Brother Decoo’s On the Left: Our Pioneer Ancestors . . . has become a peaceful forum for people who want the saints to be more progressive politically (except for the abortionist libertine part). I have no complaints. The comments are fairly thoughtful and the reminiscences get interesting. I’ve said a couple of mildly contrarian things so far but luckily I nor noone has derailed the conversation: Dreams and hopes are fragile flowers. They tend to wilt in argument’s hot blast.
When we founded T&S I hoped for something similar for my own social conservatism and “conservative” Mormonism. But I found that I couldn’t have an equivalent discussion without spending the whole time defending my views, often from fellow bloggers. I regretted that. I though I’d like to explore
where shared beliefs on abortion or authority could take us, sometimes, the way we do with gardening and growth from decay, instead of always starting back at square one,
I wonder. Have times changed enough now that I could have my conversation? Or is there something right now in the dynamic of Mormonism, the internet, or T&S which makes the one sort of conversation occasionally possible but precludes the other?
[...] e changes protecting traditional marriage can best be advanced (i.e., the means). Per the Faulconer-Huff proposal, I am not interested in a debate on the morality of SSM [...]
[...] protecting traditional marriage can best be advanced (i.e., the means). Per the Faulconer-Huff proposal, I am not interested in a debate on the morality of SSM or on the [...]
“Have times changed enough now that I could have my conversation?”
You’ve been having those for quite a while, my man. :)
Are you suggesting holding a conversation that is open only to those that agree with some fundamental premise? That’s an interesting idea. I too have felt the sting of starting a conversation with hopes of developing a theme, only to be forced to litigate the thing through to dismissal. Can’t blame dissenters for disagreeing, but it does deprive you of some of the prospective pleasure of the chat.
Adam, I’ve come to the conclusion that blogs like T&S are mostly a refuge for people who feel left in the almost entirely conservative forums as most wards. Liberals can connect with others who feel like them. My personal feeling is that as long as they keep on going to Church — and share the gospel with others and keep temple worthy — that’s much more important than their political views. If blogs help these people keep their identity as Mormons, as say, keep on bloggin’! But don’t ever expect a blog like T&S to be friendly to conservatives.
Sorry, make that: “a refuge for people who feel left OUT from…” in the first sentence above.
Well, thanks for throwing liberals a bone, Geoff B! Heaven knows without blogs those lefties would leave the church almost immediately, so it’s a good thing there are such staunchly left-wing sites as T&S.
Ryan/Adam, on a more sincere note, I think it’s entirely possible to have a conservative discussion that is pleasant and meaningful. You just need to be clear about your ground rules and your purpose: like-minded people only. Dissenters need not apply. That sounds a little TIC but it’s entirely fair for you to stake out a little forum for people that think the same way you do. I’m just wondering why you’d want that kind of conversation. What’s the point of conversations & chats if everybody always thinks the same?
“Blogs like T&S are mostly a refuge for people who feel left out in the almost entirely conservative forums that are most wards”
You’re on to something. I’ve seen this have effect in two different ways. The first and secondary way is that “liberals” very occasionally feel that they don’t really need to grant us much space or tolerance here because we already have our refuge back home in our wards. I just don’t think that’s true. I don’t think wards are appropriate venues for charged and intellectual/literary discussion. And even if they were appropriate venues for that, they just are not functioning as that sort of venue. Most of what goes on at the ward level, God bless it, is the Deaniac YEEAARRGH of the Right. But I think the second and primary way your insight effects things here is demographic. It’s may be true that there are a lot more frustrated liberals looking for fellow travelers on the web than their are Adam G.’s and Geoff B.’s. But I have my doubts about that as a complete explanation too. Frankly I’m still a little baffled.
Steve E.: “You just need to be clear about your ground rules and your purpose: like-minded people only. Dissenters need not apply.”
Ryan B.: “Are you suggesting holding a conversation that is open only to those that agree with some fundamental premise? ”
This a viable solution y’all have developed, but I’m not looking for solutions yet, ‘cuz I don’t know what the problem is.
Steve: Sometimes discussions about what are the implications of premises A and B are just as interesting (even more interesting) than discussions about whether or not premises A and B are true. This hardly seems like a wild-eyed, close minded, TIC (what does TIC stand for? ;->)approach to take.
Part of your problem may be that your idyllic scenario isn’t quite defined. Do you basically just want something like Decoo’s On the Left column, but On the Right? All you have to do is write something as interesting as his post.
