Richard Bushman on the value of Dialogue, Sunstone, and Mormon Blogs
By Rory on Feb 7, 2007
In a recent series of interviews with John Dehlin at Mormon Stories, Richard Bushman made some comments about Sunstone and the Sunstone Symposium that strike at a number of challenges those of us in this community face. I don’t want this post to overshadow the significance of the content of these interviews, as the comments regarding our community represent just a fraction of the five-plus hours of recorded conversation. These quotes, however, offer a good launching point for a serious heart-to-heart about who we are, and who we want to be.
At the end of the first segment, Dehlin asks Bushman about his perspective on independent journals, publications, and conferences/symposia. In response, Dr. Bushman cites his experience with Dialogue specifically and Sunstone generally:
I got involved as the book review editor [of Dialogue] and I didn’t see danger in it, because I came out of this Harvard environment where you chatted up everything. But I was warned quite vigorously by Robert Thomas to steer clear, because my name would be stained by this association…
Even so, he says:
…I have a kind of blithe confidence that if you try to do what is right… that you come out all right. I like the idea that these journals have sparked a lot of thinking. So I feel pretty good about that.
However:
I am enough of an open-minded person to recognize that I could be wrong. And that my confidence that we can talk about anything and talk about it openly may be naive, and that there are dangers down the road that I can’t foresee. So when the church comes out and says don’t get involved in Sunstone, don’t get involved in Dialogue, I’m willing to say, ‘Alright, you may be right.’ And I go along with it. Though I have been involved in modest ways, here and there. So this is one where I’m willing to put the judgment on the shelf. Just let it go.
It’s clear that Dr. Bushman values open and frank discussion, and he is actively involved in fostering that discussion among those with whom he associates. He is inspired by our culture, our religion, and our history, and he sees an irrepressible intellectuality within our people. Even the blogs do not escape mention:
Do we need those kinds of journals to bring forth our best intellectuals? I just think you can’t repress Mormon intellectuality. There is so much energy that’s captured in our Mormon faith that anyone who has any intellectual foundations at all is just going to think about things and talk about things. I think the blogs are an example of how the people spend hours each day just chattering about mormon subjects, and though I think that is a waste of time, I think there are some very serious mormon intellectuals coming along at Notre Dame, Harvard, Duke, Yale…
The most distressing comment, however, is this:
I will confess a little impatience with Sunstone, I read through the list of sessions at their symposium and it just tires me out. All these people working out their problems with the church, chewing away at some issue that troubles them. I am more of a positive person, I want us to start exploring the potentials of Mormonism, what are its depths and its heights… That is where this new generation is going, not fighting through their doubts. They’re sort of exploring trying to find out what its potentials are. I guess it could all go sour in time and some people worry about it, but not me, I like to let these guys roll, and if they get off into some heresies, it’s not so bad.
I often look at the people closest to me, loved ones, family members, friends. They represent the full gamut from faithful, orthodox members to outright atheists. But I find that I worry the least about those who are actively engaged, regardless of where their engagement might be.
If this life means anything, if we truly are here to learn and to grow and to evolve, then it seems such a waste of time and potential to drift along in the current. Whether orthodox, heterodox, or in the midst of outright hostility, I feel most optimistic for those who do wrestle, who do study, who do fight through doubts and try to reconcile their faith. It isn’t a question of quantifying how positive one is, it’s a question of how engaged one is.
In the fifth and final segment of his interview, Dr. Bushman returns to the subject of Sunstone. He talks about the real need that exists to address the struggles and doubts and wrestling, and expresses the hope that “when these discussions occur that they are not strictly on a technical level… this fact versus that fact… but that they have something to do with the state of our souls; after all what we’re looking for is to evolve, to grow into better people, we need to keep reflecting back on how we keep in touch with God, how we keep intelligence flowing into us… and I don’t know if that goes on in Sunstone meetings or not.”
Guess what? This is exactly what goes on at Sunstone! Yes, we have attendees and participants who wrestle to process their doubts. Yes, we have an occasional misstep. But the frustration I feel with the specific comments in this interview lies in the mischaracterization of the organization based on second-hand or out-of-date information.
