When is it Okay...

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

I had a similar experience, except with this guy in my YSA ward. He was only a member maybe 5 years and he left the Church, well not according to a youtube video he has up, he was the President of this and that and this big Mormon. He speaks at these atheist conferences about his experience in the Church. A friend of mine knows the organizers and they told them that guy is not who he said he is, like at all. I was tempted once to show up and sit on the front row, just to see his reaction and he would know that I know he's lying-I didn't end up going because they only had a vegetarian buffet and I can't stand the sound of crunching

So he changed the narrative to make it sound more true and believable?  How did that make you feel?  Did you feel you could trust what the guy said?  Did you walk away from his organization wanting nothing to do with it?

I think it is important for all people on both sides of this story to realize that people react differently and evaluate credibility differently.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I honestly  don't know *why* some people do the things they do...especially when some of the most perplexing people decline to explain.

As I've expressed multiple times on this board, if people have experienced in the Church what I've experienced and then they walk away from it, they're either a) really stupid or b) evil. I sincerely don't believe that most people are that stupid, and I sincerely hope that most people aren't that evil, so I have to assume they simply haven't experienced what I've experienced. That's my way of assuming the best.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Another duplicate.
 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I had a similar experience, except with this guy in my YSA ward. He was only a member maybe 5 years and he left the Church, well not according to a youtube video he has up, he was the President of this and that and this big Mormon. He speaks at these atheist conferences about his experience in the Church. A friend of mine knows the organizers and they told them that guy is not who he said he is, like at all. I was tempted once to show up and sit on the front row, just to see his reaction and he would know that I know he's lying-I didn't end up going because they only had a vegetarian buffet and I can't stand the sound of crunching

 

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

... I would have gone just for a vegetarian buffet!

 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

well, you can have mine!

Duncan's a meatatarian.  

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Duplicate. 

Triplicate?  

[strappinglad]

I remember sitting around the campfire telling stories about events in our lives. After a while it became obvious to me that some of the stories were of other peoples experiences and not of the individual speaking. I even found myself telling of an event that happened to a person that had told me about it, as if it had happened to me personally. Some of the stories were true, others were REALLY true , if you know what I mean.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Duncan's a meatatarian.  

Not I. As missionaries, we used to street-preach on the weekends. The Hare Krishnas were often dancing in the same square, handing out tickets to a free vegetarian feast they held for their potential investigators. We tried and tried and tried to get some tickets, but I guess they never saw us as potential converts.  Which was intuitive of them since I just wanted the food...

Edited May 26, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[probablyHagoth7]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

...they're either a) really stupid or b) evil....

Or, as in my case, perhaps a tragic dose of both.

Working to resolve it rapidly.

Hoping it isn't too late to benefit those I care about most.

[JulieM]

13 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

.... for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

I've personally never heard anyone not be honest regarding why they left the church and have no reason to doubt them.  I think this is kind of an odd topic, but maybe others have experienced this a lot?

I think we should accept their reasons for leaving just as I believe those who leave should accept the reasons members give for staying in.  I guess either could be dishonest about those reasons, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So he changed the narrative to make it sound more true and believable?  How did that make you feel?  Did you feel you could trust what the guy said?  Did you walk away from his organization wanting nothing to do with it?

I think it is important for all people on both sides of this story to realize that people react differently and evaluate credibility differently.  

I felt like he was trying to fit into this other organization and say what he thinks they want to hear, when in fact how many of them would know what he is saying is true. Would they know he wasn't actually a counselour in a Bishopric? or would they just accept what he is saying is true. With me there though , he can lie to them but he would know he's lying and I know he's lying. I wouldn't trust him, no. I wouldn't walk away from it but I would kind of wonder what criteria they have for picking conference speakers

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

This is another thread related to the practice of "gaslighting." I know, I know. This one is likely to get closed as well, but I want to look at this from a different light.

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

Also, as a general rule, I think part of having charity is, you know, being charitable to other people. Typically, this means giving them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes I am forced to choose between two parties and who I am going to believe.

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

So someone tells you their story and you, in the midst of it, get a hunch that they are lying, you think it a decent idea to tell them your hunch without any evidence to support you?  I don't know about gaslighting but extreme jerk works.  I"d recommend if someone tells you their story and you inwardly start to doubt them, you hold your tongue, and try to suppress your doubt unless or until you learn of reasons to doubt their story. 

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So someone tells you their story and you, in the midst of it, get a hunch that they are lying, you think it a decent idea to tell them your hunch without any evidence to support you?  I don't know about gaslighting but extreme jerk works.  I"d recommend if someone tells you their story and you inwardly start to doubt them, you hold your tongue, and try to suppress your doubt unless or until you learn of reasons to doubt their story. 

