Dehlin, Reel, And Other Do-Gooders Asking For Money To Do...good.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who stated that?  Was this an example given of the abuse Bill is referring to?

Often, when people learn things late, they blame the Church for not telling them about it previously. Mola just provided one example of such a thing.

[thesometimesaint]

OK- but if someone is harmed and claims that harm is abusive would we tell them to suck it up? It's only "emotional abuse". Or it's only "verbal abuse". That would be offensive.

 

There are many types of abuse and people interpret and experience harm in different ways I don't think we should so easily dismiss.

 

Was Jesus exceeding his priesthood authority when he harmed the money chargers by driving them from the Temple?

[jkwilliams]

So you agree that the church has been an "abusive parent"?

 

How can omitting something ever be considered abusive in terms of learning something or reasoning?

 

Omitting something can indeed be abusive. When I was in seventh grade, I took an electronics shop class, and one day we were soldering some circuits together. I had my own soldering iron, which was resting on a stand to my right. I was working one segment at a time, connecting the components and then soldering them. I was moving pretty quickly, and because I knew where the soldering iron was, I could reach it without looking. Without my noticing it, another boy, who had forgotten to bring his soldering iron, had used mine and then put it back backwards, with the hot end facing me. Another boy saw what had happened but decided not to tell me because he thought it would be funny. I got second-degree burns on my hand because he omitted information he had.

 

In the same way, if someone knowingly omits information in such a way as to give you a false sense of your religious organization's teachings and practices, it could certainly be considered abusive, particularly when that person may at some later date be exposed to the correct information, potentially causing a crisis of faith.

[ALarson]

Often, when people learn things late, they blame the Church for not telling them about it previously. Mola just provided one example of such a thing.

I don't see that this is the abuse that Bill was talking about.  Maybe I need to read what he wrote again.

 

I see very few people who are that upset over learning that Joseph had a gun in Carthage (and haven't heard it called abusive, so that's not an accurate example to use).  Many are surprised that they had not heard about it before, but then most I've talked to about it say, "Good for him!"  

Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson

[Calm]

Jkw, Your example was a kid who knew not saying something would result in you burning your hand. Are you really claiming that when someone leaves out information because they think it isn't relevant or needed or the information itself may be harmful, that is the same as intending to cause harm?

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

I don't see that this is the abuse that Bill was talking about.  Maybe I need to read what he wrote again.

 

I see very few people who are that upset over learning that Joseph had a gun in Carthage (and wouldn't ever call it abuse, so that's not an accurate example to use).  Many are surprised that they had not heard about it before, but then most I've talked to about it say, "Good for him!"  

 

The people I know who are upset about Joseph's "pepper box" tend to be non-LDS Christians upset that a martyr wouldn't have been packing heat. I agree with you, though: it would have been foolish not to have been armed in that situation. If you're going to criticize a man, it shouldn't be for defending his life. 

[jkwilliams]

Your example was a kid who knew not saying something would result in you burning your hand. Are you really claiming that when someone leaves out information because they think it isn't relevant or needed or the information itself may be harmful, that is the same as intending to cause harm?

 

Nope, not at all. I am saying, however, that intentionally leaving out material that someone does think is important can be considered abusive, no matter whether harm was intended. 

[Calm]

Nope, not at all. I am saying, however, that intentionally leaving out material that someone does think is important can be considered abusive, no matter whether harm was intended.

And I think this diminishes the label "abuse", widening its application to be equivalent to "unintentional harm".

By your standard this leaving out information that you are not talking about a child who has been sexually molested or beaten by a parent or has been screamed at that there is no one in the world who loves them over and over but could be talking about not telling someone that a husband lied to his wife about his marriages to other women over 150 years ago is abusive.

[jkwilliams]

And I think this diminishes the label "abuse", widening its application to be equivalent to "unintentional harm".

By your standard this leaving out information that you are not talking about a child who has been sexually molested or beaten by a parent or has been screamed at that there is no one in the world who loves them over and over but could be talking about not telling someone that a husband lied to his wife about his marriages to other women over 150 years ago is abusive.

 

I suppose it depends on the intent. I'm certainly not saying that omitting information is the same as sexual or physical or verbal abuse such as that you describe. But you're right, abusive may be too strong a word. I still think it's wrong, dishonest, and so on.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see that this is the abuse that Bill was talking about.  Maybe I need to read what he wrote again.

