Reducing Extremism

[BlueDreams 7,917]

I want to make this clear: I do not want this to be super political. I don’t want to talk about political figure heads unless it is in direct reference to something they’ve said about religion and specifically the LDS faith. 

 

One of my weirder coping mechanisms when something goes wrong is to deep dive into the reasoning for what happened. I’m a therapist so I blame that. Since the attacks I’ve been digging and digging for reasoning, profiles of people, etc. there’s several “camps” that the people fall into....namely extreme nationalism (white/Christian/American exceptionalism being the most prominent), a string of conspiracy theories, a strong belief in the mythos of American beginnings, and an exclusionary belief of what it means to belong to “our country.” These culminated with violent language, villainizing those who disagreed with them, and heroic elevation/justification of what they were doing. 

Some of these elements I’ve seen in the US branch of the church. I will not say it has the same flavor outside the west in particular. The further from the mormon corridor you get the less it seems political ideology is married to religious identity. This doesn’t mean people’s faith doesn’t inform or influence their political decisions. They often do. But there just seems to be a healthier differentiation between the two. So I wanted to open up a discussion as to what can we do to reduce the likelihood of extremism taking root/being enabled in our faith communities. 

Here are a couple that I have roaming in my mind: 

reducing US-centric messages that are based more on American myth /interpretation...or at least opening up and encouraging differing opinions/perspectives. Ex. Interepretations of scriptures in the BOM that is often interpreted heavily from a white US view of history in the americas

Taking a moment to dig and see if what one believes (especially if it dives into politics) is the only way to hold a religious influenced ideal. I’ve sometimes seen that those who lean conservative assume that their interpretation of the gospel is the correct one. They’re more likely to share opinions that veer political and feel comfortable doing so in church. Note: I think this can happen anywhere where one view is seen as the assumed norm...for those in states like UT, that just happens to be conservative assertions. And their circle often leans or is almost entirely conservative so there’s often little push back. Which leads to my other thought...

Seeking other opinions or perspectives in the church that do not line entirely with one’s own. Avoiding rigid or absolutist stances. I’m extremely opinionated and that veers both into politics and religion. And with that I think there’s a temptation to imagine a world rewritten in our brand of ideals. But I’m trying to move past viewing my way as the best way for a country of 300+ million. I’ve been thinking a lot about Oak’s talk...particularly on getting to know perceived enemies. Often politically we’ve gotten to a point of treating and assuming the “other” side as the true enemy of our country, values, religion, etc. which 99 times out of 100 I don’t think that is the case.

Pointing in before pointing out- I’ve noticed people are usually extremely “good” at pointing out where other’s views diverge from orthodoxy or “logic” or whatever else. But we tend to be terrible at recognizing our own blindspots or the extent of our lack of knowledge/experience. Note I say “good” because usually their description of the other side is often a caricature rather than full grounded in reality. 

Exploring, understanding, and teaching the concept of peace. One trend that I’ve seen in interviews or statements about the Jan 6 events were many - even those wandering the halls after trespassing  - stated they were peaceful. There seemed to be a severe misunderstanding as to what peace really means and it reminded me of one of my favorite verses pre-jesus coming in the BoM that talks about the people having some resemblance of peace...but that in context it was pretty clear that it was artificially derived and unsustainable: 3 nephi 7:14 

Having a hierarchy of values where our political ones are more second or even third tier. 

 

 

These are a few I’ve been mulling...but I’m interested what you guys think. What could you see may curb the direction of extremism in our faith communities? 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Duncan 6,502]

One thing is I see BOM interpretations meaning or only meaning that they apply to the Continental US so I would extrapolate that to say only USians would apply that to their situation, the rest of the world it doesn't apply to. I would say that if that is true why bother giving the BOM to the world if it only has application to the US? I think people need to get out of the mindset that this applies to only the 50 States.

[bluebell 27,736]

I've seen this meme shared a few times on Facebook and it got me thinking about definitions of peace--

I think there are some among us who see peace as when everyone finally agrees with each other.  It's such a passive definition of the word though, where we have to wait until the other side finally comes around to viewing things our way before we can finally have peace.

Understanding that peace comes when we can be together with those who disagree without contention and trying to force change, is a much more hopeful idea, because it means that we can do something to work toward peace right now, without waiting for the other guy to agree first.