I agree and I think it's odd the OP has limited this behavior to those who leave the church.

I have known church members who exaggerate or are not honest about things from their past (jobs, appointments, education, etc.).  

This is is not just done by a few of those who have left the church and I'm not sure why he's connecting the two (leaving and being dishonest)?

Edited May 25, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree and I think it's odd the OP has limited this behavior to those who leave the church.

I have known church members who exaggerate or are not honest about things from their past (jobs, appointments, education, etc.).  

This is is not just done by a few of those who have left the church and I'm not sure why he's connecting the two (leaving and being dishonest)?

I've heard some pretty crazy testimonies in my time. From a guy telling me about the 3 Nephites cursing a village on his mission, the village being struck by a lightening storm within the 10 minutes burning 5 buildings to the ground and killing multiple people before the 3 Nephites return and raise a child from the dead, to angelic visitations while a person was on drugs, and everything in between. I'm skeptical of those kind of "miraculous" stories because I've never experienced anything remotely like it. So the testimony bearer is either delusional, purposely deceitful, misunderstanding or misremembering an experience, exaggerating an experience for faith promoting reasons, or they really had these actual experiences.

I don't believe them when they stand up and bear testimony in F&T Meeting, but I can't even imagine standing up to correct them or tell them they are in error. How could I possibly know their experience better than they do?

It seems to me that as members of a civil society we will often make private judgments without sharing those with others. It seems presumptuous to think we know better than the person who is sharing their experience. Memories are faulty and I believe it's true that to some degree we construct a narrative to support our current understanding. I don't know that I've met or experienced many people lying about their reasons for being in or out of the church for any malicious intent so whether I believe their stories or not, I generally believe that the stories are important to them and meaningful in their faith.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

This is another thread related to the practice of "gaslighting." I know, I know. This one is likely to get closed as well, but I want to look at this from a different light.

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

Also, as a general rule, I think part of having charity is, you know, being charitable to other people. Typically, this means giving them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes I am forced to choose between two parties and who I am going to believe.

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

It's probably best to keep that kind of thing to yourself. Even if they really are spinning a tall tale (unless of course you have concrete evidence to back up your suspicions). 

 

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

This is another thread related to the practice of "gaslighting." I know, I know. This one is likely to get closed as well, but I want to look at this from a different light.

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

Also, as a general rule, I think part of having charity is, you know, being charitable to other people. Typically, this means giving them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes I am forced to choose between two parties and who I am going to believe.

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

No, it doesn't count as gaslighting if you honestly question their reliability or account.. In practice several people and professions do this. Parents question their kids when they hear a story that sounds hokey. Lawyers do it in cross examination. Therapists to do it to nudge unhealthy belief constructs or to change narratives to something more flexible. So at times not only would it be okay, it can be necessary. At the same time, I would be cautious questioning their accounts

But sometimes doing so could be more about our own discomfort with a story than unreliability of the narrator.  We also have to check our biases behind stories. So take parenting, for example. Plenty of times there's the  "Trouble child" and the "good kid." If the good kid was involved in something wrong more so than the trouble child and the good kid blamed the incident on the trouble child, the parent may be more apt to believe the good kid even though the trouble child is adamant that's not what happened. In this instance, the parents biases and labels hinder seeing the actual truth. 

In general, I hesitate in taking a story where there's two or more people involved as is. The truth is sometimes hard to pin down and easily shaped by holey memories, personal bias, trauma, emotions, etc. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 25, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I don't know if there is a resolution to this issue because it is so charged with emotion and identity.  Also, the church itself forces a choice.  Choose ye this day .....  When I was on my mission in Brazil, we, as missionaries, taught that Mormonism was the best thing for everyone and it became our identity.  So, to have someone doubt Mormonism or question what I was saying back then naturally made me a little defensive.  I remember being on an elevator in the heart of Sao Paulo with some German businessmen.  I knew a little German and could understand their caustic remarks and the reasons why they were chuckling.  They also said some things in english that verified what they were saying to each other in German.   How could someone question what I loved so much or mock it? How dare they?  They must obviously not know what I have experienced, otherwise they wouldn't make light of this important issue, I thought to myself.

Now that I am on the other side as a non-believer, I can see things from a different perspective.  Missionaries are out there to convert but a lot of the people don't want to listen.  Members are encouraged to seek out the "lost" and to bring them back to the fold, but the questioners and the former members don't think they are lost.  They think they have the superior position and some become missionaries for their own new cause.  So, what is the solution except to not talk about it?  But is it possible to stay silent?  If not, I guess maybe the solution is to have a thicker skin and try to be cordial in discussion.     

