On the seductiveness of indignation
Complaints against the machinations of culture today have become as poisonous as the things complained of. This is not surprising. Resentment and indignation are feelings dangerous to the possessor and to be sparingly used. They give comfort too cheaply; they rot judgment, and by encouraging passivity, they come to require that evil continue for the sake of the grievance to be enjoyed. –Jacques Barzun
It seems to me that many debates over hot-button issues in Mormondom–women’s roles, intellectual freedom, civil rights for gays, and many others–may fall into the trap Barzun points out. There is more than enough righteous indignation on all sides of these issues to “rot judgment.” The terrible thing is that righteousness does not prevent the rot–even if we are right to be angry, it’s a terrible place to get stuck because anger impedes good thinking.
Yesterday, I briefly entertained the thought of going through the BCC archives to find a post on gay marriage from a year or two ago, changing the names of all the commenters to those of folks who have commented on the most recent threads, and publishing it as new, just to see if the argument had gone anywhere. It hasn’t. I feel the same way when I read discussions about women and priesthood, or working mothers, or dissent at BYU from 30 years ago–we just haven’t made any progress.
Some of this, of course, is a structural inevitability–our church is governed in an extreme sort of top-down form; foment at the bottom of the org. chart is simply unlikely to have much effect, or, if it does, such effects must be measured in geological time frames. But I wonder how much of it may be the result of giving in to the temptations of resentment and indignation, being satisfied with the cheap comfort of complaint, instead of more carefully examining our own motives and thinking very clearly about what we can offer towards a solution. Barzun distinguishes the kind of complaining he’s talking about from criticism in this way:
Criticism, on the contrary, aims at action. True, not all objects can be acted on at once, and many will not be reshaped according to desire; but thought is plastic and within our control, and thought is a form of action. To come to see, in the light of criticism, a situation as different from what it seemed to be, is to have accomplished an important act.
I don’t have a solution to offer, and I’m not suggesting that we should never feel or express outrage. Terrible things happen, and there are moments when outrage is the only appropriate response. But something has to come after that initial howl of pain–we have to be ready to examine the wounds and set to bandaging them. And when, on occasion, we are able to say clearly what has hurt us, when our criticism brings about some measure of the action we aimed at, we must not push away hands that would help, even if, especially if it is the hands of those who have wounded us that now reach for us, however clumsily. Being aggrieved has a certain appeal–it is known, it is morally preferable to being the aggressor, and it is less complicated than making peace by compromise. We are called to something more difficult–to careful and reasoned criticism, and to progress.
I wholeheartedly agree with the general point of the post, which is introspection and trying not to get too comfortable in a stance of endless complaint and outrage. However, I’m not sure I understand this part:
…just to see if the argument had gone anywhere. It hasn’t…from 30 years ago–we just haven’t made any progress.
I don’t want to speak in terms of the specific issues you list (which is why I cut those parts out), but I’m curious about what you mean by progress. If by progress you mean institutional change, then one person’s “progress” is another person’s “deterioration.” We all have things we think shouldn’t “progress” in that sense–if a position is wrong then it should be resisted, even if that resistance fight is never-ending and always the same. That people on opposite sides both feel that way is the heart of any conflict.
On the other hand, if by “progress” you mean kinder tone, more understanding, etc, I think that is a definition that all sides of all arguments could be comfortable with.
Comment by Cynthia L. — July 17, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Kristine, this is thoughtful and wonderful. I wonder if the distinction you’re reaching for is a bit of a will-o-the-wisp? If changing our own thoughts, and by implication the thoughts of others, can be a form of action, then it’s hard to know where indignation ends and criticism begins. Certainly a reasonable case could be made that much or most blog discussion, for example, involves criticism — to the extent that it has the aim of changing thoughts. Expressions of outrage may, in some circumstances, be more effective as a way of producing change in other people’s thoughts than rational argument; some times, emotions are the powerful part of reason…
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 17, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
This is wonderful (as are you Kristine)!
Comment by J. Stapley — July 17, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
So what, then, is the force of change, if complaint cannot do it? Surely you’re not suggesting action of some sort.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
“A clever saying proves nothing.” - Voltaire
Ok. Now that’s out of the way. Back into the indignation!