Dr. Bushman speaks highly of the Mormon History Association conferences, where both orthodox and unorthodox presentations can occur side-by-side. But Sunstone is a far greater example of discussions occurring beyond the “technical level,” of participants looking to evolve, to grow, to keep in touch with God. Yes, there are heresies. But perhaps heresies from Sunstone aren’t so bad, just as heresies from the up-and-coming generation referenced earlier “aren’t so bad.”
At the heart of this issue is a perception and indictment of Sunstone that dissuades the more orthodox, conservative individual from participating. This perception, this indictment, is most unfortunate and one that we need to dispel. In fact, while we do tackle most issues and we are an open forum, the Sunstone sessions that generate the largest crowds are those that explore our faith in personal, uplifting ways. “Pillars of My Faith” is always the best-attended plenary session. The “Why I Stay” series that former Sunstone board chair Toby Pingree created and organizes each year draws overflow crowds. These sessions, and many more like them, inspire attendees and offer a positive modeling of faith. We seek after these things!
For those who have walked the path, for those who have faced the complexities, for those who have reconciled their faith and emerged on the other side, is there not a responsibility to then be an example of healthy faith for those still on the path? For those still fighting?
Yes, we can get weary of the same conversations. Yes, we can tire of some of the same topics. But those topics were new to us once, too, and they will continue to be newly encountered by others year in and year out. It hardly seems Christ-like to dismiss another’s fighting through their doubts because we’ve been there, done that. No – it is our responsibility to be here. To be engaged with our people. To foster our community and help one another connect with God.
So we search for good sessions, for good conversations. We are open to the orthodox and the heretic. We hope that misperceptions do not discourage others from attending, but they do. That’s unfortunate, because this is a community that deserves full participation from every corner. Participation simply requires “a kind of blithe confidence that if you try to do what is right… that you come out all right.”
We welcome anyone with an interest to see this firsthand, to contribute or just observe. We only ask that participants be constructive and respectful. Our 2007 annual Symposium will be in Salt Lake on August 8-11. We have upcoming regional events, too. We’d love to see you there.
Rory, can someone email me or provide a link to the speaking and conference schedule of Sunstone for 2007. Though I have heard of Sunstone, I am quite new to the current discussion.
Comment # 1 by Todd Wood | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
Hi Todd,
Currently there are two scheduled conferences, with more that have dates TBD.
SunstoneWest will take place on April 21 in San Francisco. The main Salt Lake Symposium will be held August 8-11 at the Sheraton in SLC.
Dan can share any additional firm commitments in other regions. You can also view the Call for Papers announcements by clicking here.
Comment # 2 by Rory Swensen | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
“For those who have walked the path, for those who have faced the complexities, for those who have reconciled their faith and emerged on the other side, is there not a responsibility to then be an example of healthy faith for those still on the path? For those still fighting?”
Rory,
I guess my comments on the other post have served some good. This post is very good. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment above. I am an ex-Irish Catholic convert to the church (age 19), returned missionary, single, chaste, gay, priesthood holder who left the church for 10 years after trying to reconcile my faith with my sexual orientation. I returned three years ago. While my journey was very difficult and painful, I have finally come to peace with who I am. There are many unanswered questions but my faith has never been deeper or stronger than it is now at age 45.
I hope that Sunstone is not only able to address the difficult issues but also to show how others have come through those issues with a much stronger faith and commitment to the Kingdom.
Comment # 3 by Michael | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
Having attended several of the sessions at the 2006 SLC Symposium, I should probably say that many of the sessions actually are not very welcoming of faithful Latter-day Saints. I am not saying they are not interesting or valuable or needed by some people, but when you say that Sunstone welcomes everyone, I am unsure whether that can be accepted uncritically. If the material being said from the podium of a Sunstone session at the symposium is simply offensive to either the sensitivities or the beliefs/faith of a faithful Latter-day Saint, then it is not welcoming, no matter how fun intellectually the debate can be.
