Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[mfbukowski]

I've just received a private note, asking -- with the obvious expectation that I'll answer in the negative -- whether I would ever dream of drawing a comparison between the Church and Soviet Russia.

The answer is, Yes, I would.

You vill please look out your vindow and vill see der a black sedan.

Please to come peaceably, you vill get in the car and make no fuss, or ve can do it anozer vay if you force us to be, shall ve say, unpleasant.

Edited April 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

[edit]

I don't think that is what the Savior meant by "turn the other cheek." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[diahman]

I don't think that is what the Savior meant by "turn the other cheek." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now that's funny!

[Mark Beesley]

After posting the mooning Gnome, I expected to be booted from the Threat post-haste. Moderators must be busy. But since I have little time before I must be off doing other things, I wanted to make an observation.

While I can understand the argument in defense of Dan's use of the comparison of the Soviet Constitution to the MI Mission Statement, i.e. the difference between promise and fulfillment, there is another dimension that has to be accounted for.

We look at the Soviet Constitution and conclude that under Soviet rule the promises were not fulfilled. However, from the viewpoint of those who made and were responsible for enforcing the promises of the Soviet Constitution, they fulfilled their promises. I recall during Soviet Studies classes in the 1970s at the University of Utah reading defenses of the Soviet Union wherein the apologists asserted that they enjoyed more freedom of religion, speech, and the press than the U.S. because they were free from the oppression of the capitalists. In other words, money did not dictate where the power resided. We may disagree with such an assessment all we want, and we might be correct. But we should, in fairness, realize that we are judging fulfillment from a certain bias.

In the same vein, when we look at the MI Mission Statement, we will be be judging promise and fulfillment from whatever bias we come from. Five or ten years from now some may say that that the Mi has been faithful to the Mission Statement, while others may take a contrary view.

Precisely because issues of promise and fulfillment can be subject to differing interpretations depending on bias should potentially inflammatory comparisons be avoided.

[Daniel Peterson]

I stand by the image I used.

I think it only inflamed those disposed to be inflamed.

Others got it. And, to ensure that those not irredeemably disposed to be inflamed got it, I even expressly said what it wasn't about.

Some were still inflamed.

[alter idem]

I thought Dan's example of Stalin was a good one. It was a lesson from history we ought not forget and I did not read it that he was drawing conclusions comparing the MI to Stalin's regime, but comparisons in what people sometimes say they will do and what they actually end up doing.

[diahman]

I chose it because it's pretty much the clearest example I can think of of a divergence between promise and fulfillment, between word and actual intent, or between word and deed. No ambiguities at all.

Other people make different choices. Some, for example, choose to believe that I meant it in the way I specifically said I didn't mean it, because they firmly believe that I'm perpetually disingenuous even when I'm not simply being brazenly dishonest. And they'll continue to believe that, no matter what I say, and no matter how often I say it, and they'll feel morally superior because they do.

See my comment to Wade below, Dan. Do you want people to misread you? Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

What you and diahman don't seem to understand, is that the parallel wasn't between MI and Stalin, but between "promise and fulfillment" for both. What will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I get that. My point is that using Stalin to illustrate the gap between promise and fulfillment is at the very least poor judgment on Dan's part. It's poor judgment because it obscures his intent, and opens up the possibility for significant misreadings. Dan's been doing this long enough to forsee the misreadings: some that attribute mal-intent to him will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think Dan to be "vile"; some that see him as their defender will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think the MI should be shunned. Regardless of Dan qualifying his statement, some will still read past it and establish the connection. Dan's been around long enough to understand this. The question is why, knowing the inevitability of mis-readings, he still chooses to use the Stalin example.

[alter idem]

See my comment to Wade below, Dan. Do you want people to misread you? Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

Calling Dan's example 'loaded' and taking offense at it is in the eye of the beholder, as well as any subsequent 'misreading'. You could have taken what he said at face value, instead of reading into it, and the discussion could have continued, instead of being sidetracked.

