Good Faith Discussions

[Mystery Meat]

I don't post much anymore. That is due in large part to the subject of this thread and the inability of the site's posters to operate in good faith, myself included at times. We recently had a thread about gas lighting, a term with a very specific meaning in practice. The OP and subsequent posters completely ignored the commonly accepted definition and used their own (despite being corrected by a professional). These folks were so determined to get points in about the church that they used that they changed the definition to fit their own needs. None of this is to say that the criticisms they had were unfounded, but if we can't even agree to the underlying facts or definitions of important terms, we should probably just shut the site down.

And to be fair this goes both ways. Everyone should concede facts and validate where possible. For example, I can validate that some posters did not feel like they were taught an accurate history of the Church at Church because they probably weren't. At the same time, I can validate those who say they were aware of more complex issues in Church history for years or decades. They showed a certain level of intellectual curiosity that I (and others like me) didn't. Two things can be true at the same time. 

To expand on this and as it relates to Church history, I can agree that Joseph Smith was accused of soliciting William Law to what amounts to as a wife swap in today's parlance. However, this stipulation in no way means that I have to accept that Joseph Smith actually did what he was accused of or that if he did that that disqualifies him as a prophet. If we could identify underlying objective facts and find out where we can agree, our conversations could then expand to include the more subjective points of discussion. For example, using the above example, if we could agree that Joseph Smith was accused of such things but that we cannot prove such things we could then discuss why we believe William Law or his wife to be reliable or unreliable. 

That would be a much more beneficial conversation and one that I would be more inclined to participate in.

 

[Meadowchik]

Thanks for bringing up this topic.  I'd like to add another dimension to your commentary.

In the discussion Gaslighting we recently had, imo there are several things to note:

- the common usage of the term gaslighting is not exactly as extreme as the dictionary definition. 

- people can feel like they have been gaslighted, regardless of the actual intent of those they believe did the gaslighting

- the spirit of the post underscoring a real problem which I think is important and which will not go away on its own:  the existence of practices in the COJCLDS in which participants feel deceived, unprepared by people who were trusted with the job of preparing them, and then made to feel like they don't have the right to those feelings

This type of problem can take on many forms.  In a religious community such as Mormonism, there can be a great deal of shame centered in whether a person "feels the Spirit" when others say they do, whether they have a faith-affirming experience before or following a Mormon rite of passage, or something similar. Combining this with a very high-demand religious tradition inherent in Mormonism, along with some practices which are kept secret until they are undergone, and we have a formula for situations which can simulate gaslighting:  a person goes through a rite of passage or a calling, has difficulties with the experience, and is often reminded about the spiritual experience they were expected to have at some point before of during the rite or calling.

I think it is helpful to remember the notion "the glory of God is intelligence," and that therefore openness and honesty especially about difficult Mormon traditions--not just the temple, even-- can help people have better spiritual journeys that give them more personal and spiritual clarity and edification.

I believe that the much good is done in the church and by church members, but that, like any human institutions, sometimes the whole is quite different the sum of intents of all the members: people can have great difficulty adapting to and understanding rigid beliefs systems even if they very desperately want to do so. We should be understanding of that, and try to help people who are trying to integrate and adapt in good faith to the Mormon faith.

You did note the dismissal by some posters of the opinion of a poster who is a mental health professional: I don't think that any of us have agreed that one mental health professional who happens to openly post as such on this forum is an agreed-upon authority on anything skirting the area of mental health.  This is a forum where people of all stripes are invited to participate, and expected to support their contributions when appropriate.

I believe my parents benefit a great deal from their continued membership in the LDS church.  However, they have had their own struggles trying to prioritise their spiritual and temporal needs along with the demands of the church.  When I was still a child at home, they benefited from therapy over the course of several years, and they applied many of the lessons they learned to their marital relationship and to our family relationships.  One rule that still stands out to me after all this time is about "fighting fair:" in a disagreement, one must not say, "You make me feel _____." However, one is welcome to say, "I feel ____ when you____." This type of paradigm shift of the reconciling language helps switch from a combat to solution mode.  Instead of focusing on blame, each person is still allowed to be open and honest, but while focusing on solving the problem.  This is where listening comes in.  Sometimes in is extremely painful, but the good thing about painful listening is that means a conversation is happening, and when a conversation in good faith occurs, both parties are closer to reconciliation.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for bringing up this topic.  I'd like to add another dimension to your commentary.

