Uvu Conference On Internet And Mormons

[HiJolly]

Got it!

[David T]

Jana Riess on now, with Kristine Haglund on next.

[juliann]

Statistics are always fun. Loved the Pew stuff.

Listening to Jana. She starts by slamming Glen Beck as if he represents something about Mormonism. It is obvious she is going to continue along the conservatives want to starve children and liberals care and are smarter, too, trope. I know next to nothing about Beck (is he even alive anymore?) but can confidently say no one wants children to starve. Not even communists. She then goes on to present responses to her blog in the same good Mormon compliments me/bad Mormon says disgusting stuff style before noting that everyone talks past one another. Well......

I have made myself obnoxious by objecting to every mention of "wonderful us who have the truth!" vs. "the world!" that comes up in GD. I'm tired of the implied superiority. I'm just as tired of the superiority from the other direction.

She is setting up a great rule, "never demonize". But she is unaware of the message she sends as she tries to gently set herself apart as a "liberal" in a conservative leaning environment by using the same topics that are used to demonize conservatives on the political stage.

I would like to see a situation where everyone can stop talking past one another. It may not be fair but those who are in the minority (assuming they really are trying to talk to Mormons) have to talk respectfully to the people they want to listen. You don't do it with thinly veiled messages that the average Mormon is not as concerned about hunger or knowledge as you are. It sends an insulting message which is entirely unintended I am sure but nonetheless..... She reinforces this by proclaiming she will continue to blog about world hunger which brings it right back to the beginning Glen Beck smears (and by implication other Mormons).

I do enjoy all of her writing that I have seen.

(edited to correct speaker name)

Edited March 31, 2012 by juliann

[juliann]

Really liked Hauglid's presentation. She gave a very good performance on a C-Span panel about Mormons in politics, as well.

[juliann]

You can tell the same stories to a completely different effect by treating them as exceptions to a general pattern by going into the specifics of what makes them exceptions to the general case. As in, "in this case, something went wrong," rather than , "this case illustrates what is wrong in general." If the desired message is that LDS culture is so toxic that it drives members to involuntary suicide, it's best to tell this kind of story without mentioning the demonstrated fact that active LDS in general are fall less likely to commit suicide.

I think it also has to do with the politics of victimization. To define one's relationship to the church in terms of victimization has the effect of both establishing one's moral advantage and demonizing the institution.

A what we can learn from this would be so much more effective. I guess what surprises me is that they speak to such a small group but want understanding from the large group while doing everything possible to alienate them. So is the goal to reach outsiders to destroy the church's reputation? Or is it to change church policies? Dehlin, in particular, is so cagey with his words that I don't really know what his goal is.

[Darth_Bill]

I think the value that Dehlin gives to me is acknowledging the problem. Others face their dissaffection with different levels of anxiety. When I did make it known to my wife, I was worried that she just might ask for divorce, considering that I might be "changing the rules of the game". For some, that potential is catestrophic. Loss of friends, family, loved ones, or the thought of it, can be absolutely as challenging as what he proposed. Some can deal with it, others can't. I worked and struggled with it for a year before I finally made the confession to my wife. Luckily, she loves me.

I know everyone gets tired of exit stories, and I'm not much different. However, Dehlin does at least acknowledge that the psychological effects are real...though sometimes he cheerleads a bit too strongly for my taste.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[juliann]

I do understand it from your perspective, Darth. Two of my siblings aren't members of name so it doesn't seem unusual to me but I can certainly see how disruptive it could be, especially between spouses. I just think that it is time for everyone to put down the guns and I found Dehlin's approach disappointingly divisive. I was shocked to hear him attack pro-church organizations in his presentation. From what I am hearing from those present, he had a lot of supporters in there who were hostile which explains why it got so uncomfortable in the Q&A.

BTW, my contribution towards resolving the problem is to object every time someone at church puts "satan" or "sin" or "pride" in the same sentence as "apostate". In fact, I object to the word apostate unless it is referring to those who openly attack the church.

[Darth_Bill]

I was watching it at work, and had to leave in the middle of Scott Gordon's presentation and I never did get back to it. It is...unfortunate...that Dehlin was divicive. Still, I know how perspective changes attitudes. I've seen my attitudes change here on the board where some people I've enjoyed reading aren't so enjoyable anymore. (I've ALWAYS enjoyed reading your posts.) I've also suffered my first banning from a thread because I was just tired of the posturing and predictable outcomes. I get FAIR and posts from Dehlin on my facebook status, so I see both sides there.

[juliann]

It was a good excuse to sit around all day but I still missed portions. It will be available for listening so I plan on revisiting it. Kudos to Boyd... It really was very, very good other than that temporary unpleasantness. The folks I have talked to were quite taken with Joanna Brooks and I have been ordered to watch her presentation and really look forward to it.