[ERayR]

See my comment to Wade below, Dan. Do you want people to misread you? Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

Wade, I get that. My point is that using Stalin to illustrate the gap between promise and fulfillment is at the very least poor judgment on Dan's part. It's poor judgment because it obscures his intent, and opens up the possibility for significant misreadings. Dan's been doing this long enough to forsee the misreadings: some that attribute mal-intent to him will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think Dan to be "vile"; some that see him as their defender will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think the MI should be shunned. Regardless of Dan qualifying his statement, some will still read past it and establish the connection. Dan's been around long enough to understand this. The question is why, knowing the inevitability of mis-readings, he still chooses to use the Stalin example.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying 'those of us who want to find something to be offended about will deliberately misconstrue what you say/write. Therefore you shouldn't say/write anything we can misconstrue.'

[diahman]

Calling Dan's example 'loaded' and taking offense at it is in the eye of the beholder, as well as any subsequent 'misreading'. You could have taken what he said at face value, instead of reading into it, and the discussion could have continued, instead of being sidetracked.

I don't mean "loaded" pejoratively. I simply mean, as expressed in my earlier comment, that the Stalin example carries a lot of (often unintended) baggage.

If you go back and re-read my comments, I haven't attempted to read Dan's comment. My frustration is with his (repeated and unapologetic) poor judgment or lack of context-awareness in making these kinds of statements, coupled with a bemusement that MI couldn't make the changes they have with him on board.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just received a private note, asking -- with the obvious expectation that I'll answer in the negative -- whether I would ever dream of drawing a comparison between the Church and Soviet Russia.

The answer is, Yes, I would.

I'll supply three examples off the top of my head:

First, there's a great deal of Church art that I don't much care for, and I've occasionally compared it to socialist realism. That isn't meant as an endorsement.

Second, I've laughed a few times at our propensity to feature quotations from current presidents of the Church, even when they're fairly ordinary or commonplace ("'Repentance is a good thing,' declared President Orson Fielding Young in a speech to the Bunkerville Nevada Third Ward yesterday"), in Gospel Doctrine lessons and Church magazines, and etc. During the nearly ten years that I served on the Church's Gospel Doctrine writing committee, we were under strict orders (not from the Brethren, but from some staff committee somewhere) to include quotations from the current Church president, which, when we were writing lessons on the Old Testament, was often rather hard to do. Sometimes it seems just a tad reminiscent of the cult of the Great Leader that we know from various states over the past century, including Stalin's Russia. Not in a sinister way, but in a slightly funny way.

Third, I've sometimes laughingly compared the Church News, with its invariably positive spin on LDS-related matters, to Pravda. I hasten to add that I mean absolutely no insult to Scott Lloyd, nor, for that matter, to the Church News, which I read faithfully. (In fact, for many years, it was the only reason that I subscribed to the Deseret News as a whole, and, even now, when there are, in my opinion, many other additional reasons for subscribing to the Deseret News, it remains a major reason for my subscription, and I always turn immediately to it when I pick my Saturday paper up from the driveway.)

The second and third examples ought to demonstrate especially clearly, I think, that I don't inevitably intend such comparisons in a hostile way -- although, overall, I really am, as decent people everywhere already know, a horrible person, consumed with hatred. I respect the leadership of the Church enormously, and venerate its presidents. My good-humored take on the world around me is completely fake, of course, but it can't be denied that it's been my pretty consistent pose for many decades now.

I received a similar email from what I'm guessing is the same source. I read it on the train on the way in to work just now, and after I had responded (I carry an iPod touch that enables me to deal with emails on the fly), I pondered the matter. Ironically, I posed a question to myself that is remarkably similar to the Church News example you used here: Suppose someone should compare what is done at the Church News to what happens with totalitarian regimes. Would I take offense at that?

My response to myself was this: It depends. I would have to consider the intent, as I perceived it, of the person making the comparison, whether he was careful to define the limits of the comparison he was making, etc. I would have to be honest with myself and say the Church News is what it is. It's something I came to terms with when I hired on nearly 28 years ago. That the content is in large measure controlled by what Correlation allows or disallows and is governed in a broad sense by what the Brethren want included in a publication that carries the imprimatur of the Church. I accepted those conditions as a worthwhile tradeoff for a chance to participate in building the Kingdom in a way that I would be in a position to do.