In the discussion Gaslighting we recently had, imo there are several things to note:

- the common usage of the term gaslighting is not exactly as extreme as the dictionary definition. 

- people can feel like they have been gaslighted, regardless of the actual intent of those they believe did the gaslighting

- the spirit of the post underscoring a real problem which I think is important and which will not go away on its own:  the existence of practices in the COJCLDS in which participants feel deceived, unprepared by people who were trusted with the job of preparing them, and then made to feel like they don't have the right to those feelings

This type of problem can take on many forms.  In a religious community such as Mormonism, there can be a great deal of shame centered in whether a person "feels the Spirit" when others say they do, whether they have a faith-affirming experience before or following a Mormon rite of passage, or something similar. Combining this with a very high-demand religious tradition inherent in Mormonism, along with some practices which are kept secret until they are undergone, and we have a formula for situations which can simulate gaslighting:  a person goes through a rite of passage or a calling, has difficulties with the experience, and is often reminded about the spiritual experience they were expected to have at some point before of during the rite or calling.

I think it is helpful to remember the notion "the glory of God is intelligence," and that therefore openness and honesty especially about difficult Mormon traditions--not just the temple, even-- can help people have better spiritual journeys that give them more personal and spiritual clarity and edification.

I believe that the much good is done in the church and by church members, but that, like any human institutions, sometimes the whole is quite different the sum of intents of all the members: people can have great difficulty adapting to and understanding rigid beliefs systems even if they very desperately want to do so. We should be understanding of that, and try to help people who are trying to integrate and adapt in good faith to the Mormon faith.

You did note the dismissal by some posters of the opinion of a poster who is a mental health professional: I don't think that any of us have agreed that one mental health professional who happens to openly post as such on this forum is the final authority on anything skirting the area of mental health.  This is a forum where people of all stripes are invited to participate.

I agree and was disappointed to see that thread locked.  Maybe HJW requested that though (?).  It obviously was a great discussion and there was a tremendous interest for the topic from both sides (10 pages of comments in quite a short time). 

I saw extreme views expressed from all angles and found myself relating to some things in each view.  I felt some middle ground was being reached (by some).  I wish the discussion had been continued and not shut down as I feel there should be no fear in openly discussing some of these topics that many obviously feel strongly about.  It helps to see all sides expressed if it can be done in a civil manner (at least for me).

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

And to be fair this goes both ways. Everyone should concede facts and validate where possible. For example, I can validate that some posters did not feel like they were taught an accurate history of the Church at Church because they probably weren't. At the same time, I can validate those who say they were aware of more complex issues in Church history for years or decades. They showed a certain level of intellectual curiosity that I (and others like me) didn't. Two things can be true at the same time. 

To expand on this and as it relates to Church history, I can agree that Joseph Smith was accused of soliciting William Law to what amounts to as a wife swap in today's parlance. However, this stipulation in no way means that I have to accept that Joseph Smith actually did what he was accused of or that if he did that that disqualifies him as a prophet. If we could identify underlying objective facts and find out where we can agree, our conversations could then expand to include the more subjective points of discussion. For example, using the above example, if we could agree that Joseph Smith was accused of such things but that we cannot prove such things we could then discuss why we believe William Law or his wife to be reliable or unreliable. 

That would be a much more beneficial conversation and one that I would be more inclined to participate in.

I think that could be a fascinating discussion!  Maybe start another thread on that topic?  

And...I think you make some great points above too regarding discussions on here.

[HappyJackWagon]

I appreciate the sentiment of the OP but I don't think it's realistic. If we all were in agreement about facts and terms there would be very little discussion. Discussion helps us to hammer out the language we use. For example, the gaslighting term turns out to be highly offensive to many people yet it wasn't my intention to offend people. I felt like the term had applications to my relationship with the church and then there were hundreds of comments afterwards where we attempted to hash out the differences of opinion.