Comment # 4 by john f. | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
What do you mean by “faithful Latter-day Saints?”
Comment # 5 by Stephen Carter | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
john f,
I think there is a distinction between being welcoming and being inoffensive.
I will offer one qualification to the “everyone is welcome” idea: Everyone is welcome, provided they are constructive and respectful. That’s fairly nebulous, but part of the selection process in accepting session proposals seeks to ensure that the presenters and participants hold to some level of decorum and respect.
That said, given the nature of live sessions and questions/comments from the audience, you’ll see an occasional failure to uphold those ideals. With the shear number of sessions available, we’re almost sure to offend someone.
Does that make them unwelcome? No. Granted, it isn’t for everyone. It’s an open forum with some challenging sessions, not summer camp.
The issue that I see here is broader than Dr. Bushman’s comments. It is a perception of Sunstone that unfairly dissuades participation from some corners. MHA tends to escape this and is praised for having a range of participants. Sunstone steps beyond the technical and focuses on where our religion affects our lives, and in doing so we seem to step into something of a mire.
We are not an apologetic conference, so we are criticized from one side for being too heretical. We are not a hostile conference, so we are criticized from the other side for not being heretical enough. Maybe we are doing something right? We’d just like to see the range of participants and presenters expand.
Comment # 6 by Rory | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I think John F asks a fair question. And I like Stephen’s question and Rory’s response.
I have attended both the past two MHA conferences in Vermont and Wyoming and the past two SLC Sunstone Symposiums. I love both forums. Bro. Bushman cites MHA as a place where open and respectful discussion of Mormon issues occurs between people of various beliefs. I’d agree. However, MHA is not a forum where many of my home ward members would feel comfortable. My wife still talks of the shock she experienced during her first MHA two years ago. But just because some Mormons would feel threatened by what they hear at MHA doesn’t make it bad. Some people are further along in their faith and/or study of Church History. Some people have a more intellectually-based testimony. For them, MHA is a graduate course; it is not the Groundhog Day-like repetition of Church History 101 we get in Sunday School every four years.
In my experience, Sunstone is no different. Sunstone and MHA are similar in that they both explore (sometimes) difficult issues with respect to Mormonsim. They differ in that MHA analyzes facts and interpretations, but Sunstone generally takes it one step further and asks, “But what does this mean to us?” Personal feelings and beliefs are engaged. At MHA, people are largely left to their private conclusions. This may make Sunstone a little more “risky,” but the personal payoff is greater as well.
The second difference is MHA’s more or less narrow focus on things historical, while Sunstone opens the playing field to discussion of culture, art, current events, etc. It goes without saying that it is easier and safer discussing the pros and cons of Plural Marriage 100+ years ago verses the pros and cons of Gay Marriage today, to cite just one example. Again, this doesn’t make Sunstone bad, but I’d agree to some extent with John F that it is not for everyone. Sunstone is for people at a certain point on their faith journey. I believe there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of such people throughout the Church that would benefit from such a forum, but who are discouraged from participation by misinformation and rumor, or the nebulous threat of “alternative voices.”
Comment # 7 by Matt Thurston | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Matt,
Thanks for chiming in. One thing I’d like to reinforce, and your comment does so nicely, is that this is in no way an MHA versus Sunstone smackdown. I enjoy MHA, and agree both play a valuable role.
Comment # 8 by Rory Swensen | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
john f.,
I’d be really interested in the details of your experience. Which sessions did you think were that overtly offensive? Did you attend any that weren’t?
Thanks,
Rick
Comment # 9 by Rick Jepson | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
In my experience attending Sunstone, MHA, John Whitmer Historical Association and similar symposiums/meetings over the past couple of decades, I have to admit that there have been plenty of times when I’ve been shocked/rocked by speakers or topics that have pushed my personal envelope of comfort and understanding.
However, there have been many more times when I’ve been strengthened, had questions answered, or just been relieved to find out that, “wow, I’m not the only one wrestling with this question.” I’ve personally felt that, had it not been for the ability to attend conferences that discuss hard issues, and to question and challenge those presenting hard ideas in their presentations, I would not have remained an active, contributing member of the Church - and I know I am not alone. Every symposium I attend, another person says to me how attending the symposium makes it easier to attend his/her regular ward.