 

 

He may not have been referring to that specifically, but he did talk about the broad category of being surprised and miffed when learning late about something one hadn't been told before.

 

I see very few people who are that upset over learning that Joseph had a gun in Carthage (and haven't heard it called abusive, so that's not an accurate example to use).  Many are surprised that they had not heard about it before, but then most I've talked to about it say, "Good for him!"

 

I hope they are few, but I've seen this brought up again and again, as in, "Smith was not a martyr because he shot back, and that's one thing they don't tell you" and so on and so forth.

 

Most people don't press the point too much when it is pointed out to them that the very pistol he used has been on display in the Church History Museum for 25 years.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Omitting something can indeed be abusive. When I was in seventh grade, I took an electronics shop class, and one day we were soldering some circuits together. I had my own soldering iron, which was resting on a stand to my right. I was working one segment at a time, connecting the components and then soldering them. I was moving pretty quickly, and because I knew where the soldering iron was, I could reach it without looking. Without my noticing it, another boy, who had forgotten to bring his soldering iron, had used mine and then put it back backwards, with the hot end facing me. Another boy saw what had happened but decided not to tell me because he thought it would be funny. I got second-degree burns on my hand because he omitted information he had.

In the same way, if someone knowingly omits information in such a way as to give you a false sense of your religious organization's teachings and practices, it could certainly be considered abusive, particularly when that person may at some later date be exposed to the correct information, potentially causing a crisis of faith.

Thanks for this input. I never would have believed the church could be abusive till it happened to me. It's hard to put into words. Sometimes I feel like a disbeliever germ and those that know it stay at arms length. It would only be my former bishop and new bishop. But are they telling others? So maybe I'm paranoid, but it does happen in wards and families.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose it depends on the intent. I'm certainly not saying that omitting information is the same as sexual or physical or verbal abuse such as that you describe. But you're right, abusive may be too strong a word. I still think it's wrong, dishonest, and so on.

It might not even be dishonest or wrong, per se. Everyone, of necessity, must be selective about what he says, because it is simply not possible to say everything. One may honestly believe something is not germane to the conversation or the lesson or the talk or the lecture or whatever.

 

That's why we all must be proactive in seeking knowledge, not waiting to be spoon-fed.

 

But calling omission abuse is definitely beyond the pale.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

It might not even be dishonest or wrong, per se. Everyone, of necessity, must be selective about what he says, because it is simply not possible to say everything. One may honestly believe something is not germane to the conversation or the lesson or the talk or the lecture or whatever.

 

That's why we all must proactive in seeking knowledge, not waiting to be spoon-fed.

 

But calling ommission abuse is definitely beyond the pale.

 

As I said, "intentionally leaving out material that someone does think is important" is wrong. If I omit something because it isn't germane or I don't have time to get to it, that would pretty much mean I don't think it's important.

[Calm]

I still think it's wrong, dishonest, and so on.

And if you can demonstrate those involved left information out to intentionally deceive, I would agree with you that they are dishonest.

There are also many, many times I think it is wrong (but not dishonest if there is no intent to deceive, but rather the person is making a decision for others when they don't have to) to leave out nontrivial information because people make decisions based on that information and they should be able to choose what information is important to them and what isn't (of course, what people view as nontrivial will be different and that needs to be taken into consideration).

I think we have different standards of what would demonstrate that. My standards are reasonable imo as I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe that JS deceived Emma, for example.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

And if you can demonstrate those involved left information out to intentionally deceive, I would agree with you.

I think we have different standards of what would demonstrate that. My standards are reasonable imo as I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe that JS deceived Emma, for example.

 

I agree with you about Joseph and Emma. As for church leaders, who knows? Some leaders have said things that lead me to believe they felt including some information might be troubling to members. Is omitting troubling information wrong if it is done with the intent of "protecting" fragile testimonies? I suspect you'd get a lot of differing opinions.

[Calm]

I agree with you about Joseph and Emma. As for church leaders, who knows? Some leaders have said things that lead me to believe they felt including some information might be troubling to members. Is omitting troubling information wrong if it is done with the intent of "protecting" fragile testimonies? I suspect you'd get a lot of differing opinions.

It would depend on the situation, but my preference when addressing a large group is if the information directly impacts their lives, give as full as reasonably possible. If it is information that may affect their opinions about people who are dead and are not thus interacting with them and it is relevant to the discussion, it depends on if one has the ability to present sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. If not, presenting partial information may end up causing greater misunderstanding than withholding at that time. If possible and I think in most teaching settings this would be...at least if one was comfortable with the language, encouraging peope to study the situation to get more detail is an acceptable alternate in a limited time situation where one can't cover the most likely details peope will feel are relevant.

Overall I think when the ability and resources are there, information should be made easily accessible and peope encouraged to study.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

It would depend on the situation, but my preference when addressing a large group is if the information directly impacts their lives, give as full as reasonably possible. If it is information that may affect their opinions about people who are dead and are not thus interacting with them, it depends on if one has the ability to present sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. If not, presenting partial information may end up causing greater misunderstanding than withholding at that time. If possible and I think in most teaching settings this would be...at least if one was comfortable with the language, encouraging peope to study the situation to get more detail is an acceptable alternate in a limited time situation where one can't cover the most likely details peope will feel are relevant.

Overall I think when the ability and resources are there, information should be made easily accessible and peope encouraged to study.

 

On that we agree. It seems to me that, even if we believe the church is above reproach, we can at least try to understand why the release of potentially troubling information is a shock to some people and why they feel the church wasn't entirely forthcoming with them. It's difficult to understand why some folks are so intent on blaming people that they miss opportunities to help them.

[Calm]

I don't think the Church is above reproach. You will have to ask someone who does what they think is appropriate.

"It's difficult to understand why some folks are so intent on blaming people that they miss opportunities to help them."

I think in most cases blame starts getting thrown around (such as you generically blaming others for being too intent on blaming others and me blaming you for doing that) because people get defensive/protective of others or things they care about.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

I don't think the Church is above reproach. You will have to ask someone who does what they think is appropriate.

 

I know, I wasn't pointing at you, just thinking about the tendency I have seen lately to blame struggling members for being upset at information they did not previously know. Affixing blame seems to be far more important for some people than saving souls. I've been reading through the comments on an apparently believing blog where church members are openly taunting people who are upset about the seer stone. Whom exactly does that help? 

[Calm]

See above edit.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think the Church is above reproach. You will have to ask someone who does what they think is appropriate.

"It's difficult to understand why some folks are so intent on blaming people that they miss opportunities to help them."

I think in most cases blame starts getting thrown around (such as you generically blaming others for being too intent on blaming others and me blaming you for doing that) because people get defensive/protective of others or things they care about.

 

Sure, it's easy to blame people for exactly that reason. I know I get defensive when people attack those who are struggling with their testimonies, and you probably get just as defensive when someone like me calls them out for it. I'm trying to be better, but in general, I would rather listen to people about what is bothering them and why than I would spend my time saying it's their fault or the church's fault that they didn't know these troubling things. For the record, I've said consistently that I don't believe the church was intentionally hiding its history. Having worked on curriculum materials for the church, I first of all doubt that the people writing the manuals and magazines and such were ever aware of a lot of the finer details of church history. So, no, I am not one of people who say the church "lied" about x, y, or z. At the same time, it's completely reasonable for someone to have lived their lives in the church, gone to church, read the magazines and manuals, and not to have been aware of these issues. It seems ridiculous to attack people for not knowing things that you can't reasonably expect them to have known. 

 

If someone wants to help the struggling, find out why they're struggling, and let the blame go.

[Calm]

"That's why we all must be proactive in seeking knowledge, not waiting to be spoon-fed."

For the win!

I would have been so screwed if I hadn't quickly figured out in my early teens, my dad didn't want to 'waste time' sharing information. As it was, it still tripped me up from time to time and it made Mom's life extraordinary difficult, but boy, did it drive me to study and ask questions (of other people, I knew I would get bare bones from Dad if that...not malicious, he just didn't see much value in detail sharing and his details were sometimes massive in reality) and even require of him to give me detailed plans if he expected me to be involved.