 

[juliann 13,178]

I think reducing the "last days" nonsense we hear so much about would be a good start. That is all about being part of a privileged group, which you prove by surviving. There is always an undercurrent of satisfaction that the "bad guys" will not only be annihilated but it be accomplished in ugly ways. As long as I have lived, the last days were imminent. I don't know how many more centuries of that false belief have to occur before we get down to business and realize we are supposed to live with humankind. As long as we think we have to assign everyone into good and evil categories in order to measure ourselves "worthy," I think we will continue to seek out groups/beliefs where we feel we are better and more enlightened than others. Extremists on the right are easier to identify but it is happening on all ideological fronts, not just religious ones. 

[Meadowchik 2,841]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think reducing the "last days" nonsense we hear so much about would be a good start. That is all about being part of a privileged group, which you prove by surviving. There is always an undercurrent of satisfaction that the "bad guys" will not only be annihilated but it be accomplished in ugly ways. As long as I have lived, the last days were imminent. I don't know how many more centuries of that false belief have to occur before we get down to business and realize we are supposed to live with humankind. As long as we think we have to assign everyone into good and evil categories in order to measure ourselves "worthy," I think we will continue to seek out groups/beliefs where we feel we are better and more enlightened than others. Extremists on the right are easier to identify but it is happening on all ideological fronts, not just religious ones. 

That's one of my thoughts as well. There came a point in my adulthood when I asked myself, "Is my belief in the Last Days making me hope for it? Furthermore is my belief in the Last contributing to mindsets of destruction?"

It was a relief when President Hinckley spoke with such optimism, it was kind like a switch flipped, paraphrasing Shawshank Redemption, "Ya gotta get busy living or get busy dying." An excessive focus on End Times is like an obsession with dying. In dying we're not as interested in changing our minds and being teachable, in dying we're more prone to seek confirmation of our viewpoints. It all becomes very compatible with extremism and warring perspectives.

 

[LoudmouthMormon 984]

41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

What could you see may curb the direction of extremism in our faith communities? 

A week, particularly this coming week, passing by with nobody doing anything stupid.

Got my fingers crossed.

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

I don’t have any ready or definitive answers, but I’m not inclined to hear from those who, four years ago at this time, were excusing anti-Trumpist extremism.

It was at about that time that the term Trump Derangement Syndrome was coined.  

Anybody remember the woman who resigned from the Tabernacle Choir in protest of their performing at the inaugural?

[BlueDreams 7,917]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's one of my thoughts as well. There came a point in my adulthood when I asked myself, "Is my belief in the Last Days making me hope for it? Furthermore is my belief in the Last contributing to mindsets of destruction?"

It was a relief when President Hinckley spoke with such optimism, it was kind like a switch flipped, paraphrasing Shawshank Redemption, "Ya gotta get busy living or get busy dying." An excessive focus on End Times is like an obsession with dying. In dying we're not as interested in changing our minds and being teachable, in dying we're more prone to seek confirmation of our viewpoints. It all becomes very compatible with extremism and warring perspectives.

 

I had an aha moment a little while back that change my position with the end of times. I realized that most of the verses that focus on it also focus on our part in continuing to create a zion society...insomuch that what binds Satan is our attitudes and focus have turned toward a peaceful society emblematic of how God would want us to treat others. 
I do think there’s this focus on either storage supplies that goes wayyyyy over board where people just jump right into doomsday prepping as well as a fatalistic attitude towards events and problems around us as “signs of the times” and there’s little understanding as to how the end of days is also the time of the ongoing restoration and refinement of the Saints for the better. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Meadowchik 2,841]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t have any ready or definitive answers, but I’m not inclined to hear from those who, four years ago at this time, were excusing anti-Trumpist extremism.

It was at about that time that the term Trump Derangement Syndrome was coined.  

Anybody remember the woman who resigned from the Tabernacle Choir in protest of their performing at the inaugural?

Why? Are you saying the woman who resigned from the tabernacle was not making a sincere, principled, evidence-based decision?

Furthermore, can you define what is extremist about opposing Trump in 2016 until now? Are you saying there was no principled, sincere, or evidence-based position one could take in opposition to him? Are you saying that American citizens are supposed to assent to their leaders and specifically to the POTUS? 

For me, my opposition to him in 2016 led me to leave that political party; it was not a partisan decision. In fact, it was based on every fundamental value I had politically and spiritually that I opposed him then. Of course, I was not alone then, scores of political and religious leaders on the right objected to him vehemently and not for political reasons but for well-articulated reasons based on his self-evident violation of standards of decency and morality.