Were opinions changed? In this case, mine has changed to some degree. Not about the behaviors I find objectionable, but rather about how to use language to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that calling it "gaslighting", whether or not I think it applies (which in common usage I still think it does to some degree), is not productive. Using the word was trying to establish a kind of shorthand language but it clearly didn't work  

Regarding your claim that "posters completely ignored the commonly accepted definition and used their own (despite being corrected by a professional)" I think this claim is unfair even though I think I understand your POV. As was determined in the thread, there are multiple definitions, some are clinical and some are common usage. That's partly what we were trying to hash out. But saying that we wouldn't listen to a "professional" is a problematic statement for a couple of reasons. 1- Who posted and cited their expert, professional opinion? I assume you're talking about BlueDream, but are we all supposed to accept a professional opinion just because someone claims credential (please don't read that as me doubting BlueDreams) but you can see how problematic that would be for any internet poster to claim anything they choose. It can be taken into consideration but it doesn't trump everyone elses opinion and shut down conversation. 2- Does every professional share BlueDreams opinion? Maybe, maybe not. Again, granting privilege to an opinion based on a claimed (or unclaimed) credential opens up a lot of cans of worms.

IOW- Discussion boards are about sharing differences and working through differences in use of language as well as determining what facts are truly reliable. We can all probably be more kind to each other in our differences but that doesn't mean we should expect those differences to disappear. There are very few things we will all agree on, and that's ok. That's what makes this discussion board interesting.

ETA- I didn't request the thread be locked. I think it was a natural decision by the mods based on the direction and developing hostility in the thread.

Edited May 10, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree and was disappointed to see that thread locked.  Maybe HJW requested that though (?).  It obviously was a great discussion and there was a tremendous interest for the topic from both sides (10 pages of comments in quite a short time). 

I saw extreme views expressed from all angles and found myself relating to some things in each view.  I felt some middle ground was being reached (by some).  I wish the discussion had been continued and not shut down as I feel there should be no fear in openly discussing some of these topics that many obviously feel strongly about.  It helps to see all sides expressed if it can be done in a civil manner (at least for me).

Yup, I think there is a lot to be learned that can be both faith-affirming for believing Mormons, healing for ex-Mormons, helpful for anyone else participating.  A few times, I tried to emphasize the nature of human institutions: they can often behave like a beast intent on, beyond anything else, its own survival.  In my opinion, an awareness of this can help us want to be more mindful of things like unintended consequences. My teen son is still committed to the church.  We honor and support his desire and commitment and I want his participation church to be a fruitful experience, intellectually and spiritually.  So the church tendencies, practicesn and experiences still deeply matter to me, and should, as the mother of my Mormon son.

[probablyHagoth7]

21 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't post much anymore. That is due in large part to the subject of this thread and the inability of the site's posters to operate in good faith, myself included at times. We recently had a thread about gas lighting, a term with a very specific meaning in practice. The OP and subsequent posters completely ignored the commonly accepted definition and used their own (despite being corrected by a professional).

? As to gaslighting, I'll speak just a bit about others deviating from your preferred meaning. Words can encompass a spectrum of meaning, and can blur/mutate in short order, and I suspect their take on that word falls within common street usage. (Yep, I just checked, *and it does.*) So I would ask/suggest that we grant one another reasonable latitude in discussions here, and not unreasonably insist that people choose the my-way-or-highway dichotomy between adopting our arbitrarily-favored meaning for a word...or completely exiting/nixing the discussion.

Meanwhile, *my* use of the word in that thread was the *precise* meaning that others like you happen to be insisting upon. The situation I referred to *was/is* one where people posing as caring friends actually colluded with the intent to undermine someone's confidence, outright attempting to convince them that they were insane, and enlisting unwitting participants to assist towards that end. (I later notified two of the participants that they had been duped, and provided clear evidence of duplicity. One of them was furious that they had been duped. The other resorted to tears. For both of them, there was zero way *for them* to undo the extensive interpersonal, spiritual, and financial damage that had been inflicted. Both of them were/are LDS. One of the duped, a person greatly trusted by the target's son, went so far as to solemnly tell him that should his own parent come to visit, he needed to run away as fast as possible....and even went much further. The other did *much* more lasting damage.) One of the instigators of all that is an otherwise respected religious leader/instructor who will soon be drawing comfortable retirement from a religion-controlled fund. So, yep - it happens both inside and outside of churches. 