If someone wants to compare that to Pravda and they are good natured about it and make it clear that the expressed comparison is intended only in a very limited sense, well, I'm good with that. If they are markedly hostile and mean to be insulting, well, I remind myself that such individuals generally have enmity toward the Church itself. Therefore, it's to be expected that such hostility might be transferred to what I do, since (I would hope) it supports the Church in its mission.

So, in short, I would say Dan and I are still pretty much of the same mind on this matter, the comparison to Pravda notwithstanding.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[diahman]

I understand what you are saying. You are saying 'those of us who want to find something to be offended about will deliberately misconstrue what you say/write. Therefore you shouldn't say/write anything we can misconstrue.'

In general yes; but I would change the last line to say that we "should write in a way that allows for the least misconstrual." It's also not simply about those who want to find something to be offended about, but also about those who misread and think they should treat the MI as if it were Stalin.

[wenglund]

See my comment to Wade below, Dan. Do you want people to misread you? Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

Responsibility for effective communication rests reasonably with both the sender and receiver. The sender has a responsibility to frame things in such a way that they can be reasonably understood by reasonable people. The receiver has a responsibility to attempt to reasonably understand what is reasonably being said. Dan adequately fulfilled his responsibility as a sender (as evinced by the fact that most everyone but you correctly understood his meaning), whereas you failed in your responsibility as a receiver because you were more intent on making Dan an offender for a word rather than reasonably attempting to understand his reasonably clear meaning.

Wade, I get that. My point is that using Stalin to illustrate the gap between promise and fulfillment is at the very least poor judgment on Dan's part. It's poor judgment because it obscures his intent, and opens up the possibility for significant misreadings. Dan's been doing this long enough to forsee the misreadings: some that attribute mal-intent to him will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think Dan to be "vile"; some that see him as their defender will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think the MI should be shunned. Regardless of Dan qualifying his statement, some will still read past it and establish the connection. Dan's been around long enough to understand this. The question is why, knowing the inevitability of mis-readings, he still chooses to use the Stalin example.

To me, and most everyone else who read Dan's comment, it wasn't poor judge on his part at all, but bad faith on your part. YOUR mis-reading wasn't because his intent was obscured (quite the opposite, particularly given the clarifications), but because YOUR intent was misplaced.

Please, for your own sake, stop trying to shift your irresponsibility to Dan. Take ownership of your misreading, apologize, and move progressively on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

See my comment above. Even if we take Dan at his word, this is a case of poor judgment or lack of awareness of the context. It's these repeated cases of poor judgment, in my opinion, that made it so hard to keep him involved in the transition at MI.

This appears to be spoken from the perspective of one involved with the inner workings of the institute. Enough, at least, to make me wonder.

I would say, "I don't know"; and if compelled I would agree with the answer you've given.

If my suspicion is correct, I wonder that you cannot respond more definitively than "I don't know."

But here's what the larger question is: What kind of intentions do we ascribe to others? What I've seen some people doing here is ascribing nothing but the best of intentions to Dan when he does things such as compare the MI to Stalin; but ascribing the worst of intentions to the MI when they do things such as claim that they will continue to defend the faith. If we're going to take Dan at face value, then it seems we should do the same with MI. If we're going to ascribe the worst of intentions to the MI, then why shouldn't we do something similar for Dan?

I can only speak for myself, but I was among those on this thread who readily commended the new mission statement and expressed hope for its fruition. I do so again here and now.

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you want people to misread you?

No, but you're free to do so.

Frankly, I'm getting to the point, sometimes, where I don't want people to read me in the first place.

Why don't you give this a rest?

Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

To my shame, I have a personality. And I don't feel any obligation to suppress it. It's not hateful. It's . . . amused. If I went around biting my tongue every time I thought some hypersensitive, humor-impaired, and, very possibly, hostile person might choose to take offense and, thereafter, to cultivate and nurse it, I would need a blood transfusion. Daily.

If I rank among even the top thousand most offensive posters you've encountered on the Internet, I can only say that I'm speechless with astonishment.

using Stalin to illustrate the gap between promise and fulfillment is at the very least poor judgment on Dan's part.

"At the very least."

I'm genuinely interested, diahman, in what you think it might be beyond "the very least." I'm assuming that it's not genocide, or serial murder, but could you please indicate some of the more horrendous things that it might be?