Consider for a moment the evil that has happened since we inserted such a person into the office of POTUS against the backdrop of an already polarized national binary. It was an incredibly poor decision, horribly damaging and to be absolutely clear, Donald Trump has not changed significantly since 2016. All the negatives that he has contributed are merely those indecent, immoral traits Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, Ted Cruz, etc... railed against, just made more manifest through his position of power.

He has certainly worsened extremism in the US, we can say so objectively. 

Edited January 16 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik 2,841]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I had an aha moment a little while back that change my position with the end of times. I realized that most of the verses that focus on it also focus on our part in continuing to create a zion society...insomuch that what binds Satan is our attitudes and focus have turned toward a peaceful society emblematic of how God would want us to treat others. 
I do think there’s this focus on either storage supplies that goes wayyyyy over board where people just jump right into doomsday prepping as well as a fatalistic attitude towards events and problems around us as “signs of the times” and there’s little understanding as to how the end of days is also the time of the ongoing restoration and refinement of the Saints for the better. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

I love that. The concept of the kingdom being here and now deeply resonates with me still.

[BlueDreams 7,917]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t have any ready or definitive answers, but I’m not inclined to hear from those who, four years ago at this time, were excusing anti-Trumpist extremism.

It was at about that time that the term Trump Derangement Syndrome was coined.  

Anybody remember the woman who resigned from the Tabernacle Choir in protest of their performing at the inaugural?

Again, please mind the political stuff as much as possible. I seriously don’t want this to become political. 
 

I find it problematic to write off people we disagree with. Frankly to me that goes strongly against what Oaks mentioned. Labeling people with pejorative descriptions such as “derangement” also doesn’t do much but maintain our sense of self-righteous divisions. And I say that knowing that I’ve had that tendency as well. It is far easier to write off people as stupid, insane, backwards, etc than it is to engage and work to understand their views and where they’re coming from. 
I know i have a ton of disdain for Trump. I’ve had it from around the time he came off the Elevator and if I’d known more about him prior I would have had disdain for him prior. Really I would say that disdain is an extreme understatement. But that disdain if I’m not careful can bleed into writing off around 46.9% of the US population because they didn’t see things my way....even more of my local community. To me there are greater sins than who I vote for. And refusing to hear out people I don’t agree with seems antithetical to developing healthier communities. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

[Meadowchik 2,841]

Maybe part of reducing extrremism is being as clear and evidentiary as humanly possible to demonstrate the facts.  I don't think the facts and evidence will occur in a vacuum, but they're still essential and will matter. It's not just about the facts themselves, but the respect for them, regardless of implication. When people model a respect for this common thing accessible to everyone, it offers a path for them, too. So we have to work extremely hard to be loyal to facts and evidence and be accountable to them. That's a form of public-level love. That, to me is at the core of that invisible line between the Church and State. Having the core common values and facts that are accessible to all makes it possible to live in a pluralistic society.

[Meadowchik 2,841]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, please mind the political stuff as much as possible. I seriously don’t want this to become political. 

I'm sorry if I crossed the line. It's difficult to talk about the current extremism without talking about Trump, dare I say impossible? My subsequent post after responding to Scott is me distilling my major thoughts relating to him without talking about him specifically, but still being aware overall of his role in accelerating a major contributing factor in the current crisis of American extremism: misinformation.

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why? Are you saying the woman who resigned from the tabernacle was not making a sincere, principled, evidence-based decision?

Furthermore, can you define what is extremist about opposing Trump in 2016 until now? Are you saying there was no principled, sincere, or evidence-based position one could take in opposition to him? Are you saying that American citizens are supposed to assent to their leaders and specifically to the POTUS? 

For me, my opposition to him in 2016 led me to leave that political party; it was not a partisan decision. In fact, it was based on every fundamental value I had politically and spiritually that I opposed him then. Of course, I was not alone then, scores of political and religious leaders on the right objected to him vehemently and not for political reasons but for well-articulated reasons based on his self-evident violation of standards of decency and morality.

Consider for a moment the evil that has happened since we inserted such a person into the office of POTUS against the backdrop of an already polarized national binary. It was an incredibly poor decision, horribly damaging and to be absolutely clear, Donald Trump has not changed significantly since 2016. All the negatives that he has contributed are merely those indecent, immoral traits Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, Ted Cruz, etc... railed against, just made more manifest through his position of power.

He has certainly worsened extremism in the US, we can say so objectively. 

Heh. What is extremism to one person is “a sincere, principled, evidence-based position” to another. And so we get that iconic image of the woman screaming at the sky because she’s pissed off that Trump got elected. I’m sure she thought she was being sincere and principled.