In short, there was no foul, flagrant or otherwise, that merited tossing a flag to the turf in that thread. Neither meaning for the word gaslighting provided reasonable cause for nixing the discussion (your strict meaning...or the more-liberal-but-still-acceptable meaning). Nor was the vacuum of commentary on a few posts the big deal that some opted to make a red-herring issue about.

Making an offender for a word is one thing. Making an offender for *an arbitrarily-unacceptable* definition seems beyond hairsplitting.

In fairness, based on the above, I believe that you and others are instead the ones who opted not to proceed in good faith. FWIW.

Thoughts?

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

This type of problem can take on many forms.  In a religious community such as I think it is helpful to remember the notion "the glory of God is intelligence," and that therefore openness and honesty especially about difficult Mormon traditions--not just the temple, even-- can help people have better spiritual journeys that give them more personal and spiritual clarity and edification.

Amen.

I don't think that any of us have agreed that one mental health professional who happens to openly post as such on this forum is the final authority on anything....This is a forum where people of all stripes are invited to participate.

Agreed.

Meanwhile, others asserting the contrary engaged in a blatant logical fallacy. 

[Danzo]

I think a serious mistake was made when the OP decided to take a legitimate discussion about when/if/how certain covenants were made and decide to put a term that implies a strong degree of psychological abuse.  The claim "That is not what i meant" only make it seem like a cheap shot at all of the members who participate in such ordinances.  

I could have been a very different discussion that illuminated and expanded knowledge and understanding, but instead, with the OP choice of words created doubt as to the sincerity of his intentions.

Just because a word may have alternate meanings doesn't justify its use.

I can think of several four letter words that have an infinite number of "street meanings", that have nothing to do with the dictionary meaning.  The usage of those word would not be appropriate.

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

I think such discussions would go much better if people distinguished between what a few members or local leaders said and/or did and what the Church does. I recognize often people assume any leaders is the Church in at least some sense. My annoyance was that broad claims of dishonesty or worse were made despite the church honestly seeming to try their best to prepare people. I don't want to start up the discussion again so I'll not say more than that. I think it's fine to point to things we might wish were different, but also recognize not everyone shares your view and that motives are often difficult to infer.

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Meanwhile, others asserting the contrary engaged in a blatant logical fallacy. 

Why don't we stick to the meaning as expressed in the OP of the thread.

I would assume that poster would be the authority to appeal to.

"Inspired by the 1940 and 1944 films “Gas Light,” where a husband systematically manipulates his wife in order to make her feel crazy, the term “Gaslighting” is now commonly used to describe behavior that is inherently manipulative."

right there it says what inspired the phrase, and what people think of when they think of the phrase.  The second part expands the meaning in the first part, but it certainly does not replace it.

I want to violate Goodwin's law early in this thread so I will use the following example

I can't refer a "soup Nazi" without taking the original meaning of the word out of the definition. 

Even though a soup Nazi probably has nothing to do with the National Socialist German Workers Party, you can't say the word without its association with world war 2 Germany and it's leader.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why don't we stick to the meaning as expressed in the OP of the thread.

I would assume that poster would be the authority to appeal to.

"Inspired by the 1940 and 1944 films “Gas Light,” where a husband systematically manipulates his wife in order to make her feel crazy, the term “Gaslighting” is now commonly used to describe behavior that is inherently manipulative."

right there it says what inspired the phrase, and what people think of when they think of the phrase.  The second part expands the meaning in the first part, but it certainly does not replace it.

I want to violate Goodwin's law early in this thread so I will use the following example

I can't refer a "soup Nazi" without taking the original meaning of the word out of the definition. 

Even though a soup Nazi probably has nothing to do with the National Socialist German Workers Party, you can't say the word without its association with world war 2 Germany and it's leader.

Do you think anyone would confuse someone you call a "soup Nazi" with a literal Nazi party member? Really? I don't think so.