Comment by ronito — July 17, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Being aggrieved has a certain appeal–it is known, it is morally preferable to being the aggressor, and it is less complicated than making peace by compromise.
This is a key point. Nobody wants to compromise when they’ve been on the receiving end of a raw deal. There’s going to be a great deal of real self-sacrifice involved in actually working toward a compromise rather than reparations .
Comment by Boring Mogget — July 17, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Kristine–I have found so much comfort in the informative lectures and elegant whining of the Bloggernacle during the last year, but sometimes I wonder how we will find resolution to all of the concerns that are voiced if we are all so determined to be right.
Attempting to resolve conflict is much more painful in a win/loose situation and what if compromise is not just complicated, but impossible? There are a few ideas that are actively promoted online which I am pretty sure will never happen. Not now. Not ever.
How do we bandage and heal wounds when the source of injury is not going to change? Which actions will help? Which are just an active form of complaint? Perhaps it’s more like dealing with chronic pain than actually healing under those circumstances. We find a way to live as comfortably as possible with the unpleasant reality. And do what we can to make it better.
The serenity prayer comes to mind: God help me to have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Comment by Jami — July 17, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
It was recently re-reading Frances Lee Menlove’s superb devotional, “Compassion with Action,” that got me thinking along these same lines. I want to do more that talk, (or complain), but how to transform talk into action? So I’ve been thinking about this too, and made it the subject of my “Am I a Sheep or a Goat?” post at SSB.
So I agree with what you are saying above, I think. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by “action.”
Comment by Matt Thurston — July 17, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
I agree we are called to something more difficult – to achieve collective unity amid individual uniqueness. That’s not easy even without getting indignant.
Fwiw, indignation requires offense - a “How could he?” response to another’s action. “How could he?” implies a lack of understanding of “Why did he?” - a reaction to not understanding the motivation as much as, if not more than, the action itself. Indignation is divisive, since it subsequently adds an element of “She should have known better, so how dare she!” to the mix.
Due to this focus, indignation does allow the one who feels it to ignore solutions (including compromise) and focus instead on criticizing the other person. It is seductive, and it is rampant - especially in a forum like a blog where there is no tangible association that can blunt the natural, emotional reaction and provide a satisfying answer to, “How could he?” Worst of all, indignation rarely includes solutions, since the focus is on the object of the outrage rather than proactive solutions.
The only solutions I have discovered are: 1) a recognition and acceptance of the idea that all of us are weak and flawed and do things that can cause “righteous indignation” if others choose to be offended (thus letting us cut others some slack), and 2) the humility to be willing to not get indignant - to forget about “How dare she!” and focus instead on understanding “Why did she?”
There certainly are situations where indignation is the right response, but I believe those times constitute only a small fraction of the times we often feel indignation is justified.
Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
My latest mantra is ‘we are not here to be perfect, we are here to be merciful.’ I’m not even sure criticism is always the way to make change. Sometimes I think the best change can come within our own hearts, imo, simply by being more loving, tolerant, and patient of the imperfections of others. It’s only when my heart is open that I can see, think, or feel clearly, and really start to understand God’s love and mercy better. We can hold to what we believe to be Right and still have compassion and seek to understand, rather than always trying to convince or control or change others. This is something I have been mulling over a lot…have a post brewing on it all….
I love the phrase ‘the seductiveness of indignation’ by the way.
Comment by m&m — July 17, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Great post, Kristine. I’ve been online a considerably shorter time than you have, but it’s been fascinating to me the way the fights, the moral indignation, the mutual finger-pointing all remain the same. Only the names change. As you so trenchantly observe.
I wonder what the way out is. As one who’s frequently seduced by the incomparable joys of indignation (it’s just SO FUN to be morally superior! If you’ve never indulged I’d highly recommend it. Being carnal, devilish, and sensual, I myself simply can’t get enough) I find your post motivating me to think about ways to advance discussions in new ways rather than simply repeating old fights.
Comment by ZD Eve — July 17, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I love the title phrase too … except that it got this post censored by the filters at the Church Office Building so I had to wait to get home to read it.
