- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I spent a little bit of time, but I don’t know if I found any other threads that talk about something that I was reminded of when reading “Explaining a balanced faith perspective to others” http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5966&view=unread#p82072 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5966&view=unread#p82072 NewLight wrote:I just don’t bother to engage/argue. It’s just not worth it. But I will limit conversations that head toward the black and white mentality. Instead, I try to focus on areas where I have some common ground with the hard core folks. This usually tends toward the idea of “What would Christ do?”. At least from what I have seen, there simply cannot be much argument against the fact that he ministered to all.
A few weeks ago I listened to “Being Authentic within Mormonism”
http://mormonmatters.org/2014/09/23/249-250-being-authentic-within-mormonism/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2014/09/23/249-250-being-authentic-within-mormonism/ As NewLight mentioned, I don’t see arguing as an option to even consider. A TBM is going to write you off as a lost cause that needs to be silenced. But what are ways to
nudgethe conversation in a better direction, and maybe at the same time show others that might be having questions that you are someone that they could talk with? I am not all that fast on my feet and still one foot in stage 4 and I often get very upset and I am not thinking clearly. I know that if I prepare I can often do better.
So beyond NewLight’s great WWJD suggestion, what are some situations and responses that you have been able to say something that is non-confrontational, but still make everyone listening think (differently) for just a bit?
“I like to look at everything from every angle, and I’ve thought about . . .” “I have a friend (or, “My dad”) who once said . . .”
“(Such and such apostle or Church President) said . . .”
“I’ve lived in a lot of places in my life and known a lot of members from really diverse backgrounds, and . . .”
“It’s really interesting to look at __________ from the scriptures. It says . . .”
In some rare cases, when the conversation is turning toward or already in an area that I think is dangerous and damaging (like former justifications for the race-based Priesthood ban), I will be more blunt – but I still try to do so in a soft, gentle, contemplative voice.
The key for me is to speak to others in the way I would want others to speak to me. Anger (or even strong, obvious, negative emotion) rarely works, even lots of good, humble, sincere people generally feel attacked and automatically put up self-protection walls.
Also, it is really, really, really important to use common, simple, accepted, “tribal” language at all times. People don’t want to have to think hard to understand what you are saying, and they don’t want to feel like you aren’t speaking their language. For example, talk about the Gift of the Holy Ghost, NOT the “in-dwelling of God’s spirit”. They really are basically the same thing, but . . . The second phrase is a term Protestants recognize in a heartbeat, but Mormons will look at you like you are from Mars – or just being pretentious and weird. I often write more formally than I talk, and it’s a conscious decision to speak at a lower academic level so nobody stops listening out of frustration.
Finally, in leadership meetings over the years, I am FAR more direct and blunt than in meetings with the general membership. I still try to be gentle and soft-spoken, but I say things that I wouldn’t say publicly. I figure they called ME to that position, so they are going to get ME. The worst that can happen is that I get released – and I can live with that. Conversely, I might make a difference (and, I believe, have done so) – and I’ve gotten positive feedback, generally, when I eventually was released for whatever reason. Again, it’s as much or more about the delivery method than the exact words.
Good advice and I agree with the difference of in a small meeting of leaders vs a HP lesson or gospel doctrine class. I think what I am most lacking is being mentally/verbally quick on my feet.
LookingHard wrote:Good advice and I agree with the difference of in a small meeting of leaders vs a HP lesson or gospel doctrine class.
I think what I am most lacking is being mentally/verbally quick on my feet.
I also agree with Ray, but I am not as quick as he is on my feet, either. FWIW, I do say that I don’t engage some people, but not necessarily those I’m already engaged with. When I say I won’t engage people I’m saying I won’t take the bait or enter into a potentially contentious engagement. Those with which I am already engaged I do sometimes disengage if it appears that the conversation is becoming contentious.
The final words of Christ, go ye into all the world, should ring loud and clear in the ears of the zealot. They have taken upon themselves the obligation to put themselves out there. For example, the LDS church demands (not requests) that as a crucial rite of passage into adulthood that all men and increasing numbers of women in the church pay them to work for them for 2 years as full-time missionaries, to teach with exactness and boldness, and while under unrelenting pressure to perform better. Failure to comply results in life long second-class citizenship and severely decreased access to marital partners. In my opinion part of this includes being willing to take it as much as give it. I am recommending consideration of the opposite course of action as described by others. Take off the kid gloves. Tell them what you think. Loudly and clearly. Swear. Use the old tribal language of J. Golden Kimball. Then laugh at them. And come back boldly for more, don’t slink fearfully out the back door.
We are not the ones trying to promote outrageous customs and fill the earth with them. We are not the ones who created an over-demanding religion that in some cases verges into cult-like behaviors. We are not the ones who require strict obedience to an aging oligarchy while the rest of the world moves towards democracy. We are not the ones who have white-washed our history to the point where it is almost unbelievable to anyone. They are and they deserve full responsibility for the goods and the ills that flow from it. Who better than our own internal voices to do the scrubbing needed to cleanse this wickedness.
We owe it to the LDS church to respond in the way they expect others to respond to them. Either fervent acceptance and 100% commitment to every point of this gospel lifestyle or a similar vigorous rejection of the aspects we honestly find obnoxious for good reasons. Mormons are (or once were) strong and certain people; they will require strong medicine to correct the ills currently infecting the faith. People who roam exclusively in black and white pastures see no grey and need to be fed black and white hay in copious amounts until they choke on it like most of us have.
My goal isn’t to come to some sort of quiet comfortable truce with Mormonism that allows me my petty little exceptions. My goal is nothing short of victory over them on every point of truth. Admittedly I am not winning but that doesn’t mean others won’t.
I’m trying to choose my words carefully, Porter, and I will probably leave it at your kind of activism will not be beneficial to anyone. As for those not serving missions being sentenced to a lifetime of second class citizenship, I might remind everyone that none of the first presidency served missions as young men – they are hardly second class citizens.
DarkJedi wrote:As for those not serving missions being sentenced to a lifetime of second class citizenship, I might remind everyone that none of the first presidency served missions as young men – they are hardly second class citizens.
While “life long second-class citizenship” may be a tad on the extreme I think nearly everyone gives the current top leadership a pass because:
1) Whenever I hear that bit of trivia it’s almost always accompanied by pointing out that WW2 was going on at the time. There’s an excuse and what’s more, people feel the need to offer up the excuse. Why even mention the excuse? To make it fit better with the current expectations of our youth.
2) The culture from 80 years ago isn’t today’s culture. Maybe 80 years ago young women weren’t being raised with expectations of marrying a RM.
3) When did the call for every young man to serve a mission start, with SWK? The stigma with not serving a mission probably didn’t ramp up until after the expectation was set.
Maybe there should be another thread on that issue.
:angel: [/threadjack]
NewLight’s suggestion was a good one. Try to focus on shared beliefs. Certain comments will have to be ignored, it takes time to build up strength in taking the high road. A conversation takes two people …usually
Unfortunately some of my reactions mid-FC may have made a strong case for familiarity breeds contempt. Not vocalized, but often fixated in thought. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to interact with people in groups that I’m not very familiar with, see how I might handle disagreements in those settings, and then take those lessons back to my interactions with more orthodox members of the church.
Not to argue the point, and I have heard it before, but none of them actually served in WWII, although Monson could have (and was in the military). Eyring was a bit young and did serve after the war, likewise for Uchtdorf but it was in Germany. Nevertheless, I look around me in my own ward and stake and I don’t see a delineation between those who served and those who didn’t. On the high council I have no clue who did and who didn’t, but I do know all of the stake presidency did. In our bishopric, only the bishop did (one was a later convert).
But alas, this is all off topic – a thread of its own may be interesting.
I respect how LookingHard suggested we find ways to “nudge” the conversation. As opposed to Porter’s approach to smack them in the face with truth.
Porter wrote:My goal is nothing short of victory over them on every point of truth.
Porter, why are trying so hard to “win”? It puts you in a losing position from the start, and I don’t see what your objective is.
There are ways to be bold without being unkind.
