Comments on: Relief Society: The Passive Aggressive Olympics

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:14:36 +0000

One other thing – I never bother to say anything in Sunday School unless I have a scripture to back it up without engaging in too many subtleties. I think it is a waste of time to share speculation in such a forum. After all, Sunday School is about learning the doctrine of Christ – unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable opinions don’t matter. That is why politics is generally off limits, for example. It is supposed to be Gospel Doctrine class, not Gospel Speculation, nor Gospel Opinion, nor What-the-Gospel-Ought-to-Be class.

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:58:27 +0000

As a rule, if something is worth saying at all, I am going to say exactly what I believe, whether it is a direct contradiction of what someone else said or not. If there is some agreement with what the other person said, I think it is a good idea to give them as much credit as possible, but agreeing with what appear to be outright errors, if not false doctrines, is not a good idea. It is better to represent one’s own opinion accurately, even if it be false, than to muddle everything together.

I am under the general impression that far too many members doctrinal understanding is just such a muddle. And I say that because mine was for several years until I started to study the scriptures intently and to learn the truth for myself. I think in many ways it is better to believe in a coherent personal theology (even a weak one) than an incoherent muddle of other’s beliefs. The Lord can teach you much better that way, because he can lead you to understand where the problems are, where with a muddle it is hard to know where to begin.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:42:59 +0000

Excellent post Jacob. I was just having this conversation with some friends recently too. I am the guy who tends to be very direct in church and Sunday school classes. I do separate ideas and people but I know that it freaks people out sometimes (especially in the church but sometimes outsideas well). Many Mormons are not at all used to having someone actually openly disagree with their idea. But I think there is great deal of value in the old cliche about disagreeing without being disagreeable.

I also agree with you that one of the primary appeals of blogs is that disagreement is expected and even encouraged. Ideas that can’t withstand scrutiny oughtto be discarded, right? Even though occasionally people get heated here, I think for the most part we are quite good at disagreeing without being disagreeable.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:34:07 +0000

Annegb,

I see my poor attempt at humor backfired. Having read lots of your comments all over the ‘nacle I would never actually suspect you of being disingenuous.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:23:04 +0000

Not a threadjack at all Eric. In fact, I was thinking about your comment a lot last night and this morning and decided I might do better to decribe what I like as “directness” instead of “confrontation” (since I am not advocating “contention,” which gets lumped in with confrontation as Kristen pointed out).

Your example of caring less how people react to a sound decision is a great application. It makes me realize how different this sort of thing plays out in business than in church. In business, everyone is there to be efficient and make a profit. A culture of inefficiency should be attacked directly because it defeats (by degrees) the whole purpose of the organization. In a church, a little inefficiency or boring lessons are much more likely to be tolerated because hurting someone’s feelings defeats the whole purpose of the organization. Both could benefit from a culture where directness is the norm, but we are not likely to make the shift in church for that reason.

By: annegb

annegb — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:07:56 +0000

Jacob, I never lie about stuff like that. I’m going to share this.

By: Eric Nielson

Eric Nielson — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:35:58 +0000

Jacob:

Thank you so much! Your comments on #26 help me a lot. I don’t tend to take these things personally, but I know others do. I think if I need to change something (which of course I do) it would be to care a little less how they react to what should be considered a sound decision.

Also, It appears that my comments were not to much of a thread jack. I’m glad, I was worried that I was taking things a direction you may not have wanted.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:17:49 +0000

Rebecca,

Good comment. Many times I have sworn off talking about doctrine with other members because I worry about the bad feelings you mentioned. I picked on Relief Society in the post, but as you allude to in your comment, GD and EQ are often guilty of the same thing. Where in the “middle west” must I move to find these freewheeling discussions you speak of? They sound fun.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:20:45 +0000

My husband and I just had a discussion about this. He said he went at it with another member about evolution in priesthood. He believes in a somewhat middle ground between evolution and creationism. The other person was a diehard creationist. But he did not like the bad feelings this engendered. So he stays away from evolution. I grew up in the middle west where freewheeling discussions were usually the norm in Relief Society and I found very enlightening. But that was long ago and far away: and I am much older. I go to church every Sunday, but there are times I can’t stand Relief Society for this very reason. So I would make a good participant in your olympics. I’ve been in training for 40 years.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:40:08 +0000

Annegb,

High praise indeed, thanks. (But if I find out you actually disagree with me and your just saying that, ohhhhh, will there be trouble.)