I am sure everyone does this in parts of their lives (I so hope so because they must be miserable about life never turning out how they expected otherwise), but I also think not everyone has time to devote to studying and finding out the right places to adk questions in every area of their life. I expect my daughter to study diabetes, depression, sleep, nutrution and how to drive at the moment. If she doesn't, I will apply gentle pressure in that direction. If she feels too overwhelmed and disconnected by all of that and doesn't want to ask questions about the Church and Gospel, I am sad but I understand this is not her time for it. If ten years later she starts complaining I didn't tell her about seerstones or something else, I may for the first time in her life put her over my knee and give her a good swat.

Pretty much everyone else I don't know enough to make a judgment, but if I see evidences of hours searching out criticisms or if I know someone has been told information they later deny knowing and blame others for not telling them, I may challenge that.

Otoh, I have seen honest bafflement from someone who stood right next to me and heard the same things I did and appeared to be in full consciousness and yet later denied ever learning that information, so I don't generally blame people for missing something in the past....just if they refuse to inform themselves once they know they lack information and have access to it but feel they should still be able to analyze and criticize as if they've put the hours and efforts and resources into studying.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

"That's why we all must be proactive in seeking knowledge, not waiting to be spoon-fed."

For the win!

I would have been so screwed if I hadn't quickly figured out in my early teens, my dad didn't want to 'waste time' sharing information. As it was, it still tripped me up from time to time and it made Mom's life extraordinary difficult, but boy, did it drive me to study and ask questions (of other people, I knew I would get bare bones from Dad if that...not malicious, he just didn't see much value in detail sharing and his details were sometimes massive in reality) and even require of him to give me detailed plans if he expected me to be involved.

 

I agree that we should be proactive in seeking knowledge. Heaven knows I was (and look where it got me). But I don't find it helpful in the least to say to people, "You shouldn't be upset by x, y, or z, because you should have been proactive and sought such knowledge beforehand." Who cares what they should have done? They find themselves now in a situation where they are troubled by information they didn't know before. Should we help them with their troubles, or is it important to "set the record straight" and make sure they accept blame before we do anything to help them? 

Edited August 12, 2015 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

On that we agree. It seems to me that, even if we believe the church is above reproach, we can at least try to understand why the release of potentially troubling information is a shock to some people and why they feel the church wasn't entirely forthcoming with them. It's difficult to understand why some folks are so intent on blaming people that they miss opportunities to help them.

 

 I see the Church as above reproach, It's mortal members, including myself, not so much. However I don't see the Church as deliberately withholding necessary information. IE; Does it really matter to my, or any living person's, salvation if JS had 2 or 33 wives, that David had Saul's wives? Not really. Some people were offended by what Jesus taught during his mortal ministry, and refused to follow him anymore. Jesus even remarked on it when he asked if "will you not also go away?". I don't believe we can or should base our religion on what may or may not offend someone else. I don't believe in being a jerk about it either. IE; Not telling someone the hot soldering iron next them was moved. All that being said we do have a personal responsibility for our own learning. Back in dinosaur days when I was in school we were given books to read that generally reinforced and added to what the teachers said. Come test time it did little to no good to claim the teacher didn't personally teach something as a excuse for not passing the test.

[Scott Lloyd]

"That's why we all must be proactive in seeking knowledge, not waiting to be spoon-fed."

For the win!

I would have been so screwed if I hadn't quickly figured out in my early teens, my dad didn't want to 'waste time' sharing information. As it was, it still tripped me up from time to time and it made Mom's life extraordinary difficult, but boy, did it drive me to study and ask questions (of other people, I knew I would get bare bones from Dad if that...not malicious, he just didn't see much value in detail sharing and his details were sometimes massive in reality) and even require of him to give me detailed plans if he expected me to be involved.

Rick Turley, who is now Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, reminded me of an important point several years ago.

 

There had been a Mormon History Association tour of the Mountain Meadows site, and I had written a story about it. Rick was helping me edit it. At one point, he suggested that if something cannot be adequately explained in the space (or time) allotted, it is better not to introduce it at all rather than to risk conveying an incomplete or false message. (I hasten to add that this was a relatively minor point in the Mountain Meadows scenario, and it would not have been deceptive or misleading to leave it out of my report.)

 

I think that rationale, which is certainly reasonable, often drives the decision as to whether or not to include a point of information when discussing Church history or doctrine. It is not dishonest or wrong -- or abusive -- to forgo discussing something if it cannot be properly or adequately explained under the circumstances.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd