Teaching Our Children When We Disagree with Something that is Said at Church

I try to be honest with my kids about my own views whenever there's a conflict with what's taught or said by someone at school or church. They know I don't agree with everything that's said, but they also know I genuinely love the people who say the things with which I disagree.

We just disagree; no big deal.

I'm going to disagree with lots of things lots of people say in my life, in every organization of which I'm a part. I know it's really hard to take the emotional reaction out of the picture, especially when it deals with a dad or mom or sibling or other loved one, but it is a skill my children are going to have to learn at some point, no matter what, if they are to be happy.

That's the central message I try to convey to my kids - that's it's fine to disagree, but it's not fine to reject or disparage.  It's fine to disagree, but it's not fine to let disagreement void love.

One Way I Handle Hearing Things at Church with Which I Disagree

There are times at church when someone says something that I believe to be truly dangerous - or so wrong that it has to be addressed openly.  That doesn't happen very often; most things I hear with which I disagree can be ignored without any harm whatsoever, especially when other members share slightly different perspectives that make it clear what is said isn't immutable Mormon doctrine. 

I have found over my decades in the Church that there are multiple ways hearing conflicting things can be a good experience. 

I like to take things that others say and see how I would say them to make them make sense and be meaningful to me. If someone says something in a church meeting with which I disagree, I like to pull my mind away and figure out how I would say it if I were speaking to a group. It keeps me from getting upset, and it also has been the genesis of a few talks in my life - as new thoughts came to me and a way to explain them became a little clearer.

Understanding the LDS Church as the Product of Revolution

Organizational creation is messy - period, pretty much regardless of size. The only exceptions are when a very strong leader is almost dictatorial and ruthless, and even then it often isn't clean and precise at the beginning.

This is true especially of "revolutions" - where "recruitment" of others from existing organizations occurs. Everyone brings their own ideas and biases and perspectives to the table, and it takes a lot to work out how the organization should be built and function. Strong leaders want their own ideas implemented, and things are a bit chaotic until a consensus is reached.

The LDS Church is one of the best examples of this in existence, frankly.

When you look closely at all of the elements that existed (and they are legion) - and the overall philosophy Joseph employed (correct principles and self-governance encapsulated in a Zionist organizational philosophy that reacted only to extremes, essentially) - and his willingness to try just about anything (literal speculation and experimentation almost without limit) - and the compilation of the early church membership as exclusively convert-based (with all of the differing beliefs even the leaders brought to the new church) there really isn't any other result that makes sense than free-flowing messiness and on-going conflict. That only stopped when a more authoritarian leader like Brigham Young took the reins in geographic isolation.

For those who can't "see it" at the macro-organizational level, look at marriages. Often, the first few months or years consist of trying to figure it out and make it work, while those that last for over 5-7 years often settle into a comfortable pattern - which then becomes an issue after about 20 years, when one of the partners begins to want some of the excitement that existed at the beginning. It's a natural, human pattern no matter the size of the "organization".

Finally, read Jacob 5 with this issue in mind. It's quite direct in its description of the inevitability of "pruning wild fruit" being a historical constant.

How Should We Respond When People Around Us Denigrate or Condemn Mormons?

I believe remaining silent in situations like this reinforces the negative at the expense of the positive - and that it does so in one way that gets overlooked by almost everyone:

With many people who are Christian, if they respect you but don't know your religious affiliation, they will assume (because they respect you) that you are "like them". At the very least, they will believe you aren't part of a "damnable cult" like Mormonism, as they see it. Your silence reinforces that stereotype and actually contributes to the solidification of their characterization - since they will look at you as an example of someone who knows better than to associate with people who are damned to Hell, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (and, in some cases and places, Catholics).

I believe there certainly are times when it's appropriate to remain silent in the presence of someone who is railing against the Church, but the effect described above is worth considering, in my opinion - no matter how you choose to act.

How Do You Approach Church Leaders and Members When They . . .

The following are three questions that were posed on a thread at a group blog in the Bloggernacle a few years ago - and my response to them:

1) when a leader "calls" you to a position that would require you to do or say things that, frankly, you don't believe?

I'm not sure that can be done. I don't want to minimize the struggle of others getting to where I am with regard to this exact issue, but nothing and nobody can "require" me to do or say things that I don't believe (mostly because I simply refuse to do so) - and I've been on a High Council and in a Bishopric, for example, and been thanked for providing a different perspective on discussions. The key is being comfortable BOTH with my own beliefs AND the responsibilities of the calling in which I serve - and being willing to be open with those who extend callings and assignments to me.

