Why I Love Sunstone
The other day, over at that other blog, Sunstone was getting its quarterly flogging. I’ve reread my responses on that thread, and it strikes me that I was not my usual cool-as-a-cucumber (ha!) self. I’m irrationally defensive of Sunstone and Dialogue and Exponent II and all of those independent Mormon publications that some people think are soooo two decades ago. The reason is simple, really: Sunstone saved my life.
I grew up in a family that, while open to more questions than some LDS families, was essentially quite conservative. Yes, the bishop might have some wacky ideas (he was my dad, after all!), or the Primary teacher might have gotten a couple of historical details wrong, but that was no reason to rock the boat. It was fun to read more books about Mormonism than anybody, and to occasionally feel smug in one’s superior knowledge, but we did not Question Authority or do anything else that might have been suggested by 60s bumper stickers. If I had a nickel for every Family Home Evening lesson on obedience…
After I graduated from college, I decided to go on a mission. I felt very strongly directed to go, and I’m not one who usually gets more than suggestions in answer to prayers, so I went, even though I wanted to go to graduate school instead. To make a long, private story short and semi-public, my mission was the worst two months of my life. I learned first-hand, and in very painful ways, that leaders make mistakes, that sometimes a bureaucracy is just a bureaucracy, and that it is possible for individuals to slip between the cogs of the institutional machinery and have their spirits crushed. When I got home, I was as lost as I’ve ever been–the cozy world of inspired church leaders and their wise counsel felt lost to me; a world without the church (which would also mean without my family, most of my friends, etc.) seemed uninhabitable. I took 200 sleeping pills.
Fortunately (I think), somebody noticed me passed out in my car and got me to a hospital. Even more fortunately, I spent some time recuperating in my great aunt Elizabeth’s guest room, which had bookshelves lined with old issues of Sunstone and Dialogue. I spent days and days reading about how people had grappled with the same questions I had, how they had made peace (and not) with questions of institutional authority, priesthood, and revelation. I got to know people who seemed more like me than many of the people I knew in the wards where I’d lived; I realized that I was not so painfully unique after all. I learned that the church is not a monolithic, unchanging edifice, but that it is built and rebuilt with human hands and human minds trying hard to discern God’s will (with varying success). I had sort of understood that on an intellectual, theoretical level, but when I needed it translated to an emotional and personal level, I *really* needed to read “Pillars of My Faith” and Gene England’s essays and a reexamination of the seagull story (don’t ask me why that one mattered–it really did somehow!). Slowly, I started to believe that there could be a recognizably Mormon world that had room for me in it.
It’s not so much that Sunstone and Dialogue and Exponent II are needed to perform such dramatic therapeutic function very often; I hope they’re not! But in a church with no “Reform” or “Conservative” or “Renewal” or even “Protestant” branches to speak of, and a church divided by geography so that true fellowship occurs mostly by fortunate accidents of residence, we need some connections for people who feel themselves, for whatever reasons, on the margins. We need a place for scholars (and wannabes) whose work asks uncorrelatable questions to publish their work and have it challenged by people who won’t immediately and exclusively challenge their faithfulness instead of their data and their conclusions. We need a place for people who are working their way out of the church to find comfort and solace so that they can eventually leave Mormonism without bitterness.
Does it get repetitive sometimes? Of course–what else could be expected in a church which is by its nature so slow to change (and populated by humans, whose nature seems *never* to change much!)? Does every piece pass scholarly muster? Of course not! But then again, neither does every piece in _Social Text_ (wink if you’re old enough to get the joke). Is the Sunstone/Dialogue/Exponent II crowd smug and self-congratulatory at times? Of course–everybody wants to be in the in-crowd sometimes, and crow about it. Yes, the crowing is a little shallow and adolescent, but sometimes we all have to let our inner 7th-grader out for air, right?
Like Nate, I’d love to see Mormon Studies grow, and be peer-reviewed and respectable. I’d like there to be something new and exotic in every issue. I’d like there to be new questions and exhilarating new methodologies. I would like the 3 people on the planet who are smarter than Nate Oman to write regularly so he can be served too. But I’m just dumb enough not to mind reading some things over and over, in slightly different voices–Mormonism is (among other things) a community of belief and ideas and it can exist only in the form of flawed mortals trying to connect their own puny ideas with something bigger. Sometimes the so-called intellectuals (and even the real ones) look just as goofy trying to do that as the deacons bearing their testimonies for the first time and trying really hard to keep their voices from cracking. What’s not to love about that?!
Mathew:
I wasn’t around at the time either, but here’s my guess from what I’ve heard. Sunstone was considered left-of-center in the Church, by the few that even knew about it. It wasn’t uncommon for bishops or stake presidents to subscribe, if they were interested in Mormon discussion. But I suspect there were a handful of people who raised their eyebrows in concern.
I think the statement on symposia and the news stories that followed may have been the first time most people even heard of Sunstone. And since they were introduced to it as something that the Brethren had just denounced, that sealed their view of it forever. A lot of faithful members, like your grandmother, either quietly unsubscribed or quietly continued to read it, depending on how they viewed the statement. Following the statement there was a period of intense marginalization, as others were excommunicated, and the editor of Sunstone was threatened with a loss of membership many times.
Comment by John H — November 30, 1999 @ 12:00 am
I’ve only picked up Sunstone and read it a few times (gasp!). Still, I’m not sure if repetition of topics has to be a huge negative. We certainly experience repetition in our church meetings and lessons — so why would we be surprised if it happens in a church periodical.