Sure, there was a period when many in the Sunstone community were feeling hurt or even threatened as scholars were disciplined by their local leaders. Not surprisingly, it led to a “circle the wagons” response by many studying Mormon-ness, fearing for their own Mormon identities and hurting at the seeming injustices suffered by friends and associates. Perhaps because of the nature of Sunstone symposiums, and their give-and-take conversational setup, they became a place for discussion about the pain, catharsis and maybe even dirty-laundry airing. Most of the acute pain inflicted more than 10 years ago is now healed, and although some lingers, there are new ideas, discussions, understandings and depths plumbed every year.
More often than not, symposium sessions have urged me to examine my own faith and actions more closely, sometimes increasing my orthodoxy and sometimes increasing my heterodoxy. When I’ve been able to discuss, explore, seek for and find answers with the community of hobbyists, scholars, and “regular folks” interested in all things Mormon, it simply adds more depth and meaning to my personal relationship with my God and Savior. Remember, “there must needs be opposition in all things” - sometimes you get warm fuzzies from presentations, and sometimes you get cold pricklies, but eventually, if you continue to “study it out in your mind”, at least in my personal experience, you can come to a place of peace and understanding (at least until the next presenter rocks your little boat a bit more).
So, my recommendation is that if you haven’t been to a symposium lately, take the opportunity to attend a session or two, either in person or virtually by downloading a session recording from Sunstone’s website. You can always attend Sunstone symposiums one session at a time, so come on in and find a session that increases your love of God - I guarantee that they exist.
Comment # 10 by LauraC | Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
In my opinion, Bushman’s comments say as much about where he is coming from as they reflect accurately the relative value of different fora. Not to engage in age-ism here, but on the subject of blogs I think it is perfectly understandable that Bushman doesn’t appreciate the value of these as much as he does the media through which he has done most of his sharing: books, articles, and academic conferences. He is a scholar, and not a scholar of the new generation. And I say this with no intention of deriding his great achievements.
From a scholar acquaintance I learned that one of the emerging trends is to place position papers online instead of simply publishing the article right away. This from a man who is at the top of his field and working in one of the nations top Ivy universities. So the media trends of the academy are changing, although it is still the article and book that secure tenure.
I also agree with those here who appreciate Sunstone as having a different purpose from that of the academic conferences run by MHA and the like. Many of the great intellectuals grappled with their spiritual lives in ways that had little to do with the academy, and I think that the world would be much poorer had they not applied their talents to such issues. Sunstone provides a forum where stimulating, but not necessarily strictly academic, approaches to Mormonism can flourish.
Finally, to Bushman’s credit I would like to point out that he did have some pretty positive things to say about Dan Vogel. Bushman’s finding value in Vogel’s work and speaking of him in such a gentlemanly way is a gesture rarely made by a faithful Mormon. If he is willing to acknowledge Vogel’s worth to Mormon Studies, perhaps he can be persuaded to apply similar value to Sunstone, blogs, etc. They too have an important place in the Mormon community.
Comment # 11 by Trevor | Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
Matt, you wrote “But just because some Mormons would feel threatened by what they hear at MHA doesn’t make it bad.” This isn’t about faithful Latter-day Saints being “threatened” by information discussed at MHA or Sunstone; nor is this about anything being “bad” or “good”. Faithful Latter-day Saints shouldn’t feel threatened by things discussed at Sunstone because their faith shouldn’t be built on things other than a spiritual witness. As I noted, things can be intellectually fun and academically stimulating, however, without being welcoming. If the claim is that Sunstone “welcomes” everyone, I am just not sure that can be an accurate statement. Perhaps it is a mere equivocation on terms. Perhaps you mean Sunstone welcomes everyone in a very technical sense such as that it is open to the public and anyone is welcome to come in and sit down. If so, then there is no way to dispute that statement and I am not trying to do so.