Two observations, though, if I may:
1. T&S is not very liberal at all.
2. This post is the first of yours I’ve read where there is a genuine question, not a straw man, rhetorical question or simple musing.
If you add 1+2 you get this, which you may take with a grain of salt or discard altogether: your conservative forum already exists, your idyllic world already exists — it’s here at T&S. You just need to try harder at putting your ideas out there in a unique and interesting way that doesn’t beg confrontation. Quit trying to make your own Meridian or whatever when you already have the right community within your grasp.
How ’bout some common ground on abortion? Though I’m often of left-leaning sympathies, I would love to see more arguments that abortion and the death penalty are both morally wrong (though even the Church will let us have abortions under certain circumstances).
Course, that’s where I get in trouble. Other lefties want abortion rights. Deaniacs of the right want to kill criminals.
On a different note, that whole “birds of the air have their nests” thing might need re-examining. From an ecological perspective, most birds only use their nests for a couple weeks while they are incubating eggs and possibly a couple more weeks while raising young. So, even birds don’t expect to find a safe place that often. We’re all lucky to get a few moments of respite whenever we can.
Nate, point taken. But those types of discussions aren’t inherently liberal/conservative.
TIC = tongue-in-cheek.
Steve E. (founder of “a liberal-minded . . . Mormon blog”) asks “why you’d want that kind of conversation.”
Here are a few reasons that make sense to me:
Conversations premised on a shared principle can do some things that debates can’t always. They can help clarify a principle; they can add depth to a principle; they can try and connect it up with other shared principles to make a coherent world view; they can make a principle more real by adding emotional weight and lived experience to it (people dont’ like sharing important experiences in debates, as a rule); they can help you see how that principle can best be put in effect.
Maybe there are other reasons too. I don’t deny that debate and confrontation are also useful. My attempts to figure out why the Church opposes gay marriage spiritually and politically have been helped by the constant arguing as much as they’ve been hampered. But I believe they would have been helped even more if only some of the conversations had been confrontational.
Think about sacrament meeting, for instance. Knowing outside viewpoints deepens our own understanding of the gospel but would the talks really profit from bringing in outsiders every week for a debate with us?
Notwithstanding, I guess I’m not too upset if you think conversations between insiders are kinda pointless. I’d still be interested in hearing from your perspective why you think T&S has been so successful at not having those kinds of discussions?
“This post is the first of yours I’ve read where there is a genuine question, not a straw man, rhetorical question or simple musing.”
This is my point. How can I ask “genuine questions” and avoid getting responses like this?
Adam,
I think we’re walking a fine line here. A major problem is that a lot of conservatives — perhaps the majority — simply don’t want to engage in conversation. And so we see a number of comments from one-time visitors that go something like this: “I can’t believe that you people are Mormons! I can’t believe I’m reading you discuss [abortion/gay marriage/the word of wisdom/whatever] this way!” It’s the equivalent of the “shocked and appalled” letter to the Daily Universe. And said commenter runs screaming from the blog.
I don’t know that there’s any way that we can engage those people. (And there is of course a similar strain in extremely cynical liberal- or ex-Mormonism — “I can’t believe that you still think Joseph Smith was a prophet!” — which is equally unlikely to feel welcome here).
In the middle lie the T & S-ers. We’re constantly pulled in one direction or the other.
It’s the very nature of a broad-based site like ours to reject certain types of exclusionary thought. If you have Kaimi, Nate, Adam, Matt, Kristine, all blogging, then you’ve made a candid admission that we all have something valid to say. To the extent that you want to espouse a view that “Adam’s approach is invalid” or “Kaimi’s approach is invalid” or the like, you’re not likely to be happy on as broad-based of a blog as this one. Of course we have our disagreements, but we initially recognize that the other person is geniunely trying to work out how the gospel functions in her own life.
As far as specifics, I don’t have the answer, but I have a few ideas that may or may not carry weight:
1. T & S may be drawing from the Sunstone demographic. To the extent that a similar intellectual community of Adams and Matts is less developed, we may be skewed because of that.
1a. Perhaps all of the good conservatives have gone over to ZLMB to bash Dr. Shades. :P In seriousness, FARMS may be the answer to Sunstone as an intellectual community, but the FARMS conservative is not the same as the Joe Average conservative. Also, perhaps we’ve done a poorer job at attracting FARMSers. (Perhaps they would rather do other things, like bash Dr. Shades).
