Skip to content

The Dynamics of Mormon Stories Communities, Part 2

April 16, 2012

This post is the second part of a series. Please find part 1 here. Please find part 3 here.

In the first part of the series, I think I outstretched myself. I was talking about Facebook groups, and Feminist Mormon Housewives, and Mormon Stories, and Mormon Expression…and how do those all relate?

Well, I’ll get to that. But the first thing I wanted to talk about was something that I had only hinted at in my last post. For a refresher, here was the end of that last post:

Various people associated with Mormon Matters and Open Stories have stated that in order to create space, there has to be an inviting, non-threatening environment first. When discussions become too critical (or at least, perceived as too critical), that is uninviting to more faithful members. A “big-tent” Mormonism can’t be a free-for-all, because one party will eventually dominate and drive away others. Since from a first glance, it would appear that at both Mormon Expression and Mormon Stories, there are “spaces where you can talk about the things that you can’t talk about at church, that you can’t talk about with your family,” it seems there must be a different explanation.

The difference I see between ME and MS is that ME bends over backwards to create a space where you can talk about the things that you can’t talk about at church/with your family in an environment that your family members might actually buy into.

Cue discussion of whether this is just a wolf’s attempt of making particularly convincing sheepskins to wear. I’ll write more about it in Part 2.

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

I really feel for John Dehlin. He just can’t get a break. He has enemies on both sides of the spectrum — critics and critical ex-Mormons often think that he is holding people’s hands, whitewashing the sheer ugliness of (insert ex-Mormon grip here), or participating in crazy mental gymnastics when he really “ought to know better” about all the ills of the church.

…yet…on the other side, there is as much, if not more, distrust of him. I’ve heard many faithful members critique John’s interview style…he frequently asks leading questions, and while he often pursues additional questions for more “faith-friendly” guests, he is more willing to let critical guests’ comments stand as is with less scrutiny. At the very least, that’s what my most articulate faithful LDS friends say. (Others can be distrustful in a far less articulate way, which is to be expected.)

My own impression is that I think that trying to navigate both sides…trying to be something for everyone and to create a “big tent” — it’s going to make people wonder where you allegiances ultimately lie. The fact is that you can’t speak the same way in ex-Mormon communities as you would in faithful Mormon communities, but when people see someone else traversing both realms, saying one thing to one side and a different thing to another side, that sets off some warning signs.

That being said, I can’t take anything of what he says at face value anymore. I don’t mean this in a bad way…I just think there are more complex flavors to that dish, so I always have to at least mentally scrutinize what’s behind the words. Like, if we sliced and diced the quotation from John from my earlier post:

The Open Stories Foundation was started as an extension to Mormon Stories Podcast and the purpose of the Open Stories Foundation basically is to help Mormons–Members of the LDS Church–in faith transitions. We’re definitely separate from the LDS Church. We’re completely neutral in terms of people’s faith journeys and where they end up. We’re not pro-Church, we’re not anti-Church. We have warm soft spots for the Church. I think most of us would say we love the Church and most of us basically are active or semi-active members of the Church. But we’re committed to looking at Mormonism in a bit of a broader way, sort of as a culture. And our goal is to do whatever we can to provide support for people who are struggling…whether that be someone who has just started a faith crisis, whether they are in a mixed faith marriage and they are trying to work through their marriage, whether they are struggling with various issues related to culture or history, whether they are thinking about leaving or staying or coming back to the Church after they have been away. Whether they are angry or sad or happy. Whether they are completely true believing, but they just want to be a part of a community that celebrates Mormonism as a culture in a way that is a little bit less correlated. These are some of the things that the Open Stories Foundation is about.

When John says they are “completely neutral in terms of people’s faith journeys and where they end up,” I think there is fact and fiction to this. I think the fiction is that various elements of the Open Stories/Mormon Stories/Mormon Matters definitely have certain ideas about where they would like people to be. (I mean, every time it comes up in a Mormon Matters podcast, Dan Wotherspoon mentions that he would really like it if people could stay in the church.) I think the factual nature of this statement comes from the fact that John has had to tailor his message over time to appeal to different folks. I think that there was a time when Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters and all of these things that he was creating to try to keep people in, no matter what. (I mean, from where else would come?) However, between the periods of times when John himself was no longer able to attend and the backlash that he got from a lot of the ex-Mormon forums and community, I think John has had to realize that for some, the church just isn’t going to work out.

