Convergence and disagreement
Posted on April 28th, 2005 by M* Ben
On a micro level, LDS tend to want to be agreeable. Whether for the sake of “being nice,” scriptural injunctions to “be one,” social or other reasons, we don’t like to express disagreements with each other. We stifle our opinions, we sit on our hands in class, we let the teacher ramble even if he’s way off base. Perhaps this is also a motivation behind the parodied cliche of self-effacing comments in Relief Society . Convergence towards unity seems to be a primary goal, and expressing disagreement is perceived as interfering with that goal.
This is not necessarily the case in, say, Judaism.
Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase, “Two Jews, three opinions.” In Judaism, disagreement and argument can function as a sign of respect, showing that X’s ideas are valid and interesting enough to merit discussion and rebuttal. Jacob Neusner, a prolific Jewish scholar, said that if he were talking with Jesus, he would, of course, disagree with Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah, but demonstrate his respect for Jesus as a Rabbi by arguing with him. In other words, the most important thing is not whether the two could come to an agreement (or avoid disagreement) about a particular interpretation, but whether they could have a valid intellectual exchange based on Torah.
Judaism (and Islam) lack a living authority structure, and this has resulted in a Balkanization (or Protestant-izing) of these religions, different groups (Sunni vs. Shi’i, Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative) based on different interpretations and traditions. Given the LDS focus on the importance of central authority figure who can make binding policy and doctrine, it is perhaps not surprising that doctrinal convergence spills over to social convergence.
» Filed Under Any
Comments
31 Responses to “Convergence and disagreement”
Leave a Reply
Ben, I’d be interested in having you push the argument in your last paragraph a little more. I think it’s as much a matter of style as of substantive doctrinal or structural impulse toward unity. After all, Catholics have a Pope, but are much more apt to express disagreement over doctrine and practice than Mormons are–theological debates are apt to be much more lively at Notre Dame than in the College of Religious Instruction at BYU! I’m inclined to think that this is partly a matter of Inter-mountain Western niceness and laid-backness being exported as somehow intrinsically Mormon, and partly just a matter of the religion not being yet quite mature enough and certain enough of its own survival to tolerate vigorous discussion and disagreement.
But then again, I grew up in a family whose engagement with Mormonism was much more similar to what Neusner describes as the Jewish way of showing respect and love than to the typical RS discussion. (You may have noticed that I don’t really do the nice Mormon lady voice very well
!)
I like this subject. I think growing up in a traditional Mormon family made me too “nice” and agreeable, which has spilled over into my professional life, where niceness is usually rewarded with being dumped on or taken advantage of. Good thing I’d rather be nice and treat people honestly, because it makes me happy, but it hasn’t helped my career much.
Of course you are totally off base in this post, but I respect your efforts in drafting such a theory. The bloggernacle is a perfect example of Mormons demonstrating a lack of consensus. Maybe it needs a GA appointed to make authoritative posts where the only acceptable comments would be “Amen.”
(I may be wrong, but it seems to me that) disagreeing without being disagreeable is something that must be cultivated. You have to resist the instinct of wanting to win, and ascribing bad motives to the person you disagree with. You also have to be sensitive to the fact that the person you are disagreeing with may not handle it well.
Granted I havent attended Church in Utah/Idaho much, so maybe things are more polite there, but I havent seen much of what youre talking about out here in the hinterlands. My experience is people disagree frequently and can occasionally wax contentious. I have been directly and indirectly involved in a number of heated discussions, both private and public, with LDS people on hot topics like: polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, patriarchy and the priesthood, the law of consecration, homosexuality and gay marriage, BRM’s Mormon Doctrine, etc. These arguments are typically the emotional non-intellectual type, not the kind of intellectual debate you depict above between two rabbis. Perhaps I am a contention magnet and muck raker? If so, I can make my services available at a reasonable hourly rate to liven up your Sunday School and EQ classes.