I also have to wonder how it’s possible that everything could be a rehash. I would expect that something has to be new about what is written.
Comment by danithew — September 29, 2004 @ 10:02 pm
Beautiful, Kris. Thanks for sharing the story.
We both have walked very similar paths, but with different consequences. You got depressed; I got furious.
I hear a lot of complaints that Sunstoners are just angry, bitter people. A few are, that’s true. But most of us have worked through our anger as best as we can, and we have Sunstone to thank for it. Sometimes anger isn’t the worst of emotions. Unchecked and uncontrolled, it can be bad, yes. But it’s something we all need to feel from time to time.
Comment by John H — September 29, 2004 @ 10:14 pm
Reading that you found back issues of Sunstone and Dialogue at your great aunt’s reminded me of an incident from my high school years. Back in the early nineties, about the time of the excommunication of the September Six, I noticed a Sunstone magazine at my grandmothers who was then in her late eighties. She had subscribed for many years and I had never taken notice, but since this was about the time when publishing in Sunstone was discouraged, it suddenly seemed incongruous to me that my very humble and devout grandmother was reading what I perceived as a Mormon rebel mag. She told me she had been taking the magazine for years and that she liked some of what what written and didn’t put much stock in some of what was written, but on the whole she liked to read about church-related topics.
My memory isn’t long enough to remember a time when Sunstone was just a publication–not a symbol separating wheat and tares (admittedly this symbolism has changed somewhat from the early 90s). Since my memory isn’t long enough maybe the impression I gleaned from my experience with my grandmother is wrong–maybe Sunstone was always part of the fringes of Mormonism, but if that was the case, I don’t know why my grandmother would subscribe. Can someone with more knowledge about how Sunstone was perceived in its early days fill in the blanks for me.
Comment by Mathew — September 29, 2004 @ 10:25 pm
I’ve never read a Sunstone. I suppose if I ever get a free afternoon I should go to the library and dive in. I’m sure it would be good for me.
I’m so glad it was there for you Kristine.
I’ve wish so often for a forum of like minded people and I guess I never knew where to look. The blogernacle has been an awakening for me, I feel like I’ve been spiritually hibernating for a decade. Afraid to speak my mind, afraid to lose my faith. BCC is a great place, so thanks for letting my visit.
Comment by Lisa — September 29, 2004 @ 10:32 pm
John H.,
Is there a link anywhere that talks about this history? I’d be very curious to read something on it.
Comment by Lisa — September 29, 2004 @ 10:52 pm
Very moving story, Kris. I’m glad you made it through that stage of life.
(By the way, it’s okay for Steve or Aaron to refer to “that other blog” but you’re _on the sidebar_! Only royalty speaks in third person.) (At least, that’s what Kaimi thinks).
Comment by Kaimi — September 29, 2004 @ 10:59 pm
Hooray for Sunstone! Thanks for sticking around, Kristine : )
Yes, we can hope for better, but so far Sunstone ain’t obsolete. With a little luck, improvements in Mormon Studies in general will also improve Sunstone (oh, and Dialogue).
Comment by Ben Huff — September 29, 2004 @ 11:20 pm
Kristine: That is a wonderful story. I am certainly glad that you found Sunstone rather than more sleeping pills. I — for better and for worse — have never had such a dramatic episode. For me Sunstone is basically a magazine that has some good stuff, some stuff that I disagree intensely with (these two categories are certainly not exclusive), and some stuff that makes me roll my eyes. I also want there to be places for the free and uncorrelated discussion of things Mormon. I love such discussions despite the fact that I think that most of the time most of what we say is pretty shallow. (I have spent a huge amount of time creating first the forum of the ldslaw list, which in its time was pretty hopping, and then my small two-bits for T&S and the bloggernacle.) But surely love can co-exist with frustration, ambivalence, and the occasional desire to break forth in withering scorn. Indeed, I suspect that this describes the relationship that more than a few good Mormons of my acquaintance have with the Church and many of their fellow Saints.
Comment by Nate Oman — September 29, 2004 @ 11:42 pm
Thanks for sharing your story, Kristine, glad you pulled through. Sorry “the mission experience” messed you up, but it’s certainly not the first train wreck I’ve heard about. It’s clear that some Mormons need, at some point in their lives, to hear an alternate Mormon voice addressing issues of faith, reason, doctrine, or history. For some, that might lead to a door marked “Exit,” but for many it validates their own doubts or negative experiences from a non-orthodox but still believing and even positive perspective, or at least places those concerns in a larger framework where things can be worked out over time.
Mormonism offers few outlets for such alternate voices, and the leadership does its best to eliminate those that do appear. I think that effort is misguided, equating every difference of opinion or inconvenient fact with “disputations and dissensions” so often criticized in the BoM as a manifestation of the adversary, or with disloyalty, the cardinal sin of the corporate Church. While I confess that I have never subscribed to Sunstone, I’m glad it’s there.
It is certainly appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of those, such as Nate, who have invested a fair amount of time and effort to develop and support pleasantly neutral online forums that foster discussion and exchange on friendly terms.
Comment by Dave — September 30, 2004 @ 12:14 am
“But surely love can co-exist with frustration, ambivalence, and the occasional desire to break forth in withering scorn. “
Nate, that is a true and exceedingly elegant sentence. I will quit telling my brother that law school ruins people’s prose
And with Dave, I offer cheers for the newer places to have frequently shallow but fun and occasionally brilliant discussions, and my gratitude for your efforts in establishing them.
Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2004 @ 12:31 am
Oops–didn’t mean to be anonymous!