If, however, you are trying to say that all voices, including the voices of orthodox Latter-day Saints, are “welcome” in the discussion in the sense of desired participation, then it might not be accurate considering the content of some of those discussions. An example from my limited exposure to the SLC Sunstone symposium in 2006 would be Paul Toscano’s presentation on the Church being a hotbed of schoolmarmery, Sycophancy, and vain ambition. This is not an issue of me being offended at something; this is a question about whether such a speech is welcoming of faithful Latter-day Saints sitting in the audience. Why should an orthodox Latter-day Saint be sitting in that audience? What is Sunstone’s vision there? Is it so that the orthodox Latter-day Saint can challenge Toscano’s conclusions and interpretations in an argument after the speech? That did not occur; instead there was a lot of backslapping when he concluded. Isn’t this because Sunstone is welcoming of people who all have the same views (relatively speaking) as each other? Maybe that is not the reason, but it does seem worth considering. Why didn’t I stand up and make a comment challenging Toscano’s views? I consider myself orthodox, so I should have done so, right? The thing is, though, being there I didn’t get the sense that that was what the session was intended for. Toscano has his strong opinions and beliefs and wants to share them to a like-minded audience. That is why it is different than MHA, isn’t it? At MHA, you have no sense that you have a like-minded audience, or am I mistaken? Also, you are not delivering subjective speeches about personal opinions and beliefs (by and large) at MHA, are you? That might be the case, I just don’t know.
John Dehlin did a good job of trying to portray a veneer of objectivity, though, in his presentation at the 2006 Symposium. Condescension to orthodox beliefs and behaviors, nevertheless, expressed themselves at unguarded moments. But the session could be characterized as welcoming of even the orthodox. Still, it was more of a fact-based presentation; it included analysis and interpretation, but it was different somehow that I am having trouble quantifying in this short blurb of a blog comment. Someday I might be able to flesh the thought out more fully, but this is just blogging after all.
One question, though: would Sunstone really be as welcoming of a Richard Draper or Susan Tanner (sorry, just trying to think of some bread-and-butter, entirely orthodox voices off of the top of my head) as it is of a John Remy? Is someone who is actively and deeply involved in the “party line”, i.e. in reinforcing the traditional truth and authority claims, really as welcome as someone who has completely rejected the Church and those truth and authority claims? Truth be told, it simply is not as welcoming of the orthodox, right? I mean, that is simply not its purpose. There’s no shame in owning to that. Thus, I am left to wonder why the resistance to Bushman’s characterization? It should be no insult; Sunstone has a purpose and following that purpose naturally excludes some segment of people — or I should say, makes them less or not fully welcome. even if they are free to wander in and sit down.
Again, this has nothing to do with whether Sunstone is intellectually stimulating or whether some people need it to express their dissatisfaction with the Church, its life, and its doctrines. That certainly is the case.
Comment # 12 by john f. | Feb 13, 2007 | Reply
I think there is a wide range. I’ve been in some very orthodox sessions.
Comment # 13 by Rick Jepson | Feb 14, 2007 | Reply
John, my use of the word “bad” was just a case of me being too lazy to think of a better adjective. I basically thought the same thing you said when I wrote it, but let it stand because, as you say, “this is just blogging after all.”
I see what you are getting at with your definition of the word “welcome.” That said, I think all organizations have a more or less like-minded audience. Is Sunstone more or less like-minded than MHA? It’s hard to say because as you say (and I said in #7), Sunstone engages personal opinion and belief more than MHA. As such it is easier to determine the dominant “voice” of the group. I’d agree that the more liberal voice usually carries the day at most Sunstone Symposium sessions, but that does not mean the audience shares the views/opinions of that voice, as you demonstrate yourself by your attendance. I think the same phenomenon is at work in Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. The conservative voice usually carries the day. It doesn’t mean people in the audience agree with the conservative point of view, it just means that it often goes unchecked.