You’ve pegged the problem of virtually every political and social demonstration of the past few years. being outraged at the top of one’s lungs and in front of a camera replaces doing anything to actually make a difference.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — July 17, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Interesting. Reading the first quote, my initial thought was that it could apply easily to both sides. If we take the gay marriage issue, certainly there is the indignation on the part of those opposing prop 8, but it is also a large measure of indignation and lamentation against the evils of social progress and change that fuels the pro-8 crowd. Indignation seems to be a rather effective way to get out the vote, and if you can motivate the masses with easy indignation you needn’t solve the real issues.
Comment by matt huph — July 17, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Once as tragedy, once as farce, right?
The root problem is of course quite clear: compromise makes no sense with regard to ideas. Compromise is sensible when you’re talking of action: if we both compromise, we might do better than if we selfishly demand our own best case scenarios. Compromising on an idea requires changing your views to accommodate another, which is both dishonest and ineffective (unless you’re talking of legitimate persuasion, which isn’t really compromise). Since folks on both sides of these hot button issues have so much on the line, any changing of minds causes much more trouble than it seems to be worth.
Let’s take SSM as an example. If a conservative Mormon and a liberal Mormon compromise, what would that even look like? The liberal would be subjecting himself to more arbitrary authority and unwarranted truth claims than he’d want, and the conservative would be giving up an absolute belief in whatever the Church says on a matter. Neither would be happy, and there’s not much point in scrambling to the middle when nobody actually wants to be there.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
SDT,
Doesn’t mercy require that I consider what will make my adversary happy, not just what will make me happy? Why should I be happy getting things “my way” when my way makes my brother very unhappy?
Comment by BrianJ — July 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Sorry, I thought that through and I wasn’t very clear about what I meant. The reason all that stuff about compromise and changing of minds is important is that it’s exceptionally difficult to have a civil, reasoned conversation with people who don’t share your interests. The people in the SSM discussion (as it pertains to the Mormon community) have interests that are opposed: the liberals want a church that’s more open and perhaps less aggressive on issues of sexual morality, while the conservatives want the church they’ve got and have a nearly absolute faith in its truth. Compromise pollutes both ideals and leaves at least the conservatives worse off, while reasonable discussion doesn’t persuade either party because they’ve got too much at stake.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
The last time I complained about something in the Church–to someone who had a high enough position to understand how serious I was–I received a soft and good answer: “Be patient with us.”
Patience is what I’d like my children to choose in their frustration with me, and what I wish I’d like to choose more often in my frustration with them. In so many ways, the Church and its consistently flawed members (myself included) are schoolmasters of the soul, teaching far more than doctrine, but the hard requirement that we put up with them–and the hope that they, in turn, will put up with us. (However, that doesn’t mean we quit talking. We need to notice things. That is actually part of charity.)
Beautiful post, Kristine. I love the quote.
Comment by Margaret Young — July 17, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Brian - I think mercy does require that. However, we’re not talking about money, land, or even what movie we see. We’re talking about morality, and I’m quite certain that conservatives aren’t going to advocate significant change in the Church because of the desires of their adversaries. Liberals certainly aren’t going to advocate what they feel to be restrictive and wrong because others want that. And why should they? At that point, all mercy would mean is opposing what you want across the board. A middle road wouldn’t just be inconvenient in the view of two disputants, it would be immoral. More people are satisfied if we have it out and one side wins than if we embrace a lukewarm solution that pleases nobody.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
I’m trying to get my head around the idea that the title of this post trips the alarm at the church intertube gateway. That is simply incredible, and I am righteously indignant about it. Are we really that uptight?
Comment by Mark Brown — July 17, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
“seductiveness” probably did it.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
SDT, why would a middle road be immoral? Perhaps you are defining that differently than I do.
I believe quite strongly that the Church itself takes a moderate stance on way more things than those on which it takes a hard-line conservative stance. Imho, it’s the members at the extremes that are out of step with the Church on most issues. Is the Church’s more moderate stance immoral?
Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Well, a middle of the road stance isn’t inherently immoral at all. But on many issues, the typical divide that emerges is that between conservative members defending the Church as an organization directed by prophets and therefore as perfect as we can be and liberal members who just don’t see it that way.
