Straddling the Unstraddleable

A friend recently sent me a link to an article written by Joanna Brooks. I was unaware of who she was, so I looked around her website some. And I think she's a pretty likable person (at least, she has a pretty likable persona). I think she would be a great addition my ward, if only because I'd know there was one more person gagging during the most egregious testimonies and talks. (I'd especially like to hear her take on the "why I don't eat chocolate" sermon I hear every time the priesthood has an ice cream social).

However, comma, reading her articles makes me question how I'm supposed to go about relating with people outside my church. What is the appropriate mix of apology/defense/explanation/defiance? Brooks appears to be pretty solidly in the "explanation" camp, though I hope she doesn't think I'm misreading her if I say I sense occasional elements of "apology."

I'll admit that I'm never really sure how to respond. Each approach has its problems. Apology appears unprincipled. Defense is pointless. Explanation can be worthwhile if the other person wants to understand, but if not, it's a waste of time. Defiance is uncharitable (we can't really go around telling the world to screw off, although the months of my mission where I took this approach were the happiest of the lot).

When the other person is not interested in understanding, I think defiance is the only appropriate response of the four. We have to say "this is correct." And sometimes that involves following something we don't understand. For instance, I intellectually support the legalization of drugs, but I know church president Heber J. Grant held Prohibition to be theologically correct. Maybe that was just his "get off my lawn" old-man-ness talking, but maybe not, and it's not really my place to try to decide. As we heard quoted twice last General Conference, Ezra Taft Benson pointed out in 1980 that maybe the prophet is an old man because there's prophetic wisdom in "get off my lawn." (That's a bit of a paraphrasing.)

I'm not questioning Brooks's loyalty or anything. If anything, her writings prompted me to question my own. How easy is this apology/defense/explanation/defiance balance? It depends on your social scene. Like-minded friends aren't going to make you defend uncomfortable positions. Friends seeking to understand will ask a lot of questions, but respectfully, and can continue a friendship despite differences. But if you're surrounded with antagonizing friends, nothing's going to change until you renounce either your beliefs or your friends.

There's a lot to criticize in the insular social world of many Mormons, but isn't there as much to criticize in the needlessly secular world of some? You don't need to check for a dance card before becoming friends, but you'll find more trouble awaiting you if you troll for friends at atheist book clubs. I'm doubtful the type of explaining that needs to occur with true friends can effectively happen in a mass-media setting. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. See, I still don't know what to do.