For example, I was asked once to chair the Melchizedek Priesthood Preach the Gospel Committee in my ward. I was clear that my suggestions and leadership would be based on why those committees often are useless wastes of time and totally ineffective - and that I would be proposing some non-traditional approaches that might be seen as radical by some members. The High Priests Group Leader said, "OK." I accepted the assignment, since if he really wanted me he had to accept ME.

The key is that he knew I'm a "faithful member" - that I care deeply about the Church and its members regardless of differences in specific beliefs (and that nothing I proposed would be selfish in nature, and I wouldn't pitch a hissy fit if what I suggested wasn't approved). I might argue privately, but I would never make it a public fight - and I would stop arguing privately once he made his final decision. The one thing I could promise, however, was that I wouldn't teach anything I didn't believe. 

2) when a leader "reprimands" you by quoting a scripture that implies that your actions are against scripture?

I either quote another scripture or prophet back at them with a HUGE smile on my face (if we are friends and he understands my twisted sense of humor), or I thank her for her concern, ponder it seriously and deeply, see what I can take from it to help myself understand her or the principle better, then make a change or continue as I have been - depending on the outcome of all the stuff I just outlined. The key for me has been to assume there is SOMETHING I can learn from the reprimand, even if it only is greater charity and understanding of other good people who see things differently than I do.

A former Bishop told me once that he deeply appreciated two things about working with me:

1) I told him exactly what I thought, both when I agreed and when I disagreed with him;

2) I said, "OK," and supported him when what he decided to do wasn't what I had suggested.

Very few things are worth fighting about, and a reprimand doesn't even come close to that level of importance.

3) in general, when another member (leader or not) talks of you needing to repent of an action that you really don't feel is wrong?

"Thank you. I appreciate your concern and will think about what you have said."

Then I try to act as I've outlined in response to #2 above. I try hard not to be defensive and to try to model for them how I hope they would respond if I ever felt prompted to reprimand them or call them to repentance. After all, I believe the most important aspect of life is repentance - meaning simply "change". If I can't try, at the very least, to be open to observations of others that might point out changes I need to make, then I probably won't change much - and that would be a shame.

Evil-Speaking Historical Analysis

In the Bible, Jude has a fascinating passage concerning those who "speak evil of dignities" and "speak evil of those things which they know not". (Jude 1:8-10) When you couple these descriptions with the general counsel of Jesus to "Judge not, that ye be not judged," I think it is apparent that the worst thing about "evil-speaking history" or criticism of religious leaders is that generally it is undertaken and compiled in a spirit of belittling rather than understanding.

All of us are fallen and come short of the glory of God, so it isn't necessary to focus or dwell on the proof of that fact - particularly if all it accomplishes is to dull our appreciation for the wonderful things some have done. Does knowing Winston Churchill was a rude drunk make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps so, if it is used to point out his greatness despite his weakness and encourage greatness from us despite our weakness, but if it is used purely to denigrate him, of what use is it?

Contentiousness vs. Contending

I believe a large part of "contentiousness" is that understanding is not the central aim - that the motivating factor for one party (or both) is "winning the argument". It's a fine distinction to draw between that and "contending", since there obviously are times when we should defend the Church and each other against distortions and misrepresentations.

I have found that the biggest difference for me personally is maintaining a calmness in approach and a mindset that focuses on understanding instead of belittling. I also have found that anger and offense lead inexorably to contentiousness, so if I can avoid taking things personally I can "contend" (engage different viewpoints) without being contentious (attacking the person expressing the different viewpoint).

In other words, I can be assertive about my beliefs without belittling others with contrary beliefs - particularly if my primary focus is on understanding how the other person's beliefs actually might be able to help me modify or understand my own better. Once I say, "There's nothing I can learn from you," contentiousness is almost a foregone conclusion.

If the other person holds that same view, I can avoid contention only by being willing to walk away without "winning". I'm fine with that.

Charity: Disputing Over "Unsettled" Doctrine Is Unseemly

In last week's resloution post, I parsed the word "unseemly" and talked about how it appears to mean acting properly in individual situations. I mentioned that there seems to be an underlying assumption of a universal standard, but that, in practical terms, there is a need to be in tune with what is appropriate and not appropriate when there might be tension between a universal standard and the culture of the situation. In this post, I want to delve into that potential tension and try to articulate a solution to it that I believe can work regardless of the situation - a "universal standard" that still allows for individual adaptation according to unique circumstances.

To introduce this standard, I want to quote extensively from Paul's words in Romans 14. I believe the entire chapter deals directly with this aspect of charity (that it "doth not behave itself unseemly"), but I am going to excerpt specific verses simply for brevity's sake. (Understanding that this still will be a long post.)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

To me, this says that we should welcome those whose faith is weak, but not in order to engage in "doubtful disputations". This phrase (doubtful disputations) might mean arguments that are centered on the weak one's doubts, BUT another alternative meaning that I believe fits the chapter better is "unsettled in opinion or belief; undecided". This can mean that we should not disupte with those whose faith is weak over issues/doctrines/ etc. that are unsettled or undecided. Again, I believe this fits the example that Paul gives in the following verses very well.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

This divides the people being described into two sides - those who will eat anything (including meat) and those who eat herbs (and not meat).

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

These two groups are working from different "cultural/religious standards" - and Paul's initial message to each group is to not despise the other simply because of those differences.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Here Paul recognizes that people view different things differently (probably in reference to the Sabbath and religious holy days in this verse), and he asks everyone to reach a conclusion individually that can be that person's "full" conclusion. In other words, he asks that each of us strive to understand our own situation and what God would have us do (even though he also says that we "see through a glass, darkly"), while accepting that others will reach different understanding for themselves.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

In this verse, Paul highlights a critical point - that those who disagree even with regard to things that they view as highly important (like the Sabbath and what is appropriate to eat) ALL do what they do "to the Lord" (as an expression of faith to God).

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

This is an important point:

We have to account for our own actions, so why do we worry about accounting for others' actions?

In that spirit, Paul adds:

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

There is a famous saying,

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

This saying was taken from this chapter (in Romans), and, while I am not saying that we should participate in everything that is acceptable in other cultures, I am saying that charity includes being able to recognize which cultural aspects that others follow are fine to follow while among them and not use as the source for "doubtful disputations".

My father used to say to us, when we asked about whether or not we could do something,

"Is it critical to your eternal salvation?"

He did this NOT to limit what we could do by viewing everything as critical, but rather he did this to help us see that there are MANY things we can do that really are NOT critical to our eternal salvation. I believe he was teaching us to be charitable in not behaving ourselves unseemly - by helping us realize that we don't need to enclose ourselves so tightly in proscriptive standards that we end up not being able to socialize with those whose standards are not as proscriptive (and vice-versa) - or whose standards are proscriptive in different ways.

21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

In summary, Paul restates his point - and he does so primarily to those for whom "eat(ing) flesh" and "drink(ing) wine" are not an offense and do not make weak. He is saying, in essence, that those who can handle it should not partake among those who can't. In our modern Mormon vernacular, he is saying that those who are strong should adapt their behavior to accommodate "the weakest of the weak who are or can be called saints".

I would add only this, to bring the entire discussion full circle:

Not only should we adapt our "physical actions" to accommodate the weak (by not eating and drinking that which would offend or weaken them or cause them to stumble), but we also should adapt our "verbal actions" to accommodate them (by not participating in doubtful disputations with them over standards that are "unsettled" and open to interpretation).

The responsibility is NOT on the weak; it is on the strong. If you think, for example, that the Word of Wisdom is trivial, inconsequential and not all that important, prove your strength by being charitable and abstaining for the sake of the weak - those for whom abstaining really is critical to their eternal salvation.

Disagreeing Without Contention

I find the following is something I need to remember constantly:

When emotion rules, things get dicey. I have trained myself over the years to overcome much of my natural inclination to argue in a way that attempts to win, but I still find myself doing so occasionally when I’m not careful. On group blogs (and in general), I have found that the faster I respond, the more likely I am to begin contending in a way that is described in the scriptures as "of the devil". (3 Nephi 11:29) I have said some pretty hard-edged things occasionally, and sometimes I should not have done so, but generally I have tried to do so carefully and thoughtfully and slowly - to do so without the heat of emotion that stokes the fire of contention. I force myself to employ a deep breathing technique and to re-read and edit what I type prior to submitting it when I am particularly passionate about an issue.

On the other hand, disagreement, in and of itself, is NOT contention - and I believe that is the biggest misconstruing of the scriptural concept that "contention is of the devil" within the Church. Also, sometimes we must "contend" if our core values and principles truly are being attacked. It is the discernment necessary to distinguish between honest and basic differences, unintentional attacks, intentional attacks, etc. that is difficult to have and maintain.

Summary: If you or someone else or both are listening to each other, sharing honestly and learning from a conversation, there is no contention - regardless of whether or not you agree. If those conditions are not being met - if you essentially are talking past each other, then contention is present. I don’t always succeed, but I try to remove myself from that type of discussion as soon as I recognize that I (and/or the other participant) am not gaining anything new out of it.

The Difficulty of Responding When Wearied

In working with people with whom we disagree and who disagree with us, I believe everything can be worked through in patience and understanding as long as no axe is actively being ground in the process - i.e., as long as nobody is going into the discussion with the intent to tear down or belittle someone else. I truly enjoy discussions that include fundamental differences of opinion - where many different perspectives are included, since I learn so much from viewpoints I wouldn't consider on my own. However, I don't enjoy attacks and broadsides, since (as a Mormon) I've dealt with them for decades. I sometimes react forcefully to that type of comment, simply because I have heard every possible permutation for too long to worry about counting. They weary me, and I sometimes forget how "new" they are to others.

I don't want anyone to muzzle himself or hold back her honest feelings in blog posts out of a fear of offending. As long as the statement is honest and expressed in a non-hyperbolic and non-ridiculing manner, I want to hear it. If the statement is disingenuous or "twisted" or obviously inflammatory, I don't. The key, I believe, is trying even harder to make sure responses are calm and measured - especially when we are "wearied".

Mountain Meadows Massacre: Every-Day Lessons for Our Time

When the movie “September Dawn” was released a while ago, then when newspaper articles were written about the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I read a few of them - and the comments about them. I quickly stopped doing so, specifically because of what I saw on both sides - the vitriol that came from those who use any excuse to spew bile about the Church, but also the reactions of the Mormons who tried to defend the Church.

What I saw disturbed me deeply.

Each side was lashing out at a perceived threat - one side swinging verbal hay-makers at the Church, and the other side swinging just as energetically back at them. There were no dead bodies - no bullets or other tangible weapons, but these people were reacting essentially in the exact same way that the local members had with the Mountain Meadows Massacre so long ago. There really wasn’t a life-threatening attack on the Church occurring, and there really wasn’t a need for a “counterattack” on the perceived attackers.

I loathe the tactics of the bitter, anti-Mormon crowd, but I am saddened much more over the members who were lashing out in defensiveness over an attack that really wasn’t a serious threat to themselves. When all is said and done, if we don’t learn from history we are destined to repeat it - even if there are no tangible weapons involved in our own "battles".

Matthew 5:44-46 is direct, and it applies to so many situations in our lives:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

The Danger of Safe Contention

One thing that internet communication has done is to make vitriolic, hyperbolic language less dangerous to the user than it used to be.

When you risk angering someone who is standing in front of you and might take physical action against you (or call their friends to do so), there is a degree of external constraint that is absent when such a physical threat is not visible and imminent. Trolling, especially, is less dangerous than it used to be when the words needed to be spoken, since there is no chance of the group mob mentality taking over and ending up in a life-threatening assault - especially with the availability of anonymity and pseudonyms.

Since it is much safer to “stir up the hearts of men to anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:30) from the safety of a computer, exacerbated by anonymity, I believe we are more prone to “safe contention” now than perhaps ever before. Not being able to see the tears and anguish and rage and consternation caused by our words makes it more tempting to focus less on being sensitive in our communications.

I see a polarization and insensitivity in so much of the current public communication that simply wasn’t there to that degree even less than 20 years ago. I know I have crossed that line more than I would have if someone was standing in front of me as I expressed myself. I believe we, as disciples of Jesus, are obligated to pay more attention to that tendency and concentrate more explicitly on avoiding it.

Give Freely; Revile Not

Matthew 5:38-42 says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

My resolution for November is taken from these verses. I have translated them for myself as:

Give more freely and do not revile as quickly.

To "revile" means: "to address or abuse with contemptuous language". The clear focus is on the abusive nature of the language being used. I chose this wording to highlight what I see as the central point of "turning the other cheek" - that of not returning abuse when being abused. As I do not anticipate being in a situation to be abused physically, I am focusing on verbal abuse, instead.

These two areas (generosity and being slow to revile) are natural strengths - things that come more naturally to me than many of the other things on which I have focused this year. I learned both of these traits by watching my parents - my father, who would give anything to anyone in need, and my mother, who (we joked) would say, upon seeing our bare house stripped by a gang of thieves, "They must need it more than we do." Furthermore, I don't remember one time in the 19 years I lived at home hearing my father say something abusive or ridiculing to someone else, and I never heard my mother even say anything negative (in any way) about anyone else.

I know how hard that is to believe, but I saw these characteristics modeled to perfection by my parents, and these particular things rubbed off (although not completely) on their oldest son. I am grateful, so very grateful, that, in this way particularly, I am the spitting image of my father and am my mother's son.

This is perhaps the best example of how I want my resolution each month to focus not only on my weaknesses but also on my strengths. Of course, I want to have the Lord turn my weaknesses into strengths, but I also want Him to make my strengths become perfect - whole, complete and fully-developed. Since these characteristics already are strengths, I will look this month for ways to exercise them more regularly - to see opportunities to give more freely (especially of non-monetary resources) and to be even less prone to revile in my conversations with others.