John says they are “not pro-Church…not anti-Church…We have warm soft spots for Church.” Again, I think there are facts and falsehoods to this. The fiction (and the reason I suspect that more orthodox Mormons distrust John) is that John doesn’t seem to be pro-Church as an institution. I can 100% believe that John has warm soft spots for Mormonism, but when it comes to taking the church institution at face value, I would definitely think that it swings “anti-Church.” This is a big issue: for Mormons that are trying to reform the church, or who assert that their middle-way or uncorrelated Mormonism is just as Mormon, if not more so than what the church has correlated…they have to come to grips that while they may absolutely be Mormon, they are antagonists with respect to the Church.

I can understand that there are people who grapple with the church and with Mormonism as a religion…and they understand that even though they have reservations with how things are done, Mormonism as a religion places demands on them…but I think the issue here (that more conservative, faithful commenters will point out) is that when Mormonism is reduced to a culture, it loses that binding power.

Not a Church

In her comments, Joanna Brooks said about Open Stories Foundation:

[The Open Stories Foundation] is a big tent Mormonism. The Open Stories Foundation and affiliated projects are not a church, but they are a space where we can process this really fascinating and significant part of ourselves that is Mormonism. Most of us who are affiliated with this or come to it as podcast listeners or as members of regional communities, we have invested a lot of our lives in Mormonism and we deserve a place where we can, in a supportive environment, sort through the whole range of feelings that Mormonism brings up in us, and that’s what this place is about.

Even an innocuous statement like “The Open Stories Foundation and affiliated projects are not a church” needs to be processed. Obviously, Joanna has to say this to prevent the church from coming after them. But in another sense, it is correct to say that the OSF and MS aren’t asserting different cosmologies, functional truth claims, behavioral codes, etc.,

Nevertheless, the Mormon Stories Conferences, with their story sharing (read: testimony) meetings, musical numbers, and even programs definitely pay homage to sacrament in the LDS church. And with Mormon Stories groups being organized into local communities of support, there is another dynamic completely. But for discussion on the very subject from which this series takes its name, the dynamics of Mormon Stories communities, you’ll have to wait for part 3.

From → Uncategorized

  1. Three quick comments to give some insider perspective on how we see it:

    1. Big Tent Mormonism:
    We are pushing to expand the size of the tent. A tent still has edges though. So yes, there will still be some tension at those edges where people sort of fit sometimes but also get bumped out. We realize this. It isn’t a perfect tent, nor an infinite tent. It’s just much bigger and much more inclusive than what most of us think of regarding the institutional LDS Church’s tent, and ours leans much more in the doubting direction.

    2. Open Stories Foundation neutrality:
    Our official stance is to try and be neutral on whether individuals should stay in the church or leave it. For those of us in the organization, of course we have our own opinions. The only way not to have a bias or opinion is to be completely ignorant of an issue. We support people in their faith journey to find happiness and meaning. It really is better and healthier for some people to leave IMO, even though I personally would like more people to stay and help change things.

    3. clarification: does not exist to proselyte and convince people to stay in the LDS Church. People need to do what is best for them. And like I mentioned above, I truly believe some people need to leave and cut all ties to get the best results for them. The site mission is this: *IF* you decide you want to explore staying connected in some form or fashion, *THEN* here is a community of people to talk to about that idea in a positive and constructive environment. We don’t have an agenda on what that connection should be, or what level of activity people should have. The size of this tent is very small ;-). It caters to a very narrow niche on the faith spectrum.

  2. Brian,

    Thanks for commenting.

    1) I guess whatever I suspect whenever I hear a “big tent” concept being caveated with, “But tents still need boundaries” is that it’s not really about making a bigger tent at all, but about making the same size of tent, only moved in a different location.

    2 & 3) Very diplomatic official statements, and I’ve heard them a lot, but there’s not a lot to really grab on there, as with most diplomatic, official statements.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Dynamics of Mormon Stories Communities, Part 1 « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
  2. The Dynamics of Mormon Stories Communities, Part 3 « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
  3. Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: the Anti-Mormon Moment Edition!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: