn’t seem appropriate, perhaps we could brainstorm other alternatives.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Stephen asks:
What does one start to think, when one is presented on one hand with intelligent obedience and on the other with unquestioning obedience?
I respond:
This is a no-brainer for me: I simply reject unquestioning obedience out-of-hand. It never was an option for me. *Everything* is subject to question. IMNSHO, the very instant that one stops questioning, one has surrendered his/her agency. There may be non-ecclesiastical instances where one is obligated to obey the dictates of others, such as in a place of employment. (Although, one always has the option of quitting.) But, istm that in a church setting there is *never* a time when one can be forced to obey “authority.” Although, full-time missionaries might differ with me as far as their situation is concerned.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Everybody, before this thread dies, I want to point out that there again have been no feminine voices. Why? I’m wondering if it’s because your policy for being “nice” disallows an emotional response that might trouble someone. And that constriction forces things to become boring or hollow. For goodness sake, let’s not trouble anybody! Dan would understand when I say we seem to be trapped in “flatland” here in this thread, as well as in so many others.
When I dared to mention ecclesiastical bullies (KGB-like behavior) earlier in this string of responses, I failed to mention that there is no question in my mind that the SP in question was being true to his personal conscience. There is the paradox, Stephen. When faced with abuse or intimidation in contests of conscience, how can we face it “nicely” or appropriately? Shall we hide? Deny? Ignore?
The best response to this question that I can think of is from Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, where he says: If the beast who sleeps in man could be held down by threats—any kind of threat, whether of jail or of retribution after death—then the highest emblem of humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not the prophet who sacrificed himself. But, don’t you see, this is just the point—what has for centuries raised man above the beast is not the cudgel but an inward music: the irresistible power of unarmed truth, the powerful attraction of its example.
I submit that we each have a prophetic voice within ourselves. Let us persist with “unarmed truth”, having lost our fear of judgment or rejection. I dare say well intentioned bullies can be stopped or transformed when the bullied stand tall and find new, creative ways to respond. I hope that’s an eventual outcome of these exchanges.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Zhenya says:
I submit that we each have a prophetic voice within ourselves. Let us persist with “unarmed truth”, having lost our fear of judgment or rejection. I dare say well intentioned bullies can be stopped or transformed when the bullied stand tall and find new, creative ways to respond. I hope that’s an eventual outcome of these exchanges.
I respond:
Actually, even though I don’t consider Joseph Smith to be a “prophet” in the way many Mormons do, I do think that he had insights into this problem that seem to be ignored in the contemporary church. My favorite “scripture”, during my believing days, was D&C 121:39. Even though I now doubt the divine origins of that verse, it still resonates as being an extraordinarily accurate insight into the human condition.
ISTM that those to whom you refer as “bullies” are classic examples of this principle. And, the “creative way to respond” would be to remind them of this verse. And, if that fails, simply refer to the next two verses.
Let me repeat; churches are all-volunteer organizations. Churches, and their leaders, have only such authority as a person is willing to grant them. If you are willing to reject the idea that an ecclesiastical leader has any “authority” over your personal actions/choices, then that person has not got that authority. “Bullies” will always exist. We cannot change that. What we can, and should change, is the way in which we react to them.
October 14th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Thank you for that distilization, Preston. I was confident you’d hear and respond in a wise way.
You might be interested in an on-going dialogue I’m getting ready to have with “Brother Joseph”. If you are willing to enter them, I’d welcome you and be pleased. They will soon appear on my blog on our family website: http://www.kovalenko.org.
[Matt may note again the change in my "aliias". I'm just trying to get down to a manageable--abbreviated--form: the Zh = Zhenya for my introverted, interior, emotional self; E = Eugene for my extroverted, exterior, rational self; 5 = Five, for my five year old self--to whom I've only begun to listen more carefully.]
October 14th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Eugene, you write:
Not at all. And it isn’t a policy of being “nice”, it’s a policy of not employing language that serves to shut the discussion down through exaggeration, hyperbole, or drama. The ideal is a forum of communication that Stephen effectively describes above.
You can have honesty and transparency and still maintain a level of true communication through moderation. You cannot, however, expect other voices to join the conversation if you insist on a scorched earth policy of communication.