2. Perhaps coming to T & S requires some break from the sort of see-no-evil philosophy that many members adopt. (My mother-in-law still refuses to even look at the blog). Perhaps once someone has decided that it’s okay to discuss these things, then it’s easier to slide over to the more liberal position than to remain in a more conservative position.
Just a few thoughts, probably all wrong. . .
People probably pegged me as liberal before your little bio, Adam :)
I agree with you & Nate that like-mindedness can lead to some good discussions. Like testimony meetings.
I think you are blowing the dissent and liberalism level here out of proportion. For every “War on pr0n” or “scouts vs. gays” thread here, there are plenty that are simple, community-seeking, dare I say conservative threads. Heck, look at the posts I did when I guest blogged — not very controversial or liberal, but I think the conversations were faith-promoting and interesting. Likewise with Jim’s Sunday School posts or countless other recurring threads here. You’re overlooking the vast majority of T&S’ output.
Do you just want to have conservative mega-threads? (that’ll be tough, since you’ll have to find some brilliant conservative blog to poach) What are you trying to acheive that T&S hasn’t already done?
Adam –
This may or may not go to the substance of your complaint, but it is a sincere effort. Edgy exploratory thinking usually arises in opposition to the status quo. For example, the rise of the American neo-conservatives is directly traceable to their reaction to the dominance of leftist orthodoxy in academia and politics in the 20th C. Among American Latter-day Saints, the status quo is politically conservative. Therefore, exploratory thinking among American Latter-day Saints is mostly going to react to that.
This phenomenon is not limited to politics. Some of the really exciting intellectual work in modern Mormonism is being done by scholars with various connections that circle around FARMS. Now much of that work is motivated by a sincere academic and religious interest in better understanding our modern scriptures. But a very real source of the motivation and enthusiasm behind that “school” is the desire to respond to the critique of both secular and evangelical critics in various scholarly fields which represent the status quo (in this instance actually two different kinds of status quo – secular and evangelical).
I am going to guess that you are looking at the fertility of modern conservative thought and saying “why can’t we work the Mormon angle on that?” However, the current world of American Mormonism (for better or worse) is fundamentally different than the world in which modern neocons operate. The neocons are battling the still powerful leftist status quo in many parts of American society. That battle is the source of their intellectual vitality. However, that battle does not exist inside an already conservative world. What need is there for a neocon revolution WITHIN American Mormonism?
That said, I do think that there is room for very substantive discussion from an LDS point of view which can include perspectives that to the outside world would look both “liberal” and “conservative.”
To be continued ….
slide over to the more liberal position
Hmmm….sounds like a great idea for a Mormon Theme Park rid–the Liberal Water Slide! Could be a lot of fun. Maybe if you come off the slide, and two witnesses say you didn’t go all the way under, you’d have to do it all again.
Of course, we’d also have the T&S Carousel, where we’d just go round, and round, and round…
“This post is the first of yours I’ve read where there is a genuine question, not a straw man, rhetorical question or simple musing.�
This is my point. How can I ask “genuine questionsâ€? and avoid getting responses like this? ”
Hey, what’s wrong with my response?? I was just being candid. Your posts tend to wax poetic, but then leave me feeling a little dry. Ask more questions that you don’t already know (or suspect) the answers to. Ask questions that you are genuinely interested in exploring, and I think people will want to explore them with you. That’s why I think this is your most interesting post so far — it’s a real question, where you haven’t laid out preconceived answers.
Those are interesting responses, Kaimi. You may be on to something. I think your points #1 and points #2 are particularly good at fleshing out Geoff B.’s original point. Your point # 1.a also has a demographic angle. Maybe people who come on the web tend to be motivated by the love of combat, conservatives especially, and so they seek arenas of maximum combat?
Steve,
I don’t care if anyone knows if you’re liberal or not. I quoted your blog’s tagline, even though it’s partly tongue-in-cheek, because I thought it was ironic for someone with that tagline to question the value of conversations with the like-minded.
First prize to JWL.
It is a little ironic, I guess. But the best conversations at BCC have involved those who are definitely not like-minded. Just ask John Fowles. You’re welcome there too, of course :)
The perspective I am thinking of is the question of whether there are uniquely Mormon responses to situations in the larger world that break free of traditional left/right thinking. (If not unique, at least that draw from LDS belief and practice.)
As an example, to pick up my example from Wilfried’s blog, the question of addressing Third World poverty. Microcredit is widely regarded as a very effective means of helping the poorest of the poor. Most Mormons instinctively like it (the Perpetual Education Fund is a variation on microcredit methodology). However in the larger world it flits between left and right with no independent ideology. The left likes microcredit because it empowers the poor, but mistrusts it because it relies on private enterprise rather than government initiative. The right likes it because it encourages entrepreneurship, but mistrusts it because lending money to poor people always includes a charitable motivation that is not purely market-driven.
However, LDS doctrine has the potential of supplying a political ideology in which micrcredit can comfortably sit at the center rather than being an orphan incorporated on the edges of the ideology. A blog is no place to go into this, but the short version is that LDS *political* doctrine would seek equality through promoting self-reliance. Both are key elements of LDS teaching whereas traditional leftist and rightist doctrine only incorporates one each.
I know that is an oversimplified example, but perhaps that direction would engage the entire bloggernacle (whether self-defined as “liberal” or “conservative”) — all of us vs. the world. And maybe we would also engage our sisters and brothers outside the USA.
Just don’t ask me how to do that with SSM.
In part I think that there is a problem in that blog-comments are not, by and large, a good forum for difficult thinking. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but the flow of ideas tends to be fairly spontaneous which can also be another way of saying poorly thought out. One advantage that blogs have over mere message boards is that you can organize discussions around larger chunks of thought. Hence, blogs are a good forum — I think — for propogating ideas that are someplace in their complexity and depth between an quick email between friends and an article submitted for publication.
There is something of a paradox in this, however. By and large, threads that set for a developed (or semi-developed) set of ideas tend to attract less attention in the form of comments than do threads which throw out a couple of open-ended ideas and questions and say “what do you think?” The problem with the “what do you think” type threads is that often what we think frankly isn’t all that impressive (like this comment for example ;-> ). I am saying this less as an inditement against blogging than as an attempt to diminish expecations a bit so that one is not too disappointed when it T&S doesn’t turn into something like Encounter in the 1950s and 1960s.
Adam, one way to create the kind of conversation that you’re looking for might be to begin by explicitly stating the assumptions on which your question/discussion rests: “For the purposes of this blog, I want to begin by assuming x, y, and z. Given those assumptions, what about w?” Those who proceeded to try to argue about your assumptions could then be ignored, and I suspect that there would be fewer people arguing with them than you would have if you merely started with the question.
There is, of course, a sense in which what I suggest may seem unfair. Why should have to lay out those assumptions when others don’t? But, unfair or not, good rhetoric demands taking account of one’s audience, and given that the majority of the bloggers and commenters at T&S are to the left of the rest of the American members (which still means that they could be to the right of center), it may be a necessary strategy. Besides, the strategy might help “convert” some of by showing us the implications of your assumptions.
Sorry to just keep commenting rather than including everything in one comment, but I also think it Nate’s comment is important: this is not the best forum for in-depth thinking.
Steve, I’m sure you were being sincere, not trying to simply dismiss Adam, when you dismissed all his posts so far as straw men, etc.
But of course, this is the problem. Adam finds a great many of the active participants on T&S just are not sympathetic to his questions. They just don’t share his perspective, so they don’t even see what is so interesting about his questions. Hence threads he starts either don’t go anywhere, or they get mired in the same old controversies and don’t really address the issues he wanted to address. Or something like that.
I think it might be worth a try, Adam, to have a post where you present an idea/question and also say, “On this thread, let’s have a conversation about this where we just take A, B, and C for granted, set aside the controversies over them, and see where we go.” You may find there aren’t enough people interested in that conversation, but you may find some people participate more in this discussion because it does suit them, and you’ve cut out the “round and round” controversies over A, B, and C.
Aargh! Jim posted while I was composing. Well, great minds think alike?
Well, in the mouth of two witnesses . . . .
Sounds like a good idea.
I think the Faulconer-Huff approach has promise, which is not to say that it is perfect (but what is?). On the thread on mothers who risk death rather than abort children, I was trying to grope my way towards some sort of distinction between heroic action and good action, with the heroism of risking your life rather than abort your child assumed, but without a lot of response. The battle lines were already drawn by then, though. I remain optimistic.
“Steve, I’m sure you were being sincere, not trying to simply dismiss Adam”
I was. Adam’s not easy to dismiss. I was harsh about his posts, too much so — he’s clearly an intelligent and effective writer. And I agree with what you and Jim are suggesting — it’s similar to what I was (clumsily) trying to express earlier.