It's poor judgment because it obscures his intent,

Except that most people seem to have grasped my point quite easily, and I explicitly identified what wasn't my intent.

and opens up the possibility for significant misreadings.

Except that I expressly ruled those out at the time, and have ruled them out several times since then.

Yet you go on. And on.

Is there really nothing more interesting today? Nothing more important?

Dan's been doing this long enough to forsee the misreadings: some that attribute mal-intent to him will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think Dan to be "vile"; some that see him as their defender will see an attempt to establish a connection to the attrocities perpetuated by Stalin and think the MI should be shunned. Regardless of Dan qualifying his statement, some will still read past it and establish the connection. Dan's been around long enough to understand this. The question is why, knowing the inevitability of mis-readings, he still chooses to use the Stalin example.

Because, precisely as you say and just as you illustrate here, they're "inevitable." What I actually say plainly makes little or no difference.

.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

Thank you, Scott, for not choosing to take offense at my good-natured comparison of the Church News with Pravda. You get my point. And I am, seriously, a fan and an avid reader. And I never throw them away. (My wife ultimately becomes exasperated and does, but I don't. And I'm not critical of the Church News at all; it's not as if I wish it to be neutral, to become more like, say, Sunstone or the Tribune. For that matter, I don't even subscribe to the Tribune. Nor, any more, to Sunstone.)

we "should write in a way that allows for the least misconstrual." It's also not simply about those who want to find something to be offended about, but also about those who misread and think they should treat the MI as if it were Stalin.

Your approach, diahman, would, if pushed to its logical conclusion, eliminate virtually all topical comedy, satire, and political cartoons. Seriously. And I mean very seriously. Ponderously, mind-numbingly seriously.

And anybody who genuinely confuses the Maxwell institute with Stalin, even under its current leadership, needs not duller and more focus-group-tested posting on a message board, but psychiatric help.

.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

I can only speak for myself, but I was among those on this thread who readily commended the new mission statement and expressed hope for its fruition. I do so again here and now.

As do I.

And yes, Scott, I suspect that our emails came from the same source.

[jwhitlock]

I'm open to seeing things differently, if you can show me what I've missed.

I doubt that - since you've already been shown the error of your "reasoning" and have ignored it.

[jwhitlock]

See my comment to Wade below, Dan. Do you want people to misread you? Further, if you know that people will misread you, and you can often anticipate how they will misread you, to what degree are you responsible for the misreading when you could have chosen a less "loaded" way of expressing yourself?

There is, of course, a huge difference between misreading something because you don't understand, and misreading something on purpose in order to attack someone. Your comments fit the latter category.

In reality, there's not much someone can do about those in the latter category, since they're not commenting in good faith.

[alter idem]

I have to make one concession to my position. While I was not bothered by Dan's use of the example of Stalin, I acknowledge he could have avoided controversy by using a less incendiary, more generic example--such as politicians who make promises and then turn around and do the opposite of what they promised.

I don't know if this would have kept him from being criticized though--it probably would have still offended some portion of the readers--those who assumed he was taking a swipe at their preferred political leaders.

I think it is very hard to intereact on the boards without offending sometimes.

Edited April 5, 2013 by alter idem

[CASteinman]

That seems like an unreasonably balanced approach.

I would have thought so too, except for the degree and level of incompetence in the way that they handled things last year. The reason I say this is that I consider it to be incompetence -- out of charity. There is a possibility it is worse. And entirely ignoring that possibility would mischaracterize things.

Still, I prefer to go with incompetence rather than malevolence.

[CASteinman]

If you go back and re-read my comments, I haven't attempted to read Dan's comment. My frustration is with his (repeated and unapologetic) poor judgment or lack of context-awareness in making these kinds of statements

Your perception of a "lack of judgment". its not a given that in starting this whole brouhaha that you didn't demonstrate such bad judgment that you are a valid, reasonable arbiter on such things.

Why do you care so much if the example of the failed Soviet Constitution is compared to the MI Charter which -- at least per the current administration -- has failed in the past? Are you somehow threatened by this connection? Is it connecting the Soviets to MI that is bad or is it the connecting of MI to the Soviets that you object to? Who is defamed?

Or.. if none of that do you have a reason to target Dan?

Really, its a bit weird to carry on...