Kristine
Comment by Kristine — September 30, 2004 @ 12:44 am
Bless your heart. More essays like this and less snarking would make Sunstone a joy.
As it is, there have been some good essays (I even bought an issue and sent it to a non-LDS friend of mine that had some good ones).
But this is a very strong one.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — September 30, 2004 @ 2:59 am
I especially appreciate Nate’s comments about Sunstone and a place for uncorrelated discussions. I can be a bit sensitive about Sunstone (go figure), but I try and remind myself that criticism of Sunstone is part of what Sunstone itself symbolizes.
I suppose the irony aside, that’s why I get so cranky when people criticize Sunstone. On the one hand, people like Nate offer a valuable discourse for helping improve independent forums and publications through critiques. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who just assume Sunstone not exist, and I personally *know* of at least two apostles who, if they had their way, would eliminate Sunstone altogether.
I know some of the things Sunstone publishes are bothersome to many, but imagine the alternative - no Sunstone?
The argument that if Sunstone wasn’t so extreme, there wouldn’t be a problem, doesn’t fly, either. I had a friend in Washington state who held a study group each month and invited different speakers. It was very similar to the Miller-Eccles study group in Southern California. My friend’s group was much like T&S - faithful Saints who wanted to discuss more issues. To make an already long story short, his stake president ordered him to stop the study group and confiscated his temple recommend when he refused. The SP didn’t believe study outside of church meetings was appropriate.
My point is that if we want free exchange and places to talk about these things, we need to put up with stuff we don’t always like (that goes for me too). Although they may be a minority, make no mistake that there are leaders in the Church, both at the local and general level, who would rather see *no* bloggernacle, no forums like this, if it means putting up with Sunstone-like things. I think that’s downright dangerous for Mormonism.
Comment by John H — September 30, 2004 @ 4:12 am
“By the way, … Only royalty speaks in third person.) (At least, that’s what Kaimi thinks).”
So, Kaimi, would you care to share with the rest of us what else you and Kristine have in common with Bob Dole?
Kristine, glad you made it. Thank you for being who you are.
Comment by CB — September 30, 2004 @ 2:19 pm
“The argument that if Sunstone wasn’t so extreme, there wouldn’t be a problem, doesn’t fly, either.”
Besides, I don’t think Sunstone is, on balance, “so extreme.” I think it’s a little bit the same phenomenon as some commenters at T&S described when their wives ventured to read T&S–one shockingly liberal comment negates the 90% of what’s there that’s faith-promoting or at least acceptable. If people can’t tolerate even a few viewpoints that are significantly out of the mainstream and still manage to calibrate their response to the entire publication appropriately, I’m not sure what Sunstone (or T&S or BCC) can do to change their perceptions.
Finally, I most often hear the word “extreme” from people who have never picked up an issue of Sunstone or Dialogue or Exponent (the tamest and most maligned of the bunch, imo).
Comment by Kristine — September 30, 2004 @ 3:16 pm
“But surely love can co-exist with frustration, ambivalence, and the occasional desire to break forth in withering scorn.”
Truly….. feelings for Sunstone, Dialogue, friends, leaders, children (your own and others’) and ….mates!
Comment by Sharon — September 30, 2004 @ 4:18 pm
Well, girls and boys, as a charter subscriber to Sunstone, let me see if I can remember from way back then. Hmmmmm……. (for the record I may have been the youngest subscriber at the time, so I’m not thaaat old, but anyway ….)
Although it was not so perceived at the time, Sunstone was in many ways a product of the Spencer Kimball era. Yes, it was left-of-center, but not too left-of-center for the time. This was the era of the Arrington spring of church history, the priesthood revelation, and a general outward looking spirit produced by Pres. Kimball’s great emphasis on missionary work. While BYU always had its academic peculiarities, there was relatively little interference from Salt Lake during the Oaks and Holland presidencies, and a somewhat exhilirating spirit of faithful but rigorous inquiry on campus if you knew where to look.
Sunstone saw itself as the next generation after Dialogue but on the same wavelength as the older Dialogue folks. It was supported by the Dialogue crowd, which really was rather establishment at the time. Although there were no GAs as open supporters, there was extensive support and participation from the BYU faculty, and even a CES guy or two. An example of this is the first Sunstone symposium in Washington, which featured Hugh Nibley as the headliner and was supported by the DC LDS establishment with over a thousand in attendance.
So it was not at all unusual for a faithful but open-minded grandma to subscribe. I think it was originally a little more varied in subject matter than now, but I believe any narrowing is a function of the elimination of contributions from Church employed academics, which isn’t Sunstone’s fault. I think it would help if there were more center of even right-of-center voices in Sunstone, but even before the Church statement that was sometimes hard for a publication relying on unpaid contributions. Peggy Fletcher always complained that it was so much easier to get an embittered person with an agenda to meet a deadline than some content person with a nice constructive approach.
I think Sunstone serves a valuable function for many people, and I will always subscribe. I do encourage the current management to strive to get as wide a range of voices as possible even that takes some effort to keep the more faithful side in the picture. One Kristine makes it all worthwhile.
JWL
Comment by JWL — September 30, 2004 @ 5:07 pm
“One Kristine makes it all worthwhile.”
What an incredibly kind thing to say. Thank you.
I realize I’ve probably somewhat (!) dampened the possibility of a rough-and-tumble discussion of Sunstone’s virtues and flaws. There probably should be a rule that anyone who discusses her suicide attempt automatically loses the ensuing argument, just like when someone compares his opponent to the Nazis
Sorry! (Then again, I’m sure the topic will come up again–even the bloggernacle sometimes lacks for fresh content ;))
Comment by Kristine — September 30, 2004 @ 5:58 pm
Kristine: You will be proud of my sensitivity. In my initial response you will notice that I refrained from making any sort of comparison to Sunstone and sleeping pills! At the very least suicide stories can forestall snarky comparisons. At least for a time…
Comment by Nate Oman — September 30, 2004 @ 7:30 pm
Hmmm… I guess I’ve just been incredibly lucky in the places I’ve landed during my life, but I have never experienced the kind of conspiratorial suppression of Sunstone et al by local and general leaders that John H and others have witnessed. For example, my parents have subscribed to both Sunstone and Dialogue from the beginning and are currently the directors of the SoCal Miller-Eccles group–and my mother is deeply involved in CES through seminary, institute and adult scripture-study classes, while my dad is a politically conservative and fully-active member in leadership positions. Neither has ever experienced any hint of intimidation or disapproval from local leadership or higher-ups. Perhaps mine is the unusual experience–but it should be heartening to Sunstoners nonetheless.
Comment by Rosalynde Welch — September 30, 2004 @ 8:29 pm
Nate, I am positively bursting with pride at your self-restraint and sensitivity
(not to mention giggling at how obvious that set-up was!)
Comment by Kristine — September 30, 2004 @ 8:53 pm
Rosalynde:
I’m not sure that your experience is out of the ordinary. I think most Church leaders don’t have a problem with Sunstone or Dialogue. They are genuinely good people out to help their flock the best they can.
But when the horror stories do come along, they anger people because a Church that tries so hard to demonstrate its Christianity shouldn’t be doing things like that. So stories such as Linda Newell and the speaking ban after the Emma Smith biography was released are particularly heartbreaking and frustrating. And it doesn’t help when most members, upon hearing such things, insist that we don’t know the whole story and can’t in anyway assume the Church has done anything wrong.
Comment by John H — September 30, 2004 @ 10:51 pm
Thank you for sharing the experience, Kristine. I am glad that Sunstone is what you needed and helped you reassess your faith and priorities. I have a couple of questions, though, that I thought I would pose to you and the other Sunstone enthusiasts here:
(1) What about those who pick up Sunstone and then actually believe that there is something sinister at play in the machinery of the Church and that things are being suppressed etc.? What if this inference damages the testimony of someone with a fragile faith in a given moment? Does the prospect of driving people out of the Church worry anyone? Or does it merely serve such weaklings right because their testimony is not strong enough to withstand the revelations of all the cover-ups and conspiracies in LDS history?
(2) On the other end of the spectrum, what is your view of people whose testimony is not shaken in the least by allegations of shady actions that are suggested in Sunstone? Are these people simply to be dismissed as non-critical thinkers? Are they worthy of your frustration and scorn because they put more stock in the faith that the Holy Ghost has revealed to them than in a seemingly convincing historical record?
(3) What about some of the people that are writing in Sunstone–how can you be so sure of their benign motives? Is it not possible that they are the wolves in sheeps clothing that the Savior warned his followers against?
(4) Finally, what if the Gospel really is as monolithic as Sunstoners claim it is not? Would Sunstoners be willing to conform if we found out that God and Jesus really exist, that they really appeared to Joseph Smith, that polygamy really was ordained of God and commanded of men, and that the BoM is both spiritually and historically true, just like we have all learned in Church? I ask this because I personally have often felt the scorn and disgust of Sunstoners when I suggest such possibilities. I am the first one to admit that I am probably not as smart as people who publish in and read Sunstone religiously. But I am hesitant to accept that this makes my spiritual insight inferior or less valid or true.
Comment by john fowles — October 2, 2004 @ 5:58 am
To clarify point (3): maybe some of these people actually do have the affirmative agenda that Sunstone critics accuse them of (to damage and/or destroy the Church), no matter how willing Sunstone enthusiasts are to ascribe these people a detached, scholarly motive instead?
Comment by john fowles — October 2, 2004 @ 6:01 am
John:
To answer your questions:
1) I’m always extremely suspicious of people who blame Sunstone or Signature Books because some poor, unsuspecting soul might stumble across it and leave the Church. I’ve quoted Dean May many, many times and I’ll quote him again: Sunstone has kept far more people in the Church than it has driven out.
As I’ve brought up elsewhere, would you be willing to blame the temple ceremony since people have been upset by that and left the Church over it? How about Elder McConkie’s sermons, which have offended some? What about the Journal of Discourses and Brigham Young’s strange sermons?
People leave the Church for many different reasons. The problem is, people like you need to blame everyone and everything except the Church. So, if someone leaves over the temple ceremony, they didn’t have enough faith. If they leave over the harsh, critical words of Elder McConkie, they couldn’t take the words of God’s prophet. And if they leave over something they read in Sunstone, it’s Sunstone’s fault (because we all believe in shooting the messenger).
Of course, if you offend someone in Church and they leave, it isn’t your fault at all - they didn’t have enough faith.
2) This is just downright insulting, and demonstrates that you’ve actually never even bothered to read Sunstone.
3) John, your questions are getting sillier and sillier. I started this response as a genuine attempt at discussion, but the more I reread your comments, the angrier I get. When you bother to learn something about Sunstone, then we’ll talk.
4) See number 2 and 3, above. It becomes more and more clear you’ve never read Sunstone, with the possible exception of an essay or two someone pointed you to online just to get you riled up at how apostate all we Sunstoners are. Of course, you’d never dare ask yourself the same question - what if the Church isn’t the dogmatic, narrow tent you seem to view it as.
