Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

“My strong belief is that a loving Heavenly Father revealed this heart wrenching history, in part, so we don’t repeat it,” Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt, a General Authority Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said at the 2023 Braver Angels National Convention on Thursday, referring to the social and political divisions described in the Book of Mormon. 

Elder Corbitt also highlighted contemporary calls for peace and unity from the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson, sharing short video clips from his recent messages. 

“How good and how pleasant it is for brothers and sisters to dwell or sit together in unity,” Elder Corbitt said, paraphrasing Psalms 133 after reciting the verse in Hebrew, to applause from the audience.

“Whatever our backgrounds,” Elder Corbitt said, “let us continue forward as peacemakers, to appeal to our better angels. This will require us to summon our braver angels, as you do.”

I was not previously familiar with the "Braver Angels" organization.  From its website:

Quote

Americans on opposite sides of the political spectrum don’t only disagree on issues — they increasingly dislike one another.

This growing partisan animosity is the crisis of our time and threatens our nation.

Braver Angels exists to address this challenge.

The Challenge We Face

As we separate into groups that increasingly do not even know, or interact with, people of differing opinions, we lose trust in our institutions, eroding the ability to govern ourselves and lowering the caliber of citizenship.

This growing trend coarsens public debate, produces policy gridlock, shrinks our capacity for goodwill, and harms our family and personal relationships. Effective self government depends precisely on what this type of polarization destroys.

We believe the American Experiment can survive and thrive for every American who contributes to the effort.

Where we go from here is up to us.

The Braver Angels Way

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.
We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.
We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree.
We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to.
We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.
We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.
We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

I am glad Elder Corbitt's remarks were well-received.

Back to the article:

Quote

The organization Braver Angels, founded in 2016, is a nonprofit that attempts to ameliorate political polarization in America. Its third national convention brought together this week nearly 700 people — evenly divided between left- and right-leaning Americans — for three days of discussion and debate.

An eclectic array of speakers and panelists slated to speak during the conference included authors Monica Guzman and Ian Rowe, former director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins, U.S. Rep Dean Phillips, D-Minn., and Utah’s Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, among others. 

“If someone were trying to put into action what President Nelson has been teaching us about peacemaking, I believe it would look an awful lot like Braver Angels,” said Thomas B. Griffith, a retired federal judge and a fellow of Brigham Young University’s Wheatley Institute, who was in attendance for Elder Corbitt’s remarks.

After the session in an interview with the Deseret News, Elder Corbitt was “very encouraged” watching Braver Angels in action. “They are impressive and focused in the right direction.”

I am glad that the Church is seeking to mitigate the harshness of our communications these days.  And that it is doing so from a politically neutral point of view.

Quote

Unlikely friendships

In his remarks, Elder Corbitt mentioned Malcolm X visiting his childhood home when he was a baby, long before joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He would eventually work as the church’s point person to Jewish organizations in New York. As a Christian convert “with a Muslim name ... you’re wondering, ‘whose idea was that?’” Elder Corbitt quipped to audience laughter.

Cross-boundary friendship can foster greater collaboration between people of all different backgrounds, reflecting the “best of our national character,” he said, while expressing “respect for our sister churches and religions the world over.” Peace and unification is “the work of many in our diverse nation,” he concluded.

Elder Corbitt related two aspects of the Latter-day Saint faith — the Book of Mormon and modern-day prophets and apostles — to the convention’s theme of fostering “harmony between people of different backgrounds.”

Message of the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon, a volume of sacred scripture alongside the Holy Bible for Latter-day Saints, includes descriptions of elections that became fiercely contentious and violent, Elder Corbitt said, as well as abundant examples of conflict between believers and nonbelievers in the text, with religious freedom as a flashpoint. 

Noting how power struggles arose between peoples of different colors and cultures, Elder Corbitt underscored the teachings in the text that “(God) denieth none that come unto Him, black and white, bond and free, male and female … and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” 

Failing to live out such calls to unity results in “ideological and political divisiveness,” and, in the Book of Mormon, “a catastrophic civil war,” Elder Corbitt said. He expressed hope that such history would serve as a warning that Americans would not “repeat it.”