And so it goes. 
 

Im just saying I’m not disposed to be lectured to about moderation and unity from those who would have none of such things four years ago. 

[CV75 6,490]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

These are a few I’ve been mulling...but I’m interested what you guys think. What could you see may curb the direction of extremism in our faith communities? 

The USA probably has a version of this: https://www.un.org/sites/www.un.org.counterterrorism/files/plan_action.pdf

ETA: and it does: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/empowering_local_partners.pdf

Edited January 16 by CV75

[Meadowchik 2,841]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. What is extremism to one person is “a sincere, principled, evidence-based position” to another. And so we get that iconic image of the woman screaming at the sky because she’s pissed off that Trump got elected. I’m sure she thought she was being sincere and principled.

And so it goes. 
 

Im just saying I’m not disposed to be lectured to about moderation and unity from those who would have none of such things four years ago. 

No, it's not. Extremism does not tend to be evidence-based. Extremism tends to be myopic in principle and also identity, not making space for other identities.

I'm saying that no one blames hens for raising a ruckus when the fox gets in the henhouse. Why should people treat an objectively horrible decision like business as usual?

[Tacenda 3,406]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I think reducing the "last days" nonsense we hear so much about would be a good start. That is all about being part of a privileged group, which you prove by surviving. There is always an undercurrent of satisfaction that the "bad guys" will not only be annihilated but it be accomplished in ugly ways. As long as I have lived, the last days were imminent. I don't know how many more centuries of that false belief have to occur before we get down to business and realize we are supposed to live with humankind. As long as we think we have to assign everyone into good and evil categories in order to measure ourselves "worthy," I think we will continue to seek out groups/beliefs where we feel we are better and more enlightened than others. Extremists on the right are easier to identify but it is happening on all ideological fronts, not just religious ones. 

"Like"!!

[BlueDreams 7,917]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sorry if I crossed the line. It's difficult to talk about the current extremism without talking about Trump, dare I say impossible? My subsequent post after responding to Scott is me distilling my major thoughts relating to him without talking about him specifically, but still being aware overall of his role in accelerating a major contributing factor in the current crisis of American extremism: misinformation.

It's okay. It's easier said than done. I Know part of this, particularly when we go outside of just the local church community needs to include discussions on politics, larger social dynamics, etc. But I think starting local, within our communities of direct influence (wards, friends, and family), is probably a good place to start since when people start to go down that rabbit hole it's those closest to them that will have the best chance of pulling them back out....and though it's a small slither of the overall problems with extremism, I still think it's an important start. 

And trust me, doing this within board rules entails biting my tongue a lot. I'm eyeball deep into politics on a normal-ish day

 

with luv, 

BD

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's not. Extremism does not tend to be evidence-based. Extremism tends to be myopic in principle and also identity, not making space for other identities.

I'm saying that no one blames hens for raising a ruckus when the fox gets in the henhouse. Why should people treat an objectively horrible decision like business as usual?

Maybe it’s because those who keep saying it’s a horrible decision can never articulate a solid reason for saying so. 
 

But I’m done here now. I won’t do what others have done to me: Get a thread shut down by violating the no-politics rule. 

[AtlanticMike 210]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, please mind the political stuff as much as possible. I seriously don’t want this to become political. 
 

I find it problematic to write off people we disagree with. Frankly to me that goes strongly against what Oaks mentioned. Labeling people with pejorative descriptions such as “derangement” also doesn’t do much but maintain our sense of self-righteous divisions. And I say that knowing that I’ve had that tendency as well. It is far easier to write off people as stupid, insane, backwards, etc than it is to engage and work to understand their views and where they’re coming from. 
I know i have a ton of disdain for Trump. I’ve had it from around the time he came off the Elevator and if I’d known more about him prior I would have had disdain for him prior. Really I would say that disdain is an extreme understatement. But that disdain if I’m not careful can bleed into writing off around 46.9% of the US population because they didn’t see things my way....even more of my local community. To me there are greater sins than who I vote for. And refusing to hear out people I don’t agree with seems antithetical to developing healthier communities. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

Hi BlueDreams, nice to talk to you. So I'm a very conservative/ libertarian kinda guy. And on January 20th I will be 100% behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It's my duty as an American to wipe the slate clean and support them in trying to unite the country and keep us moving forward. I did the same with trump and Obama. I never had disdain for any of them though, personally, I think thats what went wrong the past 4 years. He never even had a chance to be presidential, atleast that's the way I see it. For moving forward and reducing extremism, I think we need to learn how to be positive again,  much of our daily life has become almost overwhelmingly negative. It's got to be a GRASSROOTS EFFORT, the media, liberal or conservative, make alot of money by keeping us confused so we feel like we're reliant on them for answers to lifes difficult questions.  Personally, I've turned them off. They all suck.