It never ceases to amaze me John, the authoritativeness you speak from. “Would Sunstoners be willing to conform…” - you’ve got to be kidding me. Frankly, people who are that sure of themselves kinda scare me.
Comment by John H — October 2, 2004 @ 6:27 am
John, just a couple of responses to your points
1) Things *are* being suppressed–there are lots and lots of things in the Church archives that people don’t have access to. I had to get special permission to look at an oral history of LaVern Parmley, ferhevvinssake. (You know how many scurrilous incidents there are in the history of the Primary!) There is a weird kind of institutional paranoia and secrecy that doesn’t serve anybody very well, imo. But it’s not Sunstone’s fault for drawing attention to these strange behaviors. People who are eager for a reason to leave may find the reason on the pages of Sunstone. But if it weren’t in Sunstone, they’d find it somewhere else (like in an apparent slight from someone in their ward, or the Journal of Discourses, or wherever.) I think people find what they’re looking for in Sunstone, just as they do in the Ensign–if they’re looking for reasons to stay, they’ll find a few tidbits in the Ensign that they can hold onto, and things in Sunstone that are helpful and faith-promoting; if they’re looking for reasons to leave, they’ll grab onto every potentially scandalous idea in Sunstone and fixate on the cheesiness and fluff in the Ensign as evidence that believers are stupid and benighted.
2) No, such people are not worthy of scorn. I’d put myself in the class of people whose testimony is not much affected by the frequent shocking revelations (ha!) in Sunstone. (You really haven’t read too many issues, have you?)
3) I’m sure it’s possible. However, if I were a wolf looking for a sheep costume, I’d shop at Deseret Book–whiter, fluffier wool, y’know? If there really are people trying to damage or destroy the Church by publishing in Sunstone, they must be sadly deluded about Sunstone’s reach and influence. (no insult intended, John H., but you know your circulation numbers better than I do :))
4) There was a survey done of “Sunstoners’” beliefs a few years ago. There are plenty of problems with the methodology, but it still points to a wide variety of viewpoints on all of the issues you mention, and, if I recall correctly, a pretty significant majority affirmed faith in God and Jesus Christ and in the Restoration. Book of Mormon historicity was probably the question on which “Sunstoners” differed most from what I think you’d find in your average Gospel Doctrine class. On polygamy, I think you’d find a very broad spectrum of opinion in any Sunday School class (or at least any Relief Society class where people felt they could be honest!) In short, I think there are lots of believers among the readers of Sunstone and people who publish it. It’s true that their belief is expressed very differently than yours, John, but that doesn’t make it less real. I suspect that when we get to see things as they really are and “know as we are known”, we’ll all have to modify our ideas a good deal to conform to the truth. That may be a less painful process for tho
Comment by Kristine — October 2, 2004 @ 3:54 pm
oops–call the verbosity police!
That may be a less painful process for those of us who’ve spent our lives being less cocksure of our own faithfulness. At least I hope so. Otherwise I’d have almost nothing but envy for people with John’s startling confidence; it seems like it would be so much easier to live in a world with so little gray. (I’m sure it doesn’t feel that way, John, but it *looks* that way from the outside).
Comment by Kristine — October 2, 2004 @ 3:57 pm
From my perspective, it would be much easier to live in a world of grey.
Comment by john fowles — October 2, 2004 @ 4:23 pm
Sorry John H. I see that I really bothered you with my questions. That wasn’t my intention.
I noticed that you didn’t really provide any substantive response to any but the first of my genuine questions. In your response you claimed that I would never be willing to do the opposite, that is “[I'd] never dare ask [myself] the same question - what if the Church isn’t the dogmatic, narrow tent [I] seem to view it as.”
First of all, I have, to my knowledge, always catered to your counter questions in discussions like this. I ask you what you would do if the BoM really were true and you retort asking me what I would do if it weren’t. The difference, it seems to me, is that I actually answer your question.
In this case, I never claimed that the Church was a “narrow tent.” But I did assert that there might just be real Truth (my specific examples were the First Vision, the BoM, etc.) that doesn’t change no matter what intellectual rigors are applied to it. Perception of it might change or people’s attitudes might change, but that doesn’t change the fundamental question: did JS see God and Jesus or not? If he did, then that is a Truth that is indeed immutable and no amount of academic treatment or scandal will change the base fact. If he did not, then the Church itself is not true and there is no advantage in belonging to it over any other Christian denomination; in fact, it is worse because it is founded on fraud whereas Protestantism is not generally founded on fraud but rather simply on man-made (and often unwise) reform.
You are right to accuse me of believing the Church to be dogmatic. I have no defense in this except to point out that I believe that it is the right way if immutable Truth exists in the Church.
Comment by john fowles — October 2, 2004 @ 4:35 pm
Now that I know the story about the banning of Card from Sunstone, I wonder how many other conservative or moderate voices feel the effects of that ban?
It does make me wonder about an essay I was thinking of sending in.
Here is the rough draft:
Edifying Others
(Helping *others* to be edified rather than ourselves …)
Introduction
D&C 84: 106 “And if any man among you be strong in the Spirit, let him take with him him that is weak, that he may be edified in all meekness, that he may become strong also.”
This essay is on how to edify others in all meekness.
This essay assumes two things.
First, you feel oppressed by someone in the LDS hierarchy as the result of doctrinal or role conflicts.
Second, you believe in the LDS gospel and scriptures. [If you don't, you are taking your conflict much too seriously and may find that you believe more than you think or think more than you believe.]