But, you appear to be asking the question “Does having a strong central authority figure reduce doctrinal debate?” Sure, of course it does. Should it? No. But its human nature to defer difficulties to someone in authority who is supposed to be better at handling the difficulties, whatever they are. In the absence of a strong central authority you have individuals who either compete for or fall into that role. We all know what happens to people who go against the norm in a subculture with a strong central authority. Whether those people intend to challenge the authority or not they end up somewhere on the pariah continuum. I have had people say the most rediculous nonsense about my spiritual well-being based upon disagreements over obscure points of doctrine that had no impact whatsoever on my daily walk. Hey, thats the way it goes.
I was wondering if Mark (#3) was explicitly illustrating Ben’s point?
I dashed this off fairly quickly, and in rereading it and the comments, it’s clear I’ve mixed several things.
Points I was trying to convey-
1) Many LDS assume that for whatever question occurs, there is only one right answer, and we try to converge on it instead of looking at several viewpoints as being intellectually valid.
2) This is probably a function of centralized doctrinal authority in the LDS church and the general feeling of the validity of that authority (as opposed to the many Catholics view of the pope.)
3)This carries over socially to where discussions gear more towards arriving at a common conclusion, not exploring diverging paths.
Kurt: The only time I’ve lived in Utah was for my undergrad. My life before and the 4 years since have been spent in the midwest and France, so my (incoherent?) observations aren’t necessarily Utah-centric.
Jared: I think some LDS feel that disagreement is equivalent to disagreeable contention. Or perhaps I’m tilting at windmills.
Mark: I smiled at your comment. I can’t remember how many on-line participants have said things like “I never open my mouth in Sunday School.” It seems that the bloggernacle attracts those who view it as a legitimate outlet for divergent (but not disagreeable) discussions.
As a sidenote, my wife tolerates all the time I spend on-line for one reason; it forces me to improve my writing, which is frequently underdeveloped and lacking in clarity. So, thanks for the feedback.
“The LDS focus on the importance of a central authority figure.” Interesting concept. It’s refreshing to see it stated so directly, Ben.
Contrast that with “we teach correct principles, and they govern themselves,” which, despite the fact it gets repeated endlessly, really doesn’t describe the way the Church is governed. Instead, a central authority figure issues policies, procedures, and principles (while being fairly loose on specific doctrines) and governs the Church and its members (to the extent it can in a liberal democracy). I’m not sure that’s a criticism: the system works nicely, for the most part.
Dave: I think when that question was originally posed to JOseph Smith, it meant, “how do you maintain control over so many people?” I don’t see centralized authority as being incompatible with each individual governing himself. We have no secret service, or “tithing extraction squads.” Most of us are obediant to the commands because we believe in them, not because we are externally compelled to.
Dave,
I think that the central authority figure is pretty clearly implied by the phrase “teach correct principles.” Unless there is a central authority figure who can establish which principles are the correct ones, then the people cannot know how to govern themselves.
To phrase the issue differently: The fact that God tells Adam and Eve that partaking of a certain variety of fruit is forbidden and that transgression of that command carries a penalty does not take away their free will. To the contrary, it is the establishment of commandments and boundaries, the crossing of which have penalties, that makes free will possible, because it is not until some kind of line is drawn that one can make a choice.
Association with the kingdom is voluntary and we are subject to the instructions of stewards thereof by our own choice.
Jews and Protestants do a fair job of teaching correct principles without a central authority figure, so the need for correct principles does not necessitate an authority structure. One could even argue that if people have to apply themselves a bit to reason out correct principles, they will be more committed to them. But it’s worth noting that LDS classes stress lots of participation and discussion with very few “wrong” answers.
Dave, a good deal of the correct principles taught among the Jews and Protestants were received at one time or another from a central authority figure (Moses, Christ). Those that are not derived from those authorities come through the light of Christ, which is a non-mortal central authority.
“One could even argue that if people have to apply themselves a bit to reason out correct principles, they will be more committed to them.“
But the way that the gospel works, often limited, human reason is incapable of arriving at or comprehending the principles until after they have already been implemented without understanding the “why”. And even after that we often only know that the principles are good, not the “why” or the reasons.
We are expected to act based upon faith and making the correct choice without sufficient information to arrive at it through our own reason is often an essential part of exercising faith.