Edited January 16 by AtlanticMike

[BlueDreams 7,917]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. What is extremism to one person is “a sincere, principled, evidence-based position” to another. And so we get that iconic image of the woman screaming at the sky because she’s pissed off that Trump got elected. I’m sure she thought she was being sincere and principled.

And so it goes. 
 

Im just saying I’m not disposed to be lectured to about moderation and unity from those who would have none of such things four years ago. 

Who exactly is lecturing here? 

[Tacenda 3,406]

38 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's not. Extremism does not tend to be evidence-based. Extremism tends to be myopic in principle and also identity, not making space for other identities.

I'm saying that no one blames hens for raising a ruckus when the fox gets in the henhouse. Why should people treat an objectively horrible decision like business as usual?

Yep, akin to the extremist Muslim and now, Christian.  And last but not least, the white supremacist. Or not last but not least those like Ammon Bundy who is probably more in line with most extremists at the moment. Here's a podcast on Radiowest that discusses him. https://radiowest.kuer.org/post/how-ammon-bundy-influenced-far-right-extremism

BTW, recently I went to a baby shower and the baby's mom is the daughter of my former neighbor from years ago. Her mother, my friend, protested at the Salt Lake capital on January 6th. And no one at the shower had masks, there were several people at the house.  And the baby's father has been reading some book put out, this is what the sister-in-law told me, we discussed what was happening around us. I wish I knew what the book was, I believe it was from an LDS person. Anyway, he is thinking it's the last days and preparing for it or something. They think the new president is going to bring in the last days, I'm thinking. 

Does anyone have an idea what the book is called? I wonder if it's, "The 5000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen. My husband's boss loaned it to him a couple of years ago. And I think Glenn Beck promotes it's ideas. 

Edited January 16 by Tacenda

[Duncan 6,502]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t have any ready or definitive answers, but I’m not inclined to hear from those who, four years ago at this time, were excusing anti-Trumpist extremism.

It was at about that time that the term Trump Derangement Syndrome was coined.  

Anybody remember the woman who resigned from the Tabernacle Choir in protest of their performing at the inaugural?

as it turned out though she wasn't the only one who quit wanting to have anything to do with Trump. Besides of which there was that Porter, who worked for him. It was found he was beating his wife and that whole scandal and the Bishop told the wife to think about his career (all the while he's still beating you)

 

I am sure she is fine

[CV75 6,490]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Seeking other opinions or perspectives in the church that do not line entirely with one’s own. Avoiding rigid or absolutist stances. I’m extremely opinionated and that veers both into politics and religion. And with that I think there’s a temptation to imagine a world rewritten in our brand of ideals. But I’m trying to move past viewing my way as the best way for a country of 300+ million. I’ve been thinking a lot about Oak’s talk...particularly on getting to know perceived enemies. Often politically we’ve gotten to a point of treating and assuming the “other” side as the true enemy of our country, values, religion, etc. which 99 times out of 100 I don’t think that is the case.

I agree; the more people are brought into the fold, the more exposed and ineffective the violent outliers will become. Of course there will be subdivisions within the larger fold along the lines of moral differences, but there will be sufficient respect of agency / human rights to prevent intra- and inter-fold violence.

[bluebell 27,736]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's not. Extremism does not tend to be evidence-based. Extremism tends to be myopic in principle and also identity, not making space for other identities.

I'm saying that no one blames hens for raising a ruckus when the fox gets in the henhouse. Why should people treat an objectively horrible decision like business as usual?

I think people are not always as objective as they think they are being. (And from my experience, the “extremists” see themselves as “raising a ruckus because the fox got in the henhouse” as much as the “sincere” people do).  

And that could be what Scott is talking about. Many people that I know who tend toward the extreme believe they are being as objective as you believe you are being.

But arguing over who is being more objective, or who is being sincere and who is being extreme, probably isn’t a good way to reduce extremism.  It’s more likely to cause people to become more deeply entrenched in their own perspective than change anyone’s mind.

I think the best way to decrease extremism is to focus on what we can do to bring that about rather than focus on what other people need to do.