For my part, I actually got some value out of the quote from the Soviet Constitution -- separate and apart from MI and I was glad to have read that bit. In addition, I think I am not alone in saying that I got the point and never felt that MI was somehow being equated to Stalin. In fact, I thought Dan's claim to not have that intent was superfluous.

I am thinking of this talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/guided-by-the-holy-spirit?lang=eng

[diahman]

Responsibility for effective communication rests reasonably with both the sender and receiver. The sender has a responsibility to frame things in such a way that they can be reasonably understood by reasonable people. The receiver has a responsibility to attempt to reasonably understand what is reasonably being said. Dan adequately fulfilled his responsibility as a sender (as evinced by the fact that most everyone but you correctly understood his meaning), whereas you failed in your responsibility as a receiver because you were more intent on making Dan an offender for a word rather than reasonably attempting to understand his reasonably clear meaning.

To me, and most everyone else who read Dan's comment, it wasn't poor judge on his part at all, but bad faith on your part. YOUR mis-reading wasn't because his intent was obscured (quite the opposite, particularly given the clarifications), but because YOUR intent was misplaced.

Please, for your own sake, stop trying to shift your irresponsibility to Dan. Take ownership of your misreading, apologize, and move progressively on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Where I have misread Dan? In all seriousness, the primary reading of his intent I've offered is that people can misconstrue it (I've never said what I personally take his intent to be). As such, he should be more careful. Coincidentally, I agree with much of your first comment, except I would extend the responsibility of the sender to take into account the likely misreadings of his or her audience. Especially when the sender is as experienced as Dan is.

Take the following scenario: I can use an example to illustrate my point. There are 6 different examples I could choose from. If I choose example 1, audience A will likely think I'm vile; and audience B will take it beyond my intention and view the object of my description with derision. If I choose example 2, I make the same point but lessen the likelihood of audience A thinking I'm vile; and lessen the likelihood of audience B taking it beyond my intention. Why would anyone choose example 1?

[CASteinman]

Where I have misread Dan? In all seriousness, the primary reading of his intent I've offered is that people can misconstrue it (I've never said what I personally take his intent to be).

So what if they misconstrue it? It doesn't damage the intent of his message.

Why is this such a big deal to you?

[diahman]

No, but you're free to do so.

Frankly, I'm getting to the point, sometimes, where I don't want people to read me in the first place.

Why don't you give this a rest?

If you don't want people to misread you, then you shouldn't provide so many opportunities for them to do so.

I don't want to give this a rest because a primary complaint from you and many others is that you see no reason why MI couldn't do the things it's proposing without you still on the team; but, IMO, this is one of the reasons they couldn't--a consistent and unapologetic implementation of poor judgment.

To my shame, I have a personality. And I don't feel any obligation to suppress it. It's not hateful. It's . . . amused. If I went around biting my tongue every time I thought some hypersensitive, humor-impaired, and, very possibly, hostile person might choose to take offense and, thereafter, to cultivate and nurse it, I would need a blood transfusion. Daily.

Or if you toned it down a bit you might also maintain better institutional relationships.

If I rank among even the top thousand most offensive posters you've encountered on the Internet, I can only say that I'm speechless with astonishment.

Of course you aren't; but I care about what goes on in the LDS community.

"At the very least."

I'm genuinely interested, diahman, in what you think it might be beyond "the very least." I'm assuming that it's not genocide, or serial murder, but could you please indicate some of the more horrendous things that it might be?

Not horrendous by any stretch of the imagination; and I apologize if any of this offends you. I'm also open to be proven otherwise on any of this. I think the war/enemy imagery is so ingrained in you that you're not always self-aware of the ways in which your words construct mental landscapes for others where your metaphorical enemies become worthy of contempt. I think you're angry and hurt over the MI situation and that these feelings further cloud your judgment about the implication of your words. I think you wouldn't mind, for instance, if someone read your comparison between MI and Stalin, and then went beyond your stated intention to think worse of MI (and perhaps even stop donating). I think you might even like stirring the pot because it makes discussion seem more worthwhile. I think you might also feel a need for "enemies" because it seems to give your work more purpose. Lastly, I think you feel like you're doing the right thing in making these baggage-heavy comparisons.