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I agree and I think it's odd the OP has limited this behavior to those who leave the church.

I have known church members who exaggerate or are not honest about things from their past (jobs, appointments, education, etc.).  

This is is not just done by a few of those who have left the church and I'm not sure why he's connecting the two (leaving and being dishonest)?

hmm...I didn't get the sense that he was limiting it to those who've left the church.  I just thought his hypothetical was probably based on something he was thinking about recently with similar parameters. 

 

With luv,

BD

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

hmm...I didn't get the sense that he was limiting it to those who've left the church.  I just thought his hypothetical was probably based on something he was thinking about recently with similar parameters.

Did you read the OP?

Here's what he stated:

"In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. "

And: 

"So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account?"

 

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Did you read the OP?

Here's what he stated:

"In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. "

And: 

"So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account?"

 

Yeah. I did. I just interpreted it differently. I didn't think he was taking it as ONLY people leaving the church can be susceptible to stories that may be unreliable. Just that that specific parameter had been on his mind as of late. But I'm not mystery meat. He could probably clarify better than I can. 

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Did you read the OP?

Here's what he stated:

"In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. "

And: 

"So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account?"

 

He seems to be speaking from his perspective, which is what most OPs do.  That doesn't usually mean that they are limiting the discussion only to that one perspective though.  Previously (post #5) he responded to a poster who came at the topic from the other perspective and said "This is a fair question. Like I said, I am okay with people questioning my own biases and motives."

That is pretty good evidence that he's not limiting it to only one perspective i think.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He seems to be speaking from his perspective, which is what most OPs do.  That doesn't usually mean that they are limiting the discussion only to that one perspective though.  Previously (post #5) he responded to a poster who came at the topic from the other perspective and said "This is a fair question. Like I said, I am okay with people questioning my own biases and motives."

That is pretty good evidence that he's not limiting it to only one perspective i think.

He may have been willing to open up the discussion to other examples afterwards.  But the OP examples were limited to someone who'd left the church.  

I have to believe that If someone posted why they doubt the stories from faithful members as to why they stay in the church, you and others would immediately call that limiting and expand it to how many others aren't honest about their past too.

I'm glad that MM has agreed that we shouldn't limit this discussion to just those who have left the church as he did in his OP.  That makes this a much more fair and reasonable discussion, IMO.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He may have been willing to open up the discussion to other examples afterwards.  But the OP examples were limited to someone who'd left the church.  

I have to believe that If someone posted why they doubt the stories from faithful members as to why they stay in the church, you and others would immediately call that limiting and expand it to how many others aren't honest about their past too.

I'm glad that MM has agreed that we shouldn't limit this discussion to just those who have left the church as he did in his OP.  That makes this a much more fair and reasonable discussion, IMO.

I would look at the question from the opposite angle, absolutely.  But I would just do it without an accusations or anything because it wouldn't occur to me that the OP was purposefully limiting anything unless it specially said it was.  In my experience, OPs are rarely ever completely fleshed out.  Most OPs become expanded before they even make it off of the first couple of pages.  

Edited May 25, 2017 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's probably best to keep that kind of thing to yourself. Even if they really are spinning a tall tale (unless of course you have concrete evidence to back up your suspicions). 

 

Although, it is interesting to consider figures like Paul H Dunn who employed exaggeration and faith promoting stories at a high level. Were church leaders wary of correcting his experiences because they didn't want to judge? Were they merely being sensitive to Dunn or did they have a greater responsibility to the general membership?

Most likely, I think they just trusted him. So there are some risks to trusting/believing things people say, or allowing them to stand, when stated in a public setting. Sometimes challenge may be appropriate, which brings us back to the OP which asks, when is it ok?

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So someone tells you their story and you, in the midst of it, get a hunch that they are lying, you think it a decent idea to tell them your hunch without any evidence to support you?  I don't know about gaslighting but extreme jerk works.  I"d recommend if someone tells you their story and you inwardly start to doubt them, you hold your tongue, and try to suppress your doubt unless or until you learn of reasons to doubt their story. 

You clearly didn't read my entire post. I did say, that as a matter of practice "I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place." That doesn't mean I have to believe everyone's sob story about how their bishop was this or that, or that the Church lied to them, or fill in the blank, when my own experiences run so contrary to that. There are some things I can validate, like "understanding Church history can be hard and their are tough issues that I don't understand." There are other things I absolutely cannot validate such as a decision to leave based on the mistakes (or even abuses) of local leaders, history, or anything else. So while I am very nice to people who are struggling with their faith that does not mean I have believe their story especially when I think they are inherently unreliable.