Thoughts on Being a Dissenter by Jana Reiss

Dissenters, Nemeth says, help us to be better thinkers because they make us actually look at evidence more closely. We ask harder questions. We’re open to fresh strategies to solve problems.

In the context of church, I’d say that people that ask harder questions and don’t just go with the flow are better positioned to receive revelation. Why would someone receive revelation if they put up their defenses to anything but the knowledge that they have already obtained?

What’s more, dissent is valuable even if the dissenters are eventually proven wrong. The process of assimilating and trying to disprove dissent forces us to ask tough questions, so if we come to majority agreement we do so in a more informed and logical way.

A good point and something worth remembering. Reaching the stage where you feel like making a dissenting point doesn’t automatically make you right and others wrong. Maybe Thomas B. Marsh really liked his milk strippings.

I assume it depends a bit on your ward, your ability to be tactful, your “cred” with your ward, if you are the only one willing to say anything, and of course your leaders.

What if you have a very conservative ward, aren’t good at being tactful, and have zero cred? Asking for a friend.

My favorite subject in college was Evolutionary Biology. In Evolution, we understand that mutations, which sometimes arise through random chance, are largely responsible for both the development and survival of a species. I think religion and civilization work much in the same way. You have to have a lot of different mutations within the group in order for it to survive and progress. And there will often be often far more mutations which are detrimental than those which are positive. But those with positive mutations are more likely to survive and pass on their traits to the next generation, which is how we see progress from single-celled-organisms, to fungi, to complex thinking beings like us.

Dissenters are like mutations. Often, they’ll cause more harm than good. Sometimes, they can kill off an entire species. Sometimes, they’ll cause species to splinter into new species. And sometimes, they’ll help the species as a whole better adapt and survive. It’s important for religious groups to have some dissenters, but not too many. Too much or too little will keep you from surviving. One thing is for sure though: No species, nation, or religion lasts forever. Eventually, it’ll all be replaced by something else. Even looking at the Church, we are VERY different from the Church under Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, in not even 200 years. Imagine what another 500 would do?

One thing I can honestly say is that I’ve had exceptional local leaders. Unfortunately I haven’t found that the local leaders have much sway in the overall culture of the church.

yes, there is that. In some ways…I find that freeing for me…because my mind can see the church isn’t this ward, this leader, this situation. Variation exists. Making cafeteria approach an option without guilt. I don’t need the church and it doesn’t need me.

Dissenters, Nemeth says, help us to be better thinkers because they make us actually look at evidence more closely. We ask harder questions. We’re open to fresh strategies to solve problems.

well…i would say that, yes…it can…but it isn’t a given. Some dissenters are just rabble rousers.

Some consensus thinkers are extremely open hearted and loving and use consensus to think deeply within the bounds they feel safe to live in.

Perhaps I think dissenters can go from stage 3 to stage 4 and back to stage 3. Some stage 3 will go very deep in their stage 3-ness. But some can use stage 4 to move out of stage 3 so they can go to stage 5 and that is good. But it is not necessary or not always the same progression for all.

So…I guess I don’t glorify stage 4, or the dissenter.

The article is really an LDS-oriented illustration of a phenomenon called Groupthink you read about in Organizational Behavior courses.

Groupthink is the idea that large groups or small groups can go along with erroneous ideas because a culture of no criticism prevails, or people just keep quiet for various reasons — perhaps out of conformity. A Devil’s Advocate (bad name for a church version of Group think) is supposed to be present to challenge the status quo and prevent Groupthink from happening, although I’ve never really found assigning someone that role to be “practical”. It’s better to simply speak up (everyone) when they disagree with the direction the group is taking, while using judgment about just how much conflict to introduce into the group over ideas…this comes from creating a culture that welcomes tension of ideas. A culture that encourages periods of healthy debate before arriving at what the group will do.

I agree with a few comments in the article.

Notably, that ideas that previously brought censure to dissenters become policy statements or apologies later on in our church….

MMM, Priesthood Ban, and admissions that past leaders have made mistakes, allegations of lack of equality of women. Even the new policies that elevate female leadership in the church are a somewhat of an admission that we were male-heavy in our leadership and decision making in the past.

I’ve had my own version where I’ve been censured by groups over unorthodox ideas only to find a long time later, they reversed their positions — couple examples..

1. I am an electric bass player, and advocate of short scale instruments since i have small hands. 20 years ago, professional guitar builders and music store personnel refused to acknowledge the merits of a short scale bass, citing all the short people who play the large scale ones. They ignored my own reasons — just wouldn’t respond to them. Now, 20 years later, people play them professionally and they have flooded the market as highly popular instruments. It took 20 years, but people view them as just as credible as regular sized basses now. Recently there was a thread called “Are Short Scale Basses the Hottest Thing Today???”.

It’s as if one influential person makes a comment, and everyone just parrots it back to others who have a contrarian view until there is a tipping point. And this is even though they’ve never tried a shortie themselves. And it can get heated! That has been the bane of my existence through my life as I constantly challenge the status quo.

I have learned NOT to engage in such counterpoint or contrarian ideas in real life at church == trouble.

2. Recently (in the last year), I took my opinions about small basses to an upright bass forum (those big standup basses — a different animal ). Since the bass playing world seemed to have “caught up to me”, I thought I could do the same in the more traditional upright bass world.

I was planning to learn to play one to transition to the larger upright bass. They can be difficult and hard to play at first, so I bought a smaller one that I loved, fit my hands, and got me performing live in 3 months as opposed to 2 years (or not at all because it’ so hard).

Total crucificixion for doing that by the upright bass community in an online discussion forum. They even told me I was lying when I explained my unorthodox path got me hired as a side-man on upright bass for a $500 performance in 6 months, in a theater, catered, own green room, standing ovations from the audience. This is unusually high pay for a local musicians like myself…..and when I posted a video and the program to prove it was true, they ripped my playing to shreds rather than acknowledging they were wrong about the crediblity, suitability, tone, of the instrument. They shifted the debate to something else that would knock down what I was doing….even though the evidence refuted their previous position.

Again, they wouldn’t address my counterpoint or reasons for the short instrument itself — clients don’t care about the size, fellow musicians don’t care about the size, the thing is paying for itself in gigs…And they wouldn’t acknowledge they were wrong on so many levels about what a short instrument was capable of, contrary to their “advice” previously. They were extremely closed-minded and arrogant about the whole thing. I ended up getting a warning from a moderator (out of the blue) because my position was upsetting people and was not “well received”.

I started wondering if their opinions were part of some correlation program!

And their lack of willingness to address my concerns, or see the merits, and resorting to punishment only entrenched my own commitment to the shorter instrument.

It seems that the people who will see it my way probably aren’t born yet…

I find this very annoying. People cling to opinions even in the face of evidence they can’t refute, and when you give them evidence, they continue to deny the merits of your position. They won’t even test your idea — most hadn’t ever played a short instrument in their life. And then, when you protest no one is willing to even address your reasons, they accuse you of “needing validation”. Or simply state they disagree, and don’t want to talk about it further, or worse yet, discipline you.

That idea is alive and well in the church.