Cool stuff.  I am glad to see the Book of Mormon being used in this way.

Quote

Calls for peace and unity

Elder Corbitt introduced President Nelson to the audience as a “modern-day Simon Peter,” playing clips from his recent address, titled “Peacemakers Needed”: “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade and inspire — no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”

Quoting Sheri Dew, popular writer and executive vice president of Deseret Management Corp., Elder Corbitt said modern prophets “see around corners” and expressed his hope that others would follow their calls for unity.

Elder Corbitt cited addresses from President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring of the church’s First Presidency. The former encouraged seeking to “moderate and unify…on contested issues,” and the latter emphasized that “a great day of unity is coming.”

“Let us imagine the consequences of not heeding today’s calls or of not earnestly pursuing the inspired objective of this convention,” Elder Corbitt concluded. “As we lead with courage and boldness, while exemplifying kindness and hope for the soul of America, we can, together, fix the eye of the nation on an inspired vision of our future as a people and as a more perfect union.”

Wonderful words.

I sure like Elder Corbitt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Quote

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.
We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.
We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree.
We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to.
We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.
We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.
We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

Sounds great. So how do you deal with bad actors and those acting in bad faith?

A lot of this is based on the optimistic Star Trekesque idea that if we just understand each other more and listen to each other more things will be better. Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds great. So how do you deal with bad actors and those acting in bad faith?

A lot of this is based on the optimistic Star Trekesque idea that if we just understand each other more and listen to each other more things will be better. Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

Well, in Star Trek, that kind of problem in humanity is only solved when the Vulcans show up and help us realize we are not alone in the universe. Since that is expected to occur on April 5, 2063, we're probably stuck with being at each other's throats for a little while longer.

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, in Star Trek, that kind of problem in humanity is only solved when the Vulcans show up and help us realize we are not alone in the universe. Since that is expected to occur on April 5, 2063, we're probably stuck with being at each other's throats for a little while longer.

Or maybe by then we learn we're Terran.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

Or maybe by then we learn we're Terran.

Well, now, that's just awful! You went there...you really went there!

[provoman]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds great. So how do you deal with bad actors and those acting in bad faith?

A lot of this is based on the optimistic Star Trekesque idea that if we just understand each other more and listen to each other more things will be better. Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

 

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, in Star Trek, that kind of problem in humanity is only solved when the Vulcans show up and help us realize we are not alone in the universe. Since that is expected to occur on April 5, 2063, we're probably stuck with being at each other's throats for a little while longer.

 

18 minutes ago, Chum said:

Or maybe by then we learn we're Terran.

 

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, now, that's just awful! You went there...you really went there!

Zinda, his face black, eyes red. Temba, his arms wide. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

[Chum]

My wife and I were politically opposed. I was far right and she was not. And yet, it wasn't much of an issue. We didn't require the other to adopt our position. And ultimately, our family outweighed our ideologies. We'd argue and disagree and then we forget about it.

I think we also understood that political issues were mostly abstractions. There wasn't the ceaseless pressure to inject them into every inch of our lives.

When I imagine a politically opposed couple now, our accommodation seems like a fantasy. It's not just that positions are further apart but the spaces between have become DMZs. Try to cross and anyone might fire on you.

[Chum]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, now, that's just awful! You went there...you really went there!

I really want the flag. The maroon one flown on the moon. But then I'd have to get a pickup truck.

[The Nehor]

 

52 minutes ago, Chum said:

Or maybe by then we learn we're Terran.

Only one way to find out.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

Have there been studies on it?  This isn't a formal CFR, but can you share the references for the evidence you are talking about?  That would be interesting to look at.

[SkyRock]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have there been studies on it?  This isn't a formal CFR, but can you share the references for the evidence you are talking about?  That would be interesting to look at.