In any case, I'm not sure why we have a new thread talking about an old thread that was shut down. I used the word "gaslight" with the definition I included, as it was defined as "inherently manipulative". People can disagree with the usage. That's fine. That's what the thread came to be focused on...the word, instead of the behavior. That was too bad.

What that thread was not, nor will this thread be, I hope, is about Danzo. Stop trying to make everything about you by saying things like...

Quote

The claim "That is not what i meant" only make it seem like a cheap shot at all of the members who participate in such ordinances.  

IIRC- my OP on the other thread specifically stated that I sometimes "feel"... Saying I feel a way doesn't accuse you or anyone else of some terrible crime.

To the point of the OP on this thread, ie. why can't we give each other the benefit of the doubt, posts like yours kind of illustrate why that doesn't work out in many cases. You said...

Quote

 I could have been a very different discussion that illuminated and expanded knowledge and understanding, but instead, with the OP choice of words created doubt as to the sincerity of his intentions.

I think this is a good point. It's hard to have discussions with people when you doubt the sincerity of their intentions from the start. Whether or not the OP was to blame for creating that doubt is another issue. But if we want to have conversations there has to be a minimal level of trust that the person means what he says instead. But accusing individuals on the board is seldom helpful.

 

[probablyHagoth7]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think a serious mistake was made when the OP decided to take a legitimate discussion about when/if/how certain covenants were made and decide to put a term that implies a strong degree of psychological abuse.  

Merely implying psychological abuse, in and of itself, somehow makes a previously-legitimate conversation illegitimate? 

How so?

When the peace and welfare of many in and out of the church are at stake? Your bizarre assertion bring to mind a parallel assertion by a high priest of the pre-Christian roman empire:
"We have even ventured on the ocean itself in these parts. Pillars of Hercules, so rumour commonly says, still exist; whether Hercules really visited the country, or whether we have agreed to ascribe every work of grandeur, wherever met with, to his renown. Drusus Germanicus indeed did not lack daring; but the ocean barred the explorer's access to itself and to Hercules. Subsequently no one has made the attempt, and it has been thought more pious and reverential to believe in the actions of the gods than to inquire."

Since when is ongoing ignorance bliss?

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The claim "That is not what i meant" only make it seem like a cheap shot at all of the members who participate in such ordinances.  

? But he made a valid point. If that point makes you uncomfortable/defensive, it merits further discussion. See it through. Lance the issue. Don't merely bandaid it over and pretend it ain't a raging boil.

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It could have been a very different discussion that illuminated and expanded knowledge and understanding, but instead, with the OP choice of words created doubt as to the sincerity of his intentions.

1. He chooses a word that takes you outside your preferred comfort zone.

2. And that supposedly provides cause to doubt *his* sincerity? Seriously?

Instead of shooting the messenger, why not be open and honest, and say "he isn't stroking my preferred opinion, and that makes me uncomfortable."?

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just because a word may have alternate meanings doesn't justify its use.

Balderdash.

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I can think of several four letter words that have an infinite number of "street meanings", that have nothing to do with the dictionary meaning.  The usage of those word would not be appropriate.

*THE* dictionary meaning? Come now. Mere fable. Dictionaries rarely offer a single meaning. Most dictionaries instead offer a spectrum of different meanings. Since when is common usage *not* a valid means of communication?

And your reference to 4-letter words simply confirms that your real objection is that you opted to take offense...where none was intended.

You guys are *seriously* shifting the goalposts here, and are engaging in a surprising amount of sleight-of-hand.

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[bluebell]

I think the board is in a place right now where there are a lot of posters who automatically doubt the sincerity and intentions of other posters before they say anything, and that's causing drama.

Hopefully things will settle down but it will probably take everyone resetting their expectations and being a little bit more neutral in posting style for a while.

 

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

*THE* dictionary meaning? Come now. Mere fable. Dictionaries rarely offer a single meaning. Most dictionaries instead offer a spectrum of different meanings. Since when is common usage *not* a valid means of communication?