For example, imagine someone in Sunday School popping off with the following unequivocal comment: “Watching football on TV on Sunday is a violation of the commandment that we keep the sabbath day holy!” Such a comment often goes unchecked because to suggest otherwise is to go against the conservative grain. I’ve seen the same phenomenon at Sunstone, just in the opposite direction. For example, someone might say, “George Bush is a complete idiot!” or something like that, a comment that would probably go unchecked because it goes against the liberal grain.
Is Sunstone welcoming of all voices? Of course not. Is any organization? Sunstone goes to great lengths to filter out and exclude the “anti” or hostile-to-Mormonism voices. It might go to the same lengths to filter out extreme conservative voices as well, but as you’d probably imagine, such voices rarely, if ever, submit symposium proposals.
In any case, I think I basically agree with your welcome or not welcome premise, though we may disagree about the length, width, and height of that “welcome” box.
Having said that, Bushman’s characterization of Sunstone was either misinformed or out of date. Sunstone is a place that “explores the potentials of Mormonism, what are its depths and its heights,” a place where “these discussions occur that are not strictly on a technical level… this fact versus that fact… but they have something to do with the state of our souls; after all what we’re looking for is to evolve, to grow into better people, we need to keep reflecting back on how we keep in touch with God, how we keep intelligence flowing into us…” It isn’t necessarily orthodox, but as Bushman says himself, “I like to let these guys roll, and if they get off into some heresies, it’s not so bad.” I recognize some orthodox Mormons would not feel comfortable in such an atmosphere.
John, why don’t you work up a symposium proposal for the upcoming symposium in August? I’d love to see a Mormon Mentality panel to take on some subject.
Comment # 14 by Matt Thurston | Feb 14, 2007 | Reply
(Quick note: I was composing this off-line while Matt was replying, so know that if there’s redundancy in some of our responses, that’s why. Thanks for the points you make, Matt. I think the one about how conservative answers/comments carry the day in Sunday settings is really good and helpful in conjunction to what I wrote below about the exaggerated remarks that get laughs but really shouldn’t in some Sunstone sessions.)
Hi john f.
I really appreciate your comments and many good observations and questions. Your queries about what “welcoming” to “faithful Latter-day Saints” means are really terrific. Let me try my best to respond in a way that is direct to the issue but that can also provide a broad background.
You ask:
As magazine editor and Sunstone executive director, let me state immediately that Sunstone absolutely welcomes presentations or articles that present very standard positions. As Elbert Peck used to say when he was in my position, “the easiest way to get something accepted for the symposium is to present a conservative or orthodox point of view.” And Sunstone used to be a place where plenty of traditional believers (scholars and amateurs who fully accepted LDS truth claims) presented and published. It was a great era, the time when our symposiums and magazine were the most exciting and fun. I’d love things to go back to the time when Dan Peterson and Dan Vogel would debate just how anti-Masonic the Book of Mormon really is or when Lou Midgely and David Bohn would challenge the assumptions behind the “New Mormon History” and be engaged in return by Mike Quinn and others. Those kinds of sessions represent the ideal “open forum” that Sunstone strives to host—when people, no matter what their take, get together and debate their positions and allow the “marketplace of ideas” do its sorting of the relative merits of the various pieces of the puzzle. So my initial response to your question is “yes!” Sunstone truly welcomes the orthodox and those willing to represent traditional positions.
That’s the “ideal world” answer. The reality of today—which is post-Elder Oaks’s going on record about “Alternate Voices,” post-First Presidency statement on symposia, post-September Six disciplinings—is that very few of those orthodox believers who were once willing to present at symposiums and publish with Sunstone feel quite the same green light to do so today as before these things happened. It’s not so much official job sanctions BYU and CES people (the most likely candidates to argue these positions) fear: we have BYU’s spokespersons on record even recently that there is no school policy against participation, though there are a few deans who apparently make it known that it’s a no-no in their minds. It’s much more an unofficial having to figure a cost/benefit calculation about participating as they still have to interact with even-more-conservative colleagues, etc. In short, there’s been a “chill effect” going on since the early 1990s that, even if not officially, has effectively limited the ranks we draw our speakers from. We still have conservative and moderate “faithful” speakers from BYU and elsewhere speak, but nothing like the numbers we used to have.