The Process
There are numerous stories of people who have prevailed over members of the hierarchy, whether or not any oppression was going on. Whether it is a primary children’s group that wants a general authority to take time out and shake all of their hands or Mary Fielding Smith determined to cross the plains, the methods are fairly straightforward and clear and revolve around prayer.
Unceasing, united, singleminded, enduring and patient prayer is what it takes.
Christ made a point that unceasing activity can prevail even on God — God not only rewards unceasing prayer, He recommends it. Never give up. Luke 18:1-8 (note Luke 18:9-14 also). If you want to prevail in a religious or spiritual confrontation, the first step is to commit yourself and your allies to unceasing prayer.
Next, from the life of Alma, united action and prayer should be the response to affliction and oppression. When Alma listened to Abinadi, went to the Waters of Mormon, and began to preach and baptize, and then fled into the wilderness, I doubt that he expected oppressors to come on him. His response was for the people to be unified in their unceasing prayer.
The same response is what he relied upon when his son, Alma the Younger, began to abuse position and influence. The people united in unceasing prayer and God responded.
In order to be unceasing and united, you and those who support you need to know what you want and be singleminded about it. James 1:4 promises results, but James 1:5 warns what happens if you are not singleminded. A single focus aids unity and can preserve your ability to be unceasing.
Finally, be enduring (Hebrews 11) and patient (in your patience you keep your souls). That gives you a simple five points to work with.
Using those five points fast, pray individually morning, noon and night, and in groups on a regular basis.
Caveats
Of course there are some risks.
1. You could be wrong, be under no illusions, decide not to change, and destroy yourself by calling down the power of God. That is t
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 5:40 pm
Stephen, don’t you think you might want to know a few more details about the OSC story (maybe from a less biased source than Card talking to Lou Midgley (!)) before you run around drawing conclusions about what this means about Sunstone’s/Signature’s “censorship” practices?
Comment by Kristine — October 2, 2004 @ 6:10 pm
John Fowles:
Sorry for my biting comments. Here’s why I didn’t bother to answer your questions.
If someone came to you and asked you why the Mormon Church hated women and why they were sexist, would you be a little annoyed (especially if you heard it all the time, from people who knew nothing about the Church)?
You might explain at first that the Church isn’t sexist and doesn’t hate women. Then you might have to endure people taking a couple of extreme examples as evidence that the Church is indeed sexist and hates women.
This is exactly what you’ve done with Sunstone, John. You know nothing about it or the people involved in it (which is increasingly evident with your ignorant comments). I’m frankly sick of having to defend Sunstone to people who don’t bother to read it yet think they know everything about it.
Try rereading your questions. They weren’t written to learn about Sunstone. They were written with preconceived ideas about Sunstone in mind, and you wanted answers based on those preconceived ideas. Your questions weren’t designed to learn, they were designed to trap and convince us why we are wrong.
When your questions focus on what Sunstone is like, why it exists, what its mission is, etc., then maybe I’ll consider answering them. But in the meantime, speaking frankly, I have no desire to further waste my time when you seem hell-bound and determined to believe whatever you want about Sunstone, regardless of how misinformed or false it is.
Comment by John H — October 2, 2004 @ 6:16 pm
Orson Scott Card’s been banned from Sunstone? Gee, that’s news to me (you know, the guy that actually works for Sunstone).
People will believe the stupidest things to feel good about themselves, won’t they?
Comment by John H — October 2, 2004 @ 6:18 pm
hhm, halospan cut me off, here is the rest, with some overlap ..
Caveats
Of course there are some risks.
1. You could be wrong, be under no illusions, decide not to change, and destroy yourself by calling down the power of God. That is the story of Korihor.
2. You could be wrong, refuse to admit you are wrong, decide not to change, and be caught by the father (not the mother) of lies. Many people chose to suffer from self delusion rather than repent. That is the story of Corianton.
3. You could be wrong, refuse to admit you were wrong, and just give way to ennui. That is the lukewarm water approach most commonly seen (cf Rev. 3:16).
4. You could be both a little wrong and a little right (most people are) and find that the results are not what you expected or wanted. Joseph Smith had that happen when he finally took up the temperance issue with God. The brethren were not expecting the word of wisdom (in fact, they all anticipated the opposite, a revelation that would put “those people” in their place).
5. You could be right and still not get what you expected. That is the end of Jonah’s story when God did not destroy Nineveh after all. (note also D&C 1:14).
In all Meekness
The biggest problem is that we are counseled to act in meekness, by persuasive and loving means (D&C 121:43ff), leaving sharpness to the direction and hand of God and the Spirit.
Of course that does not lend itself well to pride or self aggrandizement in prevailing against those we feel oppress us (note D&C 121: 35ff in that regard), but if you just want to assuage your pride, there are better venues.
D&C 64:8 “My disciples, in days of old,
sought occasion against one an-
other and forgave not one another
in their hearts; and for this evil
they were afflicted and sorely
chastened …”
Expect the same. But if your motives are pure, and you endure in prayer with God, expect results.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 7:41 pm
“I didn’t know Card and Sunstone had a falling out – I’m interested in details if anyone has more.”
This may be what has been referred to:
“[Orson Scott Card] had published an essay in Sunstone in which he defended ‘the prophet’s sole authority to determine whether homosexuality is or is not a sin in the eyes of the Church. Signature [Book]’s reaction was to threaten to withdraw from distributing Sunstone unless they stopped publishing me.’ ‘Their agenda was clear. You can attack the church under Signature’s aegis, but heaven help you if you dare to defend the Church’” (FARMS Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 394 [with footnotes to a letter from Card to Louis Midgley dated 4/14/2004])
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 7:43 pm
And John H, why would you conclude the snarky things you did from my following that quote and passing it along in context?