Dictionaries are also not a good source for how a word is used in a particular setting. At best they give common uses. Almost always though anyone using a word has some nuance to how they use in in a particular setting.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think such discussions would go much better if people distinguished between what a few members or local leaders said and/or did and what the Church does. I recognize often people assume any leaders is the Church in at least some sense. My annoyance was that broad claims of dishonesty or worse were made despite the church honestly seeming to try their best to prepare people. I don't want to start up the discussion again so I'll not say more than that. I think it's fine to point to things we might wish were different, but also recognize not everyone shares your view and that motives are often difficult to infer.

In my post above,  I suggest the possibility of systemic tendencies to simulate gaslighting due to typical church practices, which don't necessarily need arise out of ill intent. Sometimes a system behaves like a heartless beast, a beast that has no collective awareness of the damage. This can happen even if the participants are wonderful, beautiful people.

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Balderdash.

 

Poppycock 

[probablyHagoth7]

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think such discussions would go much better if people distinguished between what a few members or local leaders said and/or did and what the Church does. 

? The former is *precisely* what I contributed. More than once.

So why imply that such a degree of fairness didn't happen?

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I recognize often people assume any leaders is the Church in at least some sense. 

I certainly didn't make that assumption/assertion.

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My annoyance was that broad claims of dishonesty or worse were made despite the church honestly seeming to try their best to prepare people.

I made no such broad claims. Instead, I emphasized the limited scope, and at least two of us emphasized the overall good of the church.

With that context, are there serious grounds to be/remain annoyed? If I've offended people, I would very much like to know.

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In my post above,  I suggest the possibility of systemic tendencies to simulate gaslighting due to typical church practices, which don't necessarily need arise out of ill intent. Sometimes a system behaves like a heartless beast, a beast that has no collective awareness of the damage. This can happen even if the participants are wonderful, beautiful people.

So we are all a bunch of wonderful, beautiful people, with no collective awareness, happily, and without ill intent going about our business gaslighting each other and generally behaving like a heartless beast.

Good to know.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC- my OP on the other thread specifically stated that I sometimes "feel"... Saying I feel a way doesn't accuse you or anyone else of some terrible crime.

IIRC your OP on the other thread specifically stated, "The church is not alone in its gaslighting of members. It happens in many aspects of life, but it feels like a personal betrayal when it is realized. Can anyone think of other examples of gaslighting in the church?"

Which is why I participated as little as I did!

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

? The former is *precisely* what I contributed. More than once.

I wasn't referring to you that I recall. But again given the prior thread was closed it's probably not worth getting into the details. 

I do think the evidence even for the more limited claims was wanting, but again it's probably not wise to revisit that. I'd completely agree that people can feel a certain way and we have to deal with their feelings regardless of whether we think them a fair interpretation. Likewise while I think the Church is trying to prepare people I'd be the first to admit we could do better. But there are a lot of tradeoffs when you're preparing lesson manuals for people who often aren't terribly well educated and want everything simple and short. Throw in the fact you have to deal with teachers with a pretty wide range of capabilities and it gets hard quickly.

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So we are all a bunch of wonderful, beautiful people, with no collective awareness, happily, and without ill intent going about our business gaslighting each other and generally behaving like a heartless beast.

Good to know.

Well, yes, it happens. But it's not just Mormons. Humans in general can be heartless when seen as a collective mass, without being aware of damage they inflict and without wishing or intending harm. 

This is part of collective human nature. The more we're aware of it, the more we can do better.

[probablyHagoth7]

Partially amazed that few here wish to constructively engage in a frank discussion of gaslighting...for mutual improvement, but prefer instead to take offense, circle wagons, and openly question the sincerity/sanity of those willing to engage.

Do those preferring the latter, rather than engaging & resolving issues, think that dismissing expressed concerns will evaporate such issues?

(Hint: Dismissiveness, instead of active listening, tends to make things worse, not better, for everyone involved.)

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 

Balderdash.

 

25 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Poppycock 

Rigmarole

[Danzo]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Well, yes, it happens. But it's not just Mormons. Humans in general can be heartless when seen as a collective mass, without being aware of damage they inflict and without wishing or intending harm. 

This is part of collective human nature. The more we're aware of it, the more we can do better.

Good to know what you really think of us.

I know you put in a qualification that you that that badly of others as well and that is supposed to make us feel better.

I think this illustrates nicely the complete lack of respect that some on the board feel for members of the church.