Yeah, never has been my experience, at least in person.   The internet is a very different thing. 

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have there been studies on it?  This isn't a formal CFR, but can you share the references for the evidence you are talking about?  That would be interesting to look at.

I think the evidence will likely look more like this where genuine good faith interactions happen:

“Daryl Davis is a blues musician, but he also has what some might call an interesting hobby. For the past 30 years, Davis, a black man, has spent time befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan.

He says once the friendship blossoms, the Klansmen realize that their hate may be misguided. Since Davis started talking with these members, he says 200 Klansmen have given up their robes. When that happens, Davis collects the robes and keeps them in his home as a reminder of the dent he has made in racism by simply sitting down and having dinner with people.”

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

I have a hard time believing that better outcomes than this can happen by engaging in and fostering enmity.

Edited July 6, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have there been studies on it?  This isn't a formal CFR, but can you share the references for the evidence you are talking about?  That would be interesting to look at.

I can’t find the study I read a few months ago. It measured how strongly you felt about something and being exposed to opposing views online was correlated with being more radical.

17 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Yeah, never has been my experience, at least in person.   The internet is a very different thing. 

The research was tied to the internet.

In person there is a similar effect but it tends to only take hold in group settings. Usually groups where individuals have less freedom in who they are associating with. Family events was a common one and the tropes about people feeling free to unload political views on a captive audience at Thanksgiving or Christmas are based in reality. Same with workplace groups. Also true in church settings. I hate political opponents more when I have to sit quietly and listen to them. It is worse when the facts they are using to buttress their ideas are objectively wrong or even just made up.

On the individual level or friendship level there is more room for understanding to potentially grow but there is also a selection bias and it usually only works for areas where the other position is not morally odious to one or both parties.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can show powerful anecdotal evidence to the contrary:

“Daryl Davis is a blues musician, but he also has what some might call an interesting hobby. For the past 30 years, Davis, a black man, has spent time befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan.

He says once the friendship blossoms, the Klansmen realize that their hate may be misguided. Since Davis started talking with these members, he says 200 Klansmen have given up their robes. When that happens, Davis collects the robes and keeps them in his home as a reminder of the dent he has made in racism by simply sitting down and having dinner with people.”

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

 

That is not reaching an agreement to disagree though. It is proselyting. His goal was to destroy the KKK and not to come to an understanding with it and some kind of mutual appreciation of their different viewpoints. I doubt he would be welcome at a “Braver Angels” event using that kind of rhetorical strategy. He would run up against their principle of “neither side is teaching the other”.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can’t find the study I read a few months ago. It measured how strongly you felt about something and being exposed to opposing views online was correlated with being more radical.

The research was tied to the internet.

In person there is a similar effect but it tends to only take hold in group settings. Usually groups where individuals have less freedom in who they are associating with. Family events was a common one and the tropes about people feeling free to unload political views on a captive audience at Thanksgiving or Christmas are based in reality. Same with workplace groups. Also true in church settings. I hate political opponents more when I have to sit quietly and listen to them. It is worse when the facts they are using to buttress their ideas are objectively wrong or even just made up.

On the individual level or friendship level there is more room for understanding to potentially grow but there is also a selection bias and it usually only works for areas where the other position is not morally odious to one or both parties.

If you are talking about online, then that makes sense.  

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you are talking about online, then that makes sense.  

Unfortunately, it seems (anecdotally) online is bleeding into IRL way too often.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not reaching an agreement to disagree though. It is proselyting. His goal was to destroy the KKK and not to come to an understanding with it and some kind of mutual appreciation of their different viewpoints. I doubt he would be welcome at a “Braver Angels” event using that kind of rhetorical strategy. He would run up against their principle of “neither side is teaching the other”.

It doesn't sound like he was actively teaching the KKK members either though.  Yet, they were still learning (as Davis believed they would), and that fits right in with the Braver Angels.  We don't need to be in an active "teaching" role for people to learn from us.  Other people don't have to be in an active teaching role for us to learn from them.