Could a conservative say “you know, you liberals might have a point. Maybe we do talk about homosexuality more than we often should, and maybe we should discuss it in a less stringent way”? Not really - they’d be buying into the larger liberal ark-steadying. They’re giving up too much. In the same way, liberals can hardly accept that the Church is right because it’s the Church, and the Church is right (or as right as one can be). There’s no way to reconcile these positions, and any attempt to do so produces an internally inconsistent mismatch.
The problem is that the larger commitments that have been made would be abandoned in a shift to the middle. The specific positions are irrelevant: what matters is the larger view of the Church organization that informs them all. Conservatives have a strong interest in believing the Church to be perfect, and the liberals have a strong interest in believing that we can meaningfully criticize the organization’s policy and programs. There’s no way to bring these positions together, and the interests are just too strong for civility to be very likely.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
And Ray, of course you’re right that the Church can often be between two extremes (food storage is an amazing example of this). But, in practice, most conservative members of the Church that engage in these hot-button discussions tend to take pretty much the same position of the Church, as their warrants basically require them to do so (the Church is right because it’s governed by prophets). Liberal members have to reject the most common view of the Church in order to even think there’d be something to argue about, so it certainly makes sense that they’d often be fairly dogmatic as well, as taking that position would require a certain level of conviction.
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
So, SDT, are you saying that there is no middle ground because we are split between those who agree with the Church (”conservative members”) and those who disagree with the Church (”liberal members”) - and ne’er the twain shall meet? If so, you are saying that unity is impossible unless one “side” moves carte blanch to the other “side” - but this implies that one side is right. (I believe, based on your presentation, that would be the conservative side.)
First, I really dislike that characterization, since I think nearly all members actually “disagree with” (or simply don’t understand) the Church’s official teachings and positions on many things - and because I think the Church has no official teaching or position on far more things than most members realize. I also think it is possible to find a solid middle ground on lots of issues and not be out of harmony with the Church at all.
In fact, I think a middle ground for the Church does NOT require total unanimity of thought and opinion. We haven’t had that type of unified FP and Q12 since the organization of the Church almost 200 years ago. I believe there is a reachable middle ground of common consent and cooperative council, where differing opinions can exist but a unification of action, especially, can be attained. Maybe I’m just too quixotic, but I’ve seen it happen too many times on a local level to believe it can’t happen on a larger scale.
You are right, however, that it would take a level of humility and charity that is not natural.
Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
“There’s no way to reconcile these positions, and any attempt to do so produces an internally inconsistent mismatch.”
Not necessarily. It’s just not as easy as espousing an extreme.
Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Oh lovely post! And one I dearly needed I’m sure.
Comment by fMhLisa — July 17, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
I’m too busy being seduced by indifference.
Comment by Susan M — July 17, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
When people say action, I reach for my …
The problem is that our identities are tied to our ideas, so that defense of our ideas give us an ego charge. When we ackowledge that we need to be more humble it seems to me that we are ackowledging a need to divest ourselves of chosen identities for deeper realizations. Reactions for and against orthodoxy are replaced with genuine searching for truth, and reactions for and against orthopraxy are replaced with discipleship. The scriptures, anyway, seem to indicate that people involved with this project achieve an increasing measure of unity until they become One - the model being the Godhead itself. And, it seems to me, that if we aren’t moving towards that kind of unity we should ask ourselves if we are actually making a good faith effort - or if our preferred project is something else entirely.
To the degree that I am involved with this project, I have no confidence that I will achieve any meaningful unity with people who, whatever their personal defensive rhetoric, are more invested in political dispositions or in salving their ego wounds.