Appreciate your need to Snark, you link to Sunstone afterall, but really ….
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 7:45 pm
Kristine, in regards to:
Stephen, don’t you think you might want to know a few more details about the OSC story (maybe from a less biased source than Card talking to Lou Midgley (!)) before you run around drawing conclusions about what this means about Sunstone’s/Signature’s “censorship” practices?
I’m more than willing for you to enlighten me.
I was asking questions based on that.
I’m ready for answers.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 7:46 pm
I don’t know the whole story either, but I do know that the FARMS Review of Books is probably not the best place to go for information about Sunstone or Signature. You’ve now repeated Card’s assertion as if it were fact in two places that I’ve seen, and I think you should be more careful. That’s all. Even Nate Oman said he doesn’t know the whole story, so I think it’s safe to conclude that the facts of the matter are unknown
Comment by Kristine — October 2, 2004 @ 8:26 pm
I’ve only repeated it here, I got it in the other place and commented on it the same way I’ve commented on John H’s post — which is not asserting John’s position as fact, merely citing to it.
BTW, I’ve posted a caveat there, as I’m more than willing to believe that the comment I was reading there was wrong.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=1366#comment-23300
Appreciate that you don’t consider FARMS reliable and I haven’t been by there enough to have confidence in them based on knowing people for twenty years or so.
Guess I should expect to see Card in Sunstone again? That would be neat, I’ll have to make more of an effort to find copies to read (or to visit them online more often).
I don’t always agree with Card, but I find him very readable.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 8:57 pm
In case anyone is curious, without the formating (italics, etc. used to seperate the quotes from my comments), this is what I posted on the other site, in reference to someone talking about Sunstone and censorship.
Wow, I had no idea that Signature Book was so proactively censorshipish. Guess Sunstone had little choice but to drop Card, kind of like they dropped everyone that would have kept them from still being distributed at Deseret Book.
Signature [Book]’s reaction was to threaten to withdraw from distributing Sunstone unless they stopped publishing me.’ ‘Their agenda was clear. You can attack the church under Signature’s aegis, but heaven help you if you dare to defend the Church’”
Does Signature engage in much censorship and on what issues does Sunstone self-censor itself at SignatureÂ’s behest?
IÂ’m really curious.
///////////
If you can’t tell I’m slightly dubious over the claim (surely no one thinks that Sunstone has censored out all of the writers that would offend Deseret Book) at that point, well, I need to practice.
However, following the thread, I then relied on the post more, as it seemed accepted.
I’ve since realized I was wrong and posted a caveat or two.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 2, 2004 @ 9:05 pm
“Guess I should expect to see Card in Sunstone again?”
That’d be up to Card and up to the current editor. But if he doesn’t show up in Sunstone, it doesn’t exactly mean Midgley (of all people) is right.
Louis Midgley seems to have a gift for spinning pure fantasy. His latest “expose” of FARMS is so riddled with errors I lost count of them.
Stephen, I am sorry I was rude before. I’m just at an absolute loss as to why people can continue to post things about Sunstone, as if they were true, without even bothering to ask. I’m online way more than I should be - it wouldn’t be hard to post a question.
I frankly don’t think I’m that easy to set off - I get beat up on a fairly regular basis at T&S (by beat up, I mean challenged - people are usually pretty kind to me personally) but I try not to lose my cool and recognize I’m pretty unorthodox compared to most and deserve most of what I get. But John Fowles comments really, really got to me this time around. I’m not sure why and I shouldn’t be letting someone so obviously uninformed about Sunstone bother me, but it did. Perhaps it was the gall of all the assumptions in the post.
In any event, it wasn’t fair for me to take my frustration out on you, so my apologies.
Comment by John H — October 3, 2004 @ 7:29 am
Sorry I was uncritical, I shouldn’t have accepted the cite at face value and appreciate the warning about Louis Midgley.
Well, everyone is ok, I’ve read enough to be sleepy, so I’m back to bed.
John, you take care and I’m sorry I offended you.
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 3, 2004 @ 12:53 pm
Follow-up.
I wrote the Nauvoo Janitor and instead of hearing back from her, I heard back from Card. The Lou Midgley summarization suffers from some problems, though it is correct as to threats, it is not correct as to Sunstone giving into them. As Card points out, they ran more stuff under his name after that incident. As my daughter would say “Duh?!”
Not that Card has the same fondness for Sunstone or Signature that he had before. But that is his story to tell.
BTW, great tag line …
Orson Scott Card
For Your Amusement Only
Do Not Try This At Home
Comment by Ethesis (Stephen M) — October 3, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
John Fowles –
Hi! Sunstone charter subscriber here again. For the record, I am also fairly orthodox, e.g. accept the restoration of the priesthood, Joseph’s prophetic calling, historicity of the BoM, etc. I would like to respectfully suggest a few points based on my personal, first-hand knowledge:
(1) Sunstone readers, authors, and managers include and have included many, many orthodox Church members,
(2) Although it is extremely difficult to generalize a publication which has published tens and tens of issues over almost three decades, as a whole Sunstone has dealt more with life issues rather than doctrinal issues. Certainly some points of view published in the magazine have been uncomfortable from my personal perspective, many more have been enlightening and inspiring.