Jim/Nate — you’re both right that blogs aren’t the most deep-thinking of forums, but there is something very satisfying and interesting about them nonetheless. Maybe we shouldn’t be talking about lowered expectations so much as shifting our expectations from the intellectual towards the social?
I accept your apology.
YEAARRGH!!! Curse you, Greenwood!!! Curse you and your snazzy vests!!
But really though, we’re all saying things along similar lines — you can establish your beginning assumptions a little more clearly, you can set ground rules for the comments, a lot of different tools are at your disposal. But in any event, the thing that is not needed is a different reader base or ‘environment’.
Steve, I don’t disagree at all about the fact that there is something satisfying about the discussions on T&S. I take part in conversations on LDS-Phil as well as here. Each has their place (though sometimes there are threads here that probably really belong on LDS-Phil, and vice-versa). Neither do I disagree that what is satisfying here has at least as much to do with its social aspect as with its intellectual one.
The fascinating thing to me about this thread and others like it is hearing people elaborate on their perception T&S demographic.
Maybe its just me, Steve E., but I didn’t really see your respective comments as being that similar. But I’ll be happy to take the description in your last comment as the message that your previous comments were meant to convey.
I like JWL’s comments, and what I’m going to try to say relates to them, I think.
One of the reasons it may be difficult to find on T&S a sub-community for exploratory conservative thought is that, in my view, there’s not a strong intellectual subject position within the church; that is, there are few intellectual models with which would-be conservative thinkers can identify. Sunstone and Dialogue have, perhaps unintentionally in certain cases, done a lot of work toward developing the critical subject position at the left margin of Mormon thought. BYU Studies and the FARMS publications are trying to do that kind of work near the center, but those venues may be too broad and too narrow, respectively.
Well, thanks for throwing liberals a bone, Geoff B! Heaven knows without blogs those lefties would leave the church almost immediately, so it’s a good thing there are such staunchly left-wing sites as T&S.
Hmm, I learned a couple things there, including that T&S was a liberal blog and that it was keeping lefties in the Church.
I’m fine with both ;)
You have a point, Rosalynde W. If our own experience weren’t enough to teach us the necessity of models, the temple ought to. For what it’s worth, I’ve been primarily inspired by Catholics and Evangelicals because, as you say, the Mormon models just aren’t there.
Adam –
I would be interested in knowing specifically which Catholic and evangelical models you have found useful. Also, is their stance one of internal critique or external? In other words, are they arguing with other evangelicals and Catholics (more likely in the case of Catholics) or are they arguing with those outside their faith community? (I mean ‘arguing’ in the positive sense of who is on the other side of their dialectic.)
A bit of both. As for my models, they are numerous. There are lots and lots of evangelicals and Catholics who are currently (and for the Catholics, historically) using their faith as tools to help them understand the world. John Finnis is an example. Insights he’s culled from his Catholic tradition have played a big part in his natural law theories. Michael Novak interests me. I read First Things regularly. The First Things Symposium on The End of Democracy? is exactly the sort of thing I was interested in. It operates from common assumptions about the nature of the good but then gets into a good and productive wrangle about the the moral status of democracy, the circumstances in which one can and ought to defy the law, and when those circumstances would obtain in this country. I love stuff that works from Christian assumptions and then looks outward.
Hmm, Catholic models, Evangelical models, Mormon models . . . well I must say, what I find most useful of all are the Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. I think we need to incorporate them into more of our discussions. Along with perhaps the Victorias Secret models. :P
In all seriousness, I think that we are indeed lacking in our models. I think that both the comments here and at Nate’s “where have all the good intellectuals gone?” thread reflect that sense among the T & S-ers.
Err,
exactly to what use do you put your SI swimsuit models? I have qualms about even viewing their pictures so I’m a little unclear about their utility in person. Please enlighten!
What about the models from over here?
http://icantimmormon.com/
Danithew,
Those are definitely Mormon models.
Adam,
My goodness — you don’t know what to do with a SI swimsuit model?? Don’t they teach kids anything in school these days? :twisted:
(No good use, really. I need to learn to resist the impulse to make smart-aleck comments that occur to me.)
Yeah, my parents are a bit prudish so they made me sit out that portion of Sex Ed that dealt with Airbrushed Persons. Ever since then curiosity has gnawed me.
Giving people a little more than they expect is a good way to get back more than you’d expect.
Don’t fear the bumpy roads that lie ahead, for it is nothing more that the settled dust we left behind.