And hence here comes the bloggernacle. But perceptions of our disunity are enhanced by the idiosyncarcies of the medium. The actual church isn’t in nearly as bad a state as the bloggernacle - I think and hope. I don’t think the seeming openness of online discussion frees us of inhibitions and makes us more truthful. It frees us of inhibitions but then foregrounds our personalities in a very distorting way: it is easier to speak, but not easier to be truthful and much more difficult to be humble. I’ve been a figurehead of menace in an online community before, and am familiar with the tempations of it to my ego. There are people who really do seem either immune or personally valiant in their resistance to these ego temptations - Ray is one such person - but for the vast majority of us, the lack of a human presence online keeps us primarily self-involved. Online discussion might be a test of humility more severe than any historical like test.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 17, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
That is what is scary for me, Thomas. I think we are worse in real life. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen people (mostly women) get up and leave a meeting in tears. If we don’t like something that is happening in our little corner of blogland, we can always click over to another corner. I just don’t see the visciousness here that I’ve seen in meatspace.
Comment by Mark IV — July 17, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
TP, interesting thoughts as always. I don’t know which is worse off — real life may have less friction, but there’s also markedly less interaction and discussion like this. Maybe the actual church just seems nicer because the levels of participation and sharing of ideas are completely different?
I read you re: ego temptations; as one of the fallen I feel the pain.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 17, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Mark Brown, you wouldn’t beLIEVE what trips the alarms. I learned the other day that I can’t use Google’s insta-translation feature while a guest on their network — I guess the way that feature works prevents them from running their usual filtering, and heaven forbid that the history of the LDS church in the Netherlands that I wanted to scan the other day be allowed through without filtering. Someone with a Notre Dame email address recently found all of Notre Dame’s site blocked, too.
To their credit, they’re pretty quick about granting access if it’s worth the trouble of appealing. But granting them credit for that would interfere with my indignation, so I think I’ll just rant a little more instead.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — July 17, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Ray, that’s a good point. We can reach unity on action and figure out a decent way to proceed on most important issues. I think that’s where the hot button issues become separated from the issues that compose the vast majority of the Church’s work and business. The vast majority of what we do in the Church, even the most liberal members would concede, has nothing to do with SSM at all. In matters like preparing a lesson or dealing with welfare needs, we might have differing opinions, but these opinions don’t usually cause us to contend with one another, because both sides can be within the Church’s policies (or, as you correctly and perceptively note, lack of policies). The hot button issues, however, polarize by nature, because they require you to take an up or down vote on the Church position, and there isn’t much room to interpret the Church’s policy as there would be in most of our business.
On these hot button issues like SSM and women and the priesthood, the Church does have a clear position, and a willingness to argue against it implies that you’re willing to argue against Church policy as a lay member, which implies that your view of the Church is at least somewhat different from the bulk of the church membership. The conservative, on the other hand, has to bear the opposite burden, which is that policies with which he personally disagrees he must nevertheless support as being of God, which presumably means that his opinion isn’t. So it’s tough on both sides, but that’s why you’re not going to see compromise there. The liberal (on SSM) member isn’t going to grant that the Church leadership determines what’s right by fiat (and indeed he can’t, or he’d have to change his mind). The conservative (on SSM) member isn’t going to admit that the criticisms have merit, because he’d then have to concede that there’s something we know that the Church leadership doesn’t (which would undermine much of his basis for belief).
Most members, in my estimation, are either conservative on these matters or are like Susan and just don’t much care. Probably the latter attitude is the more helpful
Comment by SDT — July 17, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
I for one, thoroughly enjoy the back and forth of blogging. Yes, there is the occasional indignant person who leaves reason and discretion at the login door, but the majority of us seem to be open to discourse and gentle persuasion.
The difficulty I find is that the church is so SLOW in adopting the positions that I hold dear. I yap and yap on the internet all day, but nothing happens in SLC. I’ve gadflied my Elder’s Quorum into submission, but you’d never believe it by watching the inactivity at the stake level.
I say that mostly in jest, but do find the separation to be troublesome. I’m not sure I’d go back to Nauvoo, where everyone had access to the prophet’s ear, but I do wish the common-man Mormon had at least some access to the inner-sanctum. I understand running things up through the proper chain of authority, but that chain seems to have the “inappropriate content” filters set as high as Ardis’s computer in the COB.
The comparison I’d make is to the presidential election. I have a very strong opinion about the direction I’d like to take the nation, but have learned that the system itself doesn’t always agree with me. However, at least I had a vote, and I’m fairly certain that my vote counted. Change is slow, but my participation is appreciated, and my neighborhood canvassing is viewed as a legitimate part of the process.
I do take comfort in the fact that the church has generally not refused the will of the people if a strong consensus exists on an issue. Yes, it may take 30 years, but things do move. I just wish that I could believe that any action in my life had a perceptible equal and opposite reaction on a higher level.
Comment by Randall — July 18, 2008 @ 7:16 am
SDT–I think your characterization of liberals and conservatives is too simplistic to engage much, but I do have to object to “The liberal (on SSM) member isn’t going to grant that the Church leadership determines what’s right by fiat”
No Mormon, of any ideological stripe, ought to grant that the leadership determines what is right by fiat. That does violence to any number of important gospel principles–personal revelation and free agency, just to name a couple of big ones. It would be tedious to haul out the flotilla of quotations from church presidents and apostles that argue forcefully against the idea that all church leaders’ decisions are infallibly correct. Here’s just one:
The “or not” in the penultimate sentence is a possibility many so-called conservatives in the church seem to have excluded. There’s plenty of disregarding prophetic injunctions on both sides of the conservative/liberal divide–we all just pick different commandments to ignore. The sooner we all acknowledge this and quit trying to label each other sheep and goats, the more productive our discussions will be.
Comment by Kristine — July 18, 2008 @ 7:48 am
One aspect that is rarely mentioned is that one person’s “hot button” issue isn’t always everyone’s issue, or even the issue that more than a few really care about. I am certainly willing to be indignant, but I only have so much energy to devote to indignation and so must be careful where I channel it.
A couple of examples: whether the Church should sponsor Boy Scouts. There are blogs where defending the Boys Scouts will nearly get you shouted off. Yet with Pres Monson being an avid scouter, that program isn’t going anywhere soon.
Another example is the fact that the Church isn’t any more immune to having some of its local leadership being child molesters than the Catholic Church is. In the years since I have moved from Utah, I have seen news articles about bishops and scoutmasters who have been arrested/convicted of molesting children in their care in the area of the Salt Lake Valley where I grew up, including one bishop from the stake next door to mine. And there are law firms who make a specialty of suing the Church over abusive bishops, primary teachers, and scoutmasters.
These are hot button issues to many members of the Church, but as the comments here point out, the Bloggernacle is more concerned about the legacy of the priesthood ban and SSM, neither of which interests me very much. As I said, my quota of indignation only goes so far, and these two Bloggernacle-favorite issues don’t touch me closely enough to warrant the required energy.
Comment by CS Eric — July 18, 2008 @ 9:34 am
What strikes me about SDT’s comments are that he has clearly taken the time to consider the opposing viewpoint. I don’t think I agree with his characterizations thereof, but I appreciate the time and effort and the openness to correction. Certainly, we are all (that is, I am) quick to judge and slow to listen.
On SDT’s scale, I am described as a conservative (If I was in CA, I would probably hold my nose and vote for the Proposition; operating on the assumption that the Brethren know something I don’t). However, I would still probably question the Brethren’s decision and I would have sympathies for those who voted a different way. Does this make me a hypocrite? a humble follower? a conservative? a liberal? I don’t rightly know, nor do I believe I fit easily into any of those categories. Labels are handy for quick judgments, but they are lousy at true analysis.
Comment by John C. — July 18, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Your Barzun quote is wonderful. It describes my motivation for parting ways with the Sunstone culture at the time of the Sept6 — there was way too much victimhood and outrage, and far too little Christianity among those aggrieved people (some of whom I counted as friends). In particular, the Mormon Alliance seemed to be stuck in victimhood. I’m painfully aware of how inconsistent and frustrating church leaders can be at all levels, but too many people stay in a state of perpetual outrage, without trying to resolve issues with the organization that respect both sides of the divide.
Comment by no-man — July 18, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Kristine, thanks for this post. Of all the emotions, outrage is among the cheapest, and most easily exploited. I don’t think Mormon blogs have a great deal of it, at least relatively speaking, but I’d like to see even less.
Comment by Jonathan Green — July 18, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Jon G,
I am aggrieved by your implication of wasted outrage. PISTOLS AT DAWN!
Comment by John C. — July 18, 2008 @ 7:28 pm