(Sorry for the threadjack Ben…I’ll back off now)
I think that for too many people disagreement implies or equals dislike. I sometimes feel that we need to state flat out at the beginning of a discussion/argument that the disagreement is platonic or even affectionate in its nature. But often that’s hard to pull off, especially in written dialectic.
BTW, it occurs to me shared church membership could create a dynamic where we already assume that we are brothers and sisters who already care about each other. Therefore, any arguments that take place would be with that familial relationship as part of the general (background) context. That should make discussion, disagreement and argument a bit easier.
I usually hope, after a disagreement discussion with others in the Bloggernacle, that there will be a relaxation of tension — some expressed indication that no grudge is held. For example, an invitation to become a permablogger. (jus’ kidding)
Isn’t there an old saying about never starting conversations with people about politics or religion? Even if we give people their due respect, it’s tough not to feel slighted or uncomfortable when people disagree with you about the things you really care about.
I think the discussion here works so well because most of us don’t know each other - and even so, it’s easier to dash off a witty retraction and claim the person misunderstood your email than to take something back you’ve blurted out in haste.
Oh, we disagree in Utah. Big time. Maybe northern Utah is different, but here in southern Utah, there’s lots of contention and strong opinions. Relief Society is fun for that, Sunday School, not so much, there are some guys who think women should be seen and not heard.
But we had a big shake up in our ward 4 years ago when we got a new bishop. This other guy thought he should be the bishop, he went around to peoples’ houses (never came to mine, or he would still be in the hospital) telling them he had a revelation that he should be the bishop. Actually, I’ve heard he and another guy went to the Stake President to tell them they both had those revelations.
Now we just got another new bishop. Our old bishop, bless his heart, because of what he had been through, totally supported the new bishop. This guy who thought he should have been bishop has been attending another ward (I don’t know why he didn’t just leave the church, I would have thrown him out had I the opportunity and means), and people are talking about wooing him back. Most of us are saying, “let him stay gone, who needs him?” Big fights here.
You want fights, we got ‘em. Maybe it’s all my ward’s fault that I’m onery. You kind of have to be.
“I can’t remember how many on-line participants have said things like “I never open my mouth in Sunday School.” It seems that the bloggernacle attracts those who view it as a legitimate outlet for divergent (but not disagreeable) discussions.”
I agree. I think there would be far, far fewer LDS bloggers with far fewer interesting things to say if all of them felt comfortable disagreeing and discussing at church. I think many women, in particular, really do bite their tongues and sit on their hands to avoid contention at church. No, not all of us, but I for one was raised to be passive (I lived in fear for years of being the obnoxious woman in the back of the room who always comments), and I know I’m not alone. I think it’s a very good thing to have an outlet for opinions.
I agree with Allison.
By the way, Allison, I’ve really enjoyed reading your comments around the bloggernacle lately. Are you new? Or coming back from hiatus? Either way, your comments are great - thanks for hanging out here!
Tess, I’ve been reading for a long time, commenting for not quite as long, but I just started my own blog because I just couldn’t contain my opinions anymore. It’s a lifetime of attempted passivity exploding. Or something. Thanks for noticing me (in my best Eeyore voice).
Come now Allison, your blog is tha bomb. Don’t be afraid to stick your neck out there.
Even when I was extremely backwards, shy, and nonconfrontational, I did not let someone give false doctrine in Relief Society. Fortuantely, being rather demure, I could politely say what I learned in Institute. The instructor did not seem the least bit taken aback. There is a way to interject without making the other person lose face. Very interesting thoughts from the blog. I love having discussions where people see different sides of an issue. It is so invigorating. I am fortunate that I am generally able to see both sides of an issue.
blissful, your polite approach presumes that one would not learn false doctrine in Institute. Not an entirely safe assumption.
Kristine, good point. I know that not everything taught in Institute is doctrine.
Ben said: “We have no secret service, or ‘tithing extraction squads.’”
No, but we have HT/VT, bishop interviews, the priesthood “voice”, and the social pressure of conformity.
As for tithing; our exhaltation seems to be tied directly to temple recommends which are contingent on full tithe; and if you want to see your sibling, child, or friend married, you’d better pony up.
Diana: When we signed up to be members of the Church, we signed up for tithing, didn’t we? I’ve always understood it that way.
I will be the curmudgeon on this thread. I am a lawyer and make my living arguing, and I love a good gospel discussion as much as anyone. But I search the scriptures in vain for any statement that disagreement in just the right manner is an ideal toward which we should strive. To me, ideals like unity, charity, compassion, meekness, and patience (even with a Sunday School teacher who is struggling to do his/her job well) are pretty much the goals. For me, at least, striving toward those ideals is much more challenging (because I am so bad at all of them) and rewarding when I occasionally come close to getting it right.
Putting it another way: When do you feel better– right after you have just made a point in a discussion, or after you have felt or given forgiveness?
Just something to think about.
Diana: When we signed up to be members of the Church, we signed up for tithing, didn’t we? I’ve always understood it that way.
I will be the curmudgeon on this thread. I am a lawyer and make my living arguing, and I love a good gospel discussion as much as anyone. But I search the scriptures in vain for any statement that disagreement in just the right manner is an ideal toward which we should strive. To me, ideals like unity, charity, compassion, meekness, and patience (even with a Sunday School teacher who is struggling to do his/her job well) are pretty much the goals. For me, at least, striving toward those ideals is much more challenging (because I am so bad at all of them) and rewarding when I occasionally come close to getting it right.
Putting it another way: When do you feel better– right after you have just made a point in a discussion, or after you have felt or given forgiveness?
Just something to think about.
I find PM & SS a good time to catch up on my sleep. Discussions in pm & ss in my experience has often been a mind & spiritually numbing experience even when the lesson is prepared. What I observe to be the problem for most people preparing a lesson is that thinking about a topic is usually more like someone popping a tape of other peoples opinions & thoughts i.e. GA’s and the like, and having that be the presenters own thinking. Even when good questions are asked the answers are usually well rehearsed and scripted from the same material. There seems to be a lack in skills of knowing how apply subject matter in a personal way. And time is wasted in repeating the same old stories about same old topics and subjects that could really change lives and make difference.
But of course I am in a young ward and my being 42 is really old. And those who are my age have moved out or just don’t come to PM or SS. And as a family therapist and social worker, and a democrat when I do make a comment with those kinds of references I usually here crickets. One episode in priesthood where we were talking about women’s roles, I was informed that maybe I should be in RS since I was not a man. However, with as much tack as I could mustered I told the guy that he might want to avail himself to my services because he might need it soon, since he vehemently expressed his opinion that a women’s only role was to have children, and men are to be in control. (But I am digressing) The point is that to have meaningful discussion at church about doctoring and how to make it mean something the skill needs to be taught & practice. Perhaps the local synagogue could lend a hand for wards that lack the skill.
I think western society often looks down on people who are demure. Oriental culture fosters an attitude where people talk in circles around an issue and are very concillitory and nice. Also, in many cultures the needs of the group for surivival outweigh that of the indiviudal and I think this would make having “too many chiefs” very impractical. Being demure for some can be an effective leadership style. A professor told me of a leader in India who successfully used this indirect style of appearing very meek while all the while she was in such control and new what she was doing. I used to think in high school how everyone thought I was so sweet and good and I could probably take advantage of that in some malicious way. I never did though as I knew that would be wrong. If I have offended anyone in my remarks in the thread about being judgemental, I am sorry. My remarks were more about what is pent up in me and ignored so long and not directed at any one person. Well, I have had a friend who has allowed me to do a lot of venting towards him of late so I really do not feel as negative as my remarks may have come across. However, I wanted to give my perspectives there and apologize if I judge people as naiive to my plight. Good-bye as you will not see the blissful addy anymore. If anybody has hard feelings though plese let me know. I offer my sincere apologies. My remarks may be edited anyways before anybody reads them.
Blissful, don’t feel like you have to go. There’s no need to leave. I can’t imagine you offended anyone. I’ve been reading this blog for a while now and have just now decided to add a comment or two and I want to tell you a secret…you’re probably the least offensive person to ever comment on here. Take my word for it. Stick around, these people need you, believe me.
SeptimusH, Hi you are so nice. I did not mean to say that I am leaving altogether. I just change identities constantly. It is so easy to do here. Just because I am in the mood I will divulge all the identities that I can think of that I have used here so far. Bkay, mythoughts, happydaytoyou, blissful, olivia86. When I reveal such personal stuff it is akward so I do not like to keep the same identity. I will have to change identies again. By the way I have an online diary at ldscity.com under Olivia86 if you should care to read it. I am not at the level to be an actual blog yet. I would love it if somebody would leave a comment or two. Only if they are going to say something nice though. My identity there is Olivia86 I have way too much fun switching identities. Now I will have to be a little more subtle.
Hello this is another temporay addy. I know I do not have much of what is considered a life in Western Socities so I have to amuse myself somehow.
Ben, I hope you do not mind that I may veer someone off of the original scope of your topic. Well, I have the tendency to do that. Having the ability to type and hijacks threads is a power that I so enjoy in my limited role in this vast world.
First, I want to say that I have an extreme love for a healhy debate. This is goes beyond the realm of Gospel topics. The stimulating exchange of diverse views gives me a legal high.
I guess I am a person who likes to shoot the deeps a little when it comes to Gospel topics too and discuss them with friends. However, I realize there is a danger there. As one of my MTC teachers would say, the Holy Ghost will testify when you are bearing witness of the basic truths such as Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith being a Prophet, our having modern revelation. He encouraged us to avoid topics not essential to eternal salvation. I have such fun on occassion do so though so I hope it is okay to indulge. I am not one of those persons who prays to know mysteries though for the most part. I guess that I am going down this road because I think it is important to remember that in the scheme of things that someting said whether true, false, relevant, or irrelevant in a Sunday School, Relief Socity, and Priesthood Meeting is really minor. If something is in flagrant violation and could lead people astray this should be addressed, of course, respectfully and in a timele manner, which may not be the same day.
As much as I love healthy debate, I generally detest conflict. What is the difference. As I see it, with conflict someone is seeking to be the victor at all costs. The test is do you respect the other person. As I think it was said here earlier in a different comment, we should not be seeking to win. Also, I am sure there have been times when we were convinced we were right to have our viewpoint shifted later. Even if we are 100 per cent correct, we should recognize that other people’s perspectives, experiences, or cognitive difficulties including receptive language disorders may keep them from comprehending or embracing the view. Maybe they were just plain taught wrong by somebody they feel is a credible source. Basically, sometimes you just have to let things go. You cannot force someone to agree without certain dubious tactics. Also, where comprehension difficulties reside, you can talk until you are blue in your face and likely you will just be talking in circles. ( ) Sometimes we all have to agree to disagree. Most of us including myself have our pride so this is not easy.
I also think there is a distinction from sheer passivity and tactfulness. Passivity oftentimes can be a negative trait. I know that I can be overly passive and probably get that from difficult upbringing and maybe also genetically. I think society can get carried away with assertiveness too. To me being passive, is taking yourself out of the game and just letting things slide and maybe even build up internally. Some things need to be addressed. I am not sure if it is good but I am generally very passive at meetings where they implement annoying new requirements at my job. However, to keep a job one does need to sometimes just roll with the flow as management though they may preach empowerment often does not really embrace such a thing. We need to sometimes be humble if we want a job.
Tactfulness, on the other hand, is a skill that many can develop. I have enjoyed seeing my mothers skills of being tactful through the years. Much of this is motivated by her love of family and friends. She does not want to hurt others. There are those who do not appear to have an edit button, and I think we need to give such people some slack. This same people may have other very admirable traits such as hard work. Using tact, one can interject a diverse point of view in a manner that frames the other view with respect. Again, having tact also involves knowing when and where to say something.
I spoke before of being demure but do not think that is necessarily the style for everyone. Some people can get their points across better when they are bold but not overbearing. Different people have different leadership styles and I think there is not one effective way of relating. It comes back again to whether we have the attributes of respectfulness and kindness.
I hope that a culture will exist in our meetings where people in the time contraints exist for people to experience the enlightenment that comes as people share their diverse view points. I believe that this can be a refining and edifying experience.