We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

[bluebell]

Just now, ttribe said:

Unfortunately, it seems (anecdotally) online is bleeding into IRL way too often.

Definitely. 

When you get used to treating people that you disagree with disdain and contempt online that is going to bleed over into how you view (and then treat) people who disagree with you in real life.  Not only out of habit but because we curate our online interactions (mostly subconsciously) in ways that reinforce our views of our own awesomeness and other people's idiocy until it's easy to believe that we are the main character of everyone's story.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not reaching an agreement to disagree though. It is proselyting. His goal was to destroy the KKK and not to come to an understanding with it and some kind of mutual appreciation of their different viewpoints. I doubt he would be welcome at a “Braver Angels” event using that kind of rhetorical strategy. He would run up against their principle of “neither side is teaching the other”.

I agree that he was on a mission, but so is Braver Angels - to depolarize America.  I think even they would recognize that requires proselytizing.  Their method of “proselytizing” matches Daryl Davis’ methods perfectly.  Yes Daryl was teaching them, but not directly. He was just befriending them and letting them come to their own conclusions - no “feedback” or telling others how they should think.  I think Braver Angels would fully support his methods of depolarizing America.  He fits these values perfectly:

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.
We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.
We welcome opportunities to engagethose with whom we disagree.
We believe all of us have blind spotsand none of us are not worth talking to.
We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.
We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.
We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side isteaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely. 

When you get used to treating people that you disagree with disdain and contempt online that is going to bleed over into how you view (and then treat) people who disagree with you in real life.  Not only out of habit but because we curate our online interactions (mostly subconsciously) in ways that reinforce our views of our own awesomeness and other people's idiocy until it's easy to believe that we are the main character of everyone's story.

Well, to be fair, I was doing this before the Internet anyway, so.....

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds great. So how do you deal with bad actors and those acting in bad faith?

A lot of this is based on the optimistic Star Trekesque idea that if we just understand each other more and listen to each other more things will be better. Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

I think that dealing with bad actors and those acting in bad faith (sounds like content moderation, but the dynamics of participating in an organization and its outreach are much broader than that), can be done through the council process or something similar.

We can be repulsed by another' views, and not respect those views, but we can always love the person and treat them as Christ would. His approach to oneness looks to me like a virtual mega council with natural and institutional interpersonal and social dynamics at play.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

 

Oops.

Edited July 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Definitely. 

When you get used to treating people that you disagree with disdain and contempt online that is going to bleed over into how you view (and then treat) people who disagree with you in real life.  Not only out of habit but because we curate our online interactions (mostly subconsciously) in ways that reinforce our views of our own awesomeness and other people's idiocy until it's easy to believe that we are the main character of everyone's story.

I am not convinced I am the main character in my own story. It sounds exhausting to try to do that for everyone’s story.

[Dario_M]

Why nothing about being gay is okay? Now it's still wrong to be a gay or lesbian in the church. The Elders also may change something about that as well if you ask me. 

 

[Rain]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that he was on a mission, but so is Braver Angels - to depolarize America.  I think even they would recognize that requires proselytizing.  Their method of “proselytizing” matches Daryl Davis’ methods perfectly.  Yes Daryl was teaching them, but not directly. He was just befriending them and letting them come to their own conclusions - no “feedback” or telling others how they should think.

I find that when people only approach others with "I will teach them", relationships don't get very far.  But when you go as "I will befriend them" you are recognizing that it needs to be 2 ways - you have to be willing to learn from and value them as well. That doesn't mean he values their stance on some specific things, but recognizes that there will be something to value inside of them.

Too often and more and more people look at others and think because of some political stance the whole person is ruined.  That's rarely, if ever true and he sees this in his work.

 

14 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 I think Braver Angels would fully support his methods of depolarizing America.  He fits these values perfectly:

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.
We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.
We welcome opportunities to engagethose with whom we disagree.
We believe all of us have blind spotsand none of us are not worth talking to.
We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.
We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.
We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side isteaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Rain