You go on to say:
Please read this thread again, as well as the responses. This is not a request to hide, deny, or ignore. It is not a request for censorship. It is a request to communicate the problems (or successes) in a manner that invites shared communication and a manner that does not shut the door on mutual understanding.
Again, if you feel that this policy is only about being nice and that to be honest and transparent you must employ language that serves to alienate or provoke, then you will not see new voices join the conversation. As such, this forum will suffer from marginalization.
October 14th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Well said, but why no female voices?
October 15th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Rory, re #27, I did review this thread again as you asked–and still come back to my question: why no female voices? It is clear you gave my posting some significant consideration. I’ll try another tack.
You addressed me correctly as “Eugene”, my rational self-aspect, but my “Five” self-aspect felt spanked. This troubled me for a while. Usually, when I’m troubled like that, whether by someone or some circumstance and can’t figure out why, I will have a dream that gives me a place to focus on for rebalancing inner work.
This time, the balancing response came from an unexpected quarter not 20 minutes after your post. It came from one of Gene England’s daughters in reply to my having scanned and sent copies of all Gene’s letters to me over the years we knew each other. This was in support of the Eugene England Memorial project that the family has created. Gene and I first became acquainted at the U of Utah in 1961. We formed a five-man “dialogue” study group back then to wrestle with issues that we couldn’t discuss elsewhere. I was the EQ instructor in one of the student wards and Gene was a new arrival (I think he had just come back to school after having finished his tour as an officer in the US Air Force.) In any case, this particular Sunday of our first meeting, I had posted on the blackboard the words: “Brothers, are we cowards in our faith?” to evoke some life into a typically boring setting. You can imagine the kind of energy that came up to keep us all awake those Sunday mornings. Yes?
In her reply Gene’s daughter wrote: “I love dreams and remember my dad talking about how you valued dreamwork. I remember my dad sharing his dream about being judged by the Twelve and using his military service in his defense. Since my dad’s death I have had countless dreams where my dad appears. When he was dying I made him promise to haunt me in my dreams. He has kept his promise.”
That’s what’s missing, brother Rory. This blog thread seems stuck in our heads. It feels more concerned with “tone” than with “attitude.” In other posts I have mentioned the word “beloving” and have to keep reminding myself of the last, most important question I ask in my dreamwork workshops and seminars: “Are you beloving to all the beings and characters in this dream scene?”
I had to ask myself this same question when applied to my attitude towards you and your posting. The first thing that came to mind was something Lincoln is reported to have said: “There’s a man I don’t like. I’d better get to know him.” He knew the risks of projection! The next thing I thought of was a recent dream I’d had about the local SP here in Los Alamos. He and I have been corresponding for about 18 months since he came over to me at a public concert and invited me to come see him should I ever want to talk. I accepted his invitation a few weeks later and then wrote a poem about our encounter: “Trying the Church Before the Family.” That began a lively process, which inspired me to learn about blogs. My first blog was a venting over my sense of feeling violated by this man’s interviewing methods. It took me a while to understand. Now, many months later, I finally had a dream that layed it all out for me.
I’m tempted to put the dream here, but will restrain myself. If others are interested I’m willing to share it, along with its dreamage–a reworking of the dream to a transformative pattern. I call it “The Church of the Holy Restaurant.”
Back to you, Rory. After reflecting on Lincoln’s remark, I looked up your bio and got to know you a bit better. I’m glad you are science oriented, besides busines. I’m pleased to learn about your little family and wondered at the ages of your four offspring. I was also pleased to learn that you are obviously computer literate! There are other attractive elements there to explore–one day, perhaps. After all, the Sunstone community is just that: a community. As Dan once expressed in an editorial a couple of years back, “The Church can be a true home.” I responded, “I hope by that you mean the greater community of Christ” (rather than ecclesiastical scaffolding).
When we bring dreams into the equation, the “flatland” boredome of this blog thread disappears. How about we figure out a way to invite dreams on a regular basis? That’s the quickest and surest way to get to and share our inner truth with each other in true community than I can conceive of.
One last thing. It’s a technical question: How do you capture quotes to place in a little grey box in a posting? Do I need additional software?
Fraternal regards,
Eugene/Five
October 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I think there are no female voices (or additional male ones) because this thread is dominated by 2-4 people. I’m not placing a value judgment on this–some conversations are that way. I’m very interested in the subject matter, but it’s clear that Preston and Zhenya in particular have set the tone and focus for this conversation in a way that has discouraged me from participating, and possibly others.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
John Remy says:
I’m very interested in the subject matter, but it’s clear that Preston and Zhenya in particular have set the tone and focus for this conversation in a way that has discouraged me from participating, and possibly others.
I reply:
I’m sorry that has happened. That certainly wasn’t my intent. However, your decision not to participate is yours, and yours alone. Please don’t blame others for your failure to participate. Quite honestly, I find your statement verges on being outright rude.
That said, I shall refrain from commenting further on this, or any other thread on this forum. I know when I’m not welcome.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Preston, send me your email address to enk33@losalamos.com
October 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Preston, I apologize for giving offense. I didn’t intend for the comment to be harsh. I tried to point out that I wasn’t making a value judgment–we need to have some conversations where others sit on the sidelines and listen. A conversation dominated by several strong voices isn’t by default a bad one–just one that’s hard to squeeze into, and that was my answer to Zhenya’s earnest question.
Just so my comment isn’t a total digression: I wonder what looking at this thread as a whole can tell us about Rory’s initial query above about the voices and responsibility in the Sunstone community?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Preston - I took John’s comment to be more a response to why this thread seemed to have few respondents, not a comment on you. FWIW, you’ve made some very valuable and reasoned points here, I hope you stay.
Besides, Eugene/Zhenya/Five has already told me that I’m a man he doesn’t like, and I think I’ll stick around.
We dropped what seems to be a good critique of the comment policy when John writes:
If we need to clarify this, we can certainly do it. The point of this is not to label the discussion of any particular belief off limits, but rather to approach them with a certain respect toward the holder of those beliefs. For example, discussions about the effect of the endowment from a personal perspective is one thing - publishing the text is quite another. I think we generally know the line, but distilling that into a succinct comment policy can be challenging. Preston nailed it when he highlighted the difference between “that belief is something I can’t subscribe to” and “you’re an idiot for believing that.”
Finally, I want to re-emphasize that I am not pushing for topics to be off-limits, but only for participants to understand that there is a certain requirement for respectful and civil discourse when conducted in Sunstone’s forums.
I’ll be honest, I’m stunned that this posting has as many comments as it does. I expected 1, maybe 2, but it took on a life of its own.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I think one of the difficulties of finding the “voice” of this blog is that it is in many ways an institutional blog. The people who are in charge are worried about how the blog is perceived and how that perception will affect the rest of the organization. And I think they’re right in feeling that way.
Thus I tend to be careful in what I say, and that my caution tends to dull my comments and take the edge off my passion.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Ah, Stephen! For you to have allowed the “edge” of your passion to be dulled is a perfect example of my earlier complaint of the difference between “tone” and “attitude”. Thank you for stepping in. It is an illustration of how a “dominating” attitude can intimidate one of “partnering”. In our society (if not our culture) thinking prevails, often to the detriment of feelling. That is a dominating attitude, and I suspect it is at the root of why our women stay silent. In a “partnering” attitude feeling are valued equally (not more so) with thinking. Reason and emotion are in a horizontal relationship, rather than a vertical (hierarchical) one where one is “above” the other. Does this make sense to you? We need a better balance between these two ways of making decisions, don’t you think? Add a little courage to this equation and maybe something better will emerge.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I do think that we have a responsibility to present ourselves civilly, and I can empathize with any concern that the board or editors might feel about how this blog is perceived by the church……but if we temper things too much than we’re not too different from the stifling mainstream culture that many of us are trying to escape—even if temporarily.
I’ve had a hard time really participating here because it seems very boxed in at times. Only “permabloggers” are alowed to start threads, and even then with some restrictions. Criticism is sometimes shot down as quickly here as it is in my Elder’s Quorum.
Rory, I can understand your affection for Sunstone, particularly as you move up in its organization, but if this blog is about institutional representation rather than free and frank exchange, I don’t know how meaningful it really is.
If we do things the other way, where discussion is more spontaneous and less limited, there will surely be offensive things, but I think there is a sort of self-regulating herd instinct in most chat groups anyway, so trolling is often self-corrected.