You focus in a few spots on the question of the faithful member feeling welcome in the audience. I hope they’d feel welcome in most sessions, but I agree that a session like Toscano’s 2006 presentation on moral attitudes prevalent in conservative America today would feel much different than Dehlin’s report on Mormon cyberspace. I myself don’t feel exactly comfortable attending a presentation like Toscano’s and much prefer different types of sessions. (As a sidenote for those who haven’t heard the session, Toscano’s talk doesn’t directly mention Mormonism even once, but allows people to extrapolate connections to certain attitudes present in the Church from the larger picture of conservative attitudes he presents. His presentation was also very long and did not allow time for us to have an official respondent—something I only very reluctantly agreed to as his suggestion for cutting time to allow for a respondent was to jettison the portion at the end where he proposes an idea or two for how someone might go about changing things.)
Still, the criterion we use that allows Paul Toscano to speak at Sunstone is the same we try to apply to every presenter: is it good thinking that is based on solid research and/or observation and a reasonably mature outlook on the matter at hand (and this we judge to the best of our ability to judge from an abstract and short write up, which is usually all we have to go on in making decisions); does it ultimately promote a constructive agenda (that is, is the person’s reason for speaking to say something that is designed to shed light on a topic in such a way that we or whatever it addresses will be better in the long run for having heard and weighed this person’s take); and is this person willing to engage others who may disagree with him or her and to do so with respect for the others’ position and what they might hold as sacred?
I would also hope any audience member knows him- or herself well enough to gauge ahead of time how likely they are to feel “welcome” in a particular session. It’s one of the reasons we at Sunstone insist on having abstracts in our programs. It would be SO much easier (and cheaper!) for us to simply list titles and very brief bio data as does MHA and almost every other conference out there! We really DO want audience members to feel comfortable, but we also feel it is important for them to do their homework with the program before deciding to attend a session. You’ll notice that only very rarely will Sunstone put something potentially controversial in one of its plenary session slots. For each session slot, we try to schedule a decent range of topics and “heat” levels (euphemism for how likely something is to cause discomfort for someone who isn’t already familiar with a particular speaker or topic) so folks from all over the “faithfulness” spectrum would be able to find something appealing (or comfortable) to them that hour.
I agree with your points about how Sunstone’s broad focus versus that of the MHA allows for sessions that are more personal journey oriented (“subjective speeches about personal opinions and beliefs”) and therefore more likely to involve a wide range of opinions about the Church as a whole or various policies than a presentation describing a person or specific event might, such as those more common to MHA than Sunstone. And I agree that there does exist an assumption among many presenters and attendees that most in the audience are quite liberal politically and are at least pretty comfortable with exploring possibilities regarding scripture, Church teachings, leaders, and policies that would not be appropriate for Sunday worship setting. This does lead, unfortunately, in my opinion, to one encountering occasional cheap shots and exaggerated statements that get laughs when they shouldn’t (and I believe wouldn’t, were it not for the “live” setting and were people to have a chance to really analyze what the person was saying or how well-thought-out their point was).
Anyway, too long a response. I hope something here is clarifying a bit on at least how I see the “welcome” question for “faithful members” regarding both presentations and audience attendance.
Cheers!
Dan Wotherspoon
Comment # 15 by Dan | Feb 14, 2007 | Reply
Matt and Dan:
Thank you for your detailed responses. It is too bad that there has been something of a chill, as you state, but on the other hand it isn’t too hard to see why orthodox people wouldn’t find it very enjoyable to sit and chat with people like Paul Toscano or those that share his views. It isn’t about a desire to silence views but rather merely about self-selection. This self-selection means that, as Matt has noted, a certain voice carries the day at Sunstone. I would say that the converse example is not Sunday School but rather (perhaps) a FAIR Symposium, where Paul Toscano or Will Bagley might not find the company or presentations very enjoyable.
But your comments are well taken and I hope will go a long way to quell any concerns that someone stumbling on this thread from Google might have from anything I might have written.
Comment # 16 by john f. | Feb 14, 2007 | Reply