3) I, and many other active Church members I know, believe that our religious community is better off having some place where difficult life issues can be addressed outside of official venues. And this is not to criticize official venues. Official venues need to proceed very cautiously. I see Sunstone as complimenting the official venues by airing important issues which official venues can not yet address.
to be continued –
Comment by JWL — October 4, 2004 @ 4:40 pm
To John Fowles continued –
I would suggest that your assumption about the nature of “Sunstoners” is based on some incomplete information. There was in fact a period of time under prior editors that Dialogue seemed to be on an active campaign to attack the historicity of the BoM. This was not especially reflected in Sunstone, which is a separate independent publication. And in any event, Dialogue is under new editors, and has significantly moved away from its prior partisanship.
Yet still another separate independent organization is Signature Books, a private LDS publisher which has had and continues to have a very biased anti-orthodox agenda. However, in recent years my perception is that the editors of both Sunstone and Dialogue have been distancing their publications from the Signature Books program.
I hope that this information is helpful in giving you some perspective on groups that many do, unfortunately and inaccurately, tend to lump together, and also as to why John H was so upset by your post.
JWL
Comment by JWL — October 4, 2004 @ 4:52 pm
I have heard that Gary Bergera and/or Ron Priddis at Signature Books contacted Sunstone and threatened to cease distribution of Sunstone if they continued to publish Card’s essays. Obviously, nothing ever came of this (if it happened) because Sunstone continued to publish Card and to my knowledge Signature continues to distribute Sunstone. Hence, I conclude that:
1. The incident never occurred.
2. It occurred as reported, but Sunstone refused to budge and Bergera/Priddis/Signature backed down.
3. Bergera/Priddis made some sort of negative comment re Card’s essay that was more equivicol than what I have heard.
I don’t find 1 especially likely. I think 2 is possible, but I am inclined to think that 3 is actually correct. I would be genuinely curious as to what, if anything, John H. could say about this. If (as I suspect) 3 is actually the case, then I would like to know what was said. Frankly, I don’t find it implausible to think that those who disagreed strongly with Card might characterize his piece as “hate speech”, “verbal violence”, or one of the other categories often used in free-speech debates to blur the line between speech and violence. This is a fairly common rhetorical move (cf. Catherine MacKinnon, _Only Words_), and was if anything more popular in the early and mid-1990s.
[For the record, both Ron and Gary are close friends of my mother, I know both of them (although not well), and as far as I can tell they are nice and decent people. They gave my wife and I the Shorter OED as a wedding present. On the other hand, people can do all sorts of things when they get riled up by something.]
Comment by Nate Oman — October 4, 2004 @ 5:56 pm
Thank you JWL for your explanations and once again, sorry to John H.
I can see that I am in part holding Sunstone accountable for Signature Books’ vitriol (after all, the latter distributes the former, if I am not mistaken).
I must admit that it is a bit humbling to be outed as ignorant and uninformed, even in such a partisan argument as this. But no regrets John H.! I know I deserved it.
Comment by john fowles — October 4, 2004 @ 9:17 pm
That is, you need have no regrets for it, John H. (just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t saying that I have no regrets for attacking your baby, because I do regret it and would and do react the same way when people attack the Church).
Comment by john fowles — October 4, 2004 @ 9:19 pm
Here’s what I know about the Sunstone/Signature/Orson Scott Card situation.
Scott Card’s essay on gays was fairly strident and some considered it mean-spirited. Another essay had a rather unorthodox approach to the entire issue of homosexuality. This article had a disclaimer on it that said it didn’t represent the opinion of Sunstone - Scott Card’s article did not.
The issue wasn’t so much over the tone of Card’s article, or the fact that Sunstone published something critical of homosexuality. The confusion arose over this disclaimer, and Signature was concerned that Sunstone, by applying the disclaimer to one article and not another, was implying endorsement of Card’s article.
There was never a “threat” to stop distributing Sunstone if they published Card’s article; rather, Signature Books simply said that if this disclaimer represents a change in editorial policy (ie, endorsement of an anti-gay agenda) then they would have to meet and determine if the new policy warranted a change in their relationship with Sunstone. As soon as it was explained to them that Sunstone was not changing its policies, there was no problem.
So any idea that if Card published in Sunstone again, Signature would immediately stop distributing it, is false. It is also false that Signature tried to pressure or use leverage against Sunstone to get them to not publish something or to publish something. More than anything, the conflict was a misunderstanding based on a disclaimer that, IMO, probably was ill-advised in the first place.
One last comment: The “threat” to stop distributing Sunstone isn’t much of a threat. 95% of Sunstone sales come from subscriptions - the other 5% comes from sales in bookstores. So I doubt Signature would have used that as any kind of leverage - it would basically mean they’d stop sending a dozen issues to Sam Weller’s and a dozen issues to BYU Bookstore
Comment by John H — October 5, 2004 @ 5:53 pm
“They gave my wife and I the Shorter OED as a wedding present.”
That should hide a multitude of sins! I’m jealous!
Comment by Kristine — October 6, 2004 @ 11:29 pm
You’re jealous that they have the Shorter OED? Goodness gracious. I’m weeping over here, thinking “what a miserable wedding gift”! I’d trade that in for a food processor post-haste.
Comment by Steve Evans — October 7, 2004 @ 12:12 am
Steve, it comes with its own spiffy magnifying glass!! Of course I’m jealous.
Comment by Kristine — October 7, 2004 @ 10:28 pm
In your free time, visit some helpful info dedicated to online pharmacy online pharmacy http://www.firstfriends.us/online-pharmacy.html … Thanks!!!
Comment by buy viagra — June 11, 2005 @ 4:42 pm