Porter, your writing style is very descriptive. I like it. OTOH, I suspect that you might be difficult to have a conversation with on these topics.
The church will carry on with me or without me. I personally am not very hopeful about my ability to make meaningful change in those areas. But my personal relationships with my loved ones is another matter. Making the church an issue with them would sow discord and pain. Even if they all left the church and felt bewildered and betrayed like I had felt – would our family be any stronger for it?
I will not take their safety net from them, especially since I have nothing to offer them in exchange. My love for them dictates as much.
[ Admin Note]: Porter, your approach to this (and other topics, as well) is in direct opposition to our mission, which, for most people, is finding peace in staying LDS. We aren’t here to be confrontational or violent or to win at all costs – even though we do need to oppose some things to maintain individual peace. We aren’t here to learn how to fight about every possible thing. The admins have talked privately about your overall tone for a while. If battle is your goal, you might want to find a different forum. LookingHard, I have the same challenge with thinking quickly on my feet. Sometimes I will just listen to the lesson we are to have while running on the treadmill and make some mental notes about it. I have gone as far as put some quotes from General Authorities in the tablet that talk about the subject that might offer opposing views from the narrative in the lesson. Of course, I don’t have it there to bash with anyone, but to possibly offer another view similar to the approaches that Ray pointed out. My problem is that my memory just is not as good is it once was! NewLight wrote:I have gone as far as put some quotes from General Authorities in the tablet that talk about the subject that might offer opposing views from the narrative in the lesson. Of course, I don’t have it there to bash with anyone, but to possibly offer another view similar to the approaches that Ray pointed out. My problem is that my memory just is not as good is it once was!
I am in no way someone that wants to bash. Never did it once on my mission and I don’t recall doing it to anybody face to face. OK I think once at work I did when a new guy said something SO wrong I couldn’t help. But we became good friends.
I have thought about really studying the lesson (GASP!) ahead of time and maybe predicting some of the tangents and being ready. But sometimes (especially in HP group) who knows where it is going to go! We have one guy that lost a few of his bricks and you never know what he is going to say. Maybe he is there to help keep us awake.
Not only was my memory never all that good, now that I am at least on top of the hill (if not starting to be a bit over) it is getting even worse! Now can anyone else help me with my inability to spell “conversation” correctly? I got it wrong on the thread subject! DOH! (forehead slap)
I do very much like this forum. Some others degenerate into sometimes very negative paths. I do get when your in the midst of a faith transition you need to blow off some steam, but I keep running into those that Neil A. Maxwell called, “those that have left the church, but can’t seem to leave it alone.”
LookingHard wrote:Now can anyone else help me with my inability to spell “conversation” correctly? I got it wrong on the thread subject! DOH! (forehead slap)
hahaha
😆 actually…that kind of sense of humor and admitting we don’t know everything or make mistakes or our memories aren’t the best is a great tool in turning a conversation and keeping it light enough people feel comfortable approaching and talking to you.
Well done! …it’s more rewarding to talk to someone who makes us smile than makes us grit our teeth.
I actually thought of one myself the other day. If I were in a situation where someone started spouting how all gays are evil and going to hell, I think I would say the following:
Quote:I have read a lot from people that have had children come out as gay and they say it wasn’t until that happened that they really thought about this issue in a deep way. I don’t even think that most members have even visited the churches web site mormonsandgays.org where it states clearly that the churches position is that being gay isn’t a sin. I have thought about if one of my son’s came to me and said I was gay, what would I feel and do. I am sure of one thing – I would shower him with love as my son would need all the love and support I could give him to deal with this issue. I would leave no doubt in their mind that I still loved them every bit as much as I had before they told me.
After I thought about this, I realized it was exactly what Dan Witherspoon had mentioned to do. It was a non-argumentative statement (how can talking about a website put out by the church be offensive to an LDS member – even a TBM?) and focused on how I feel. Others could disagree, but you can’t really tell someone they shouldn’t feel a certain way. If someone was as rude to do that, I would simply state that I am not in stewardship over them so I wont tell them how to feel and request the same respect from them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.