Good Faith Discussions

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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.

One problem is that the term "gaslighting" is often used as a cudgel in many political discussions - often to claim certain claims not only are false but are intentionally false in order to confuse things. That is they use the term to accuse people of disinformation designed to intentionally confuse people. I've had the term used against me a few times. It was annoying because it quickly became about labels and not even arguing the facts of the situation.

Now those cases are different from how people were trying to use the term here, but it really is a term not necessarily helpful for discussion. It's kind of like if believers were to use the term "apostate" to refer to former believers. Even if they were to narrow how they were using the term it'd be very hard to avoid those negative connotations. Some terms are just so loaded that they are more unhelpful for discussion than helpful.

Once it becomes clear a word isn't having the effect one wants, it's typically helpful to rephrase ones point using different terms.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Hestia]

The gaslighting thread was locked.  Posters who continue to try to make this thread about that one will be banned from the thread.  

ProbablyHagoth and Danzo, I'm looking at you....

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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. 

 

 

No, it is just a fact of life, Danzo. Good people can do bad things. Do you want to do good things more than you want to think you do good things? Yes?  Then know thyself. The more you know, the more of the bad you might change, and then the more good you can really do.

This is the human condition.

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, 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.

I'd be the first to acknowledge structural problems in organizations and even just groups of people. Often we are just not aware of such structures that go against our own intentions. 

That said (and again without referring to anything in the closed thread) I think not everyone will agree with what are structural problems. Even when there are structural problems often the alternatives have their own costs. Deciding what to do is a matter of tradeoffs. It's important when making structural critiques to be aware of those tradeoffs. Often, especially with large groups, the ideal case is impossible to achieve just due to the inherent makeup of the people constituting the group.

We can, for instance, critique teaching within the church. However if we are going to have a lay ministry with callings fulfilled by whomever is in the ward that means that often teachers aren't great. Typically within any ward you'll only have a few people who are excellent teachers. Often they are needed in other callings. Now we could then say that the church should abandon it's model of a lay ministry with people switching callings. However that has its own tradeoffs.

Again I think it fine to talk about how some people feel given their own experiences. When we move from that to a critique of the church organization itself I think we have to acknowledge the limitations the Church faces. It has to deal with the members it has in particular wards. It has to have lessons that work with the wide range of capabilities both of people in the class and instructors. 

Without discussing anything in the prior thread or anyone here, let me just say that my experience is that critics often aren't willing to really engage with those issues or the inherent tradeoffs. Further even if they'd prefer a different set of tradeoffs I think they don't acknowledge the reasons why others might disagree with them on what tradeoffs to make.

[probablyHagoth7]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

A Tacitus refrain. Twice in the same breath. :0)

If you don't mind me asking, *why* is the latter course of action more wise?

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.

Agreed. 

Taking ownership of choosing to take offense is an extremely effective way of dealing with such feelings, is it not? (Elder Bednar's talk on that principle lifted me out of years of heartache. Hoping others find what he taught empowering/healing too.)

If not, and if there are unintentional offenses I should address, I would very much like to know.

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...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.

Yep. Instructional design is part of my schtick. (Will work on learning proper English later.) ;0)

[probablyHagoth7]

36 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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. 

? I think you completely misunderstood her point.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

If you don't mind me asking, *why* is the latter course of action more wise?

Because the moderators clearly don't want it discussed for whatever reason.

Quote

Taking ownership of choosing to take offense is an extremely effective way of dealing with such feelings, is it not? 

Yes if fully agree, but most people for whatever reason aren't able to do that consistently. I think we have to acknowledge that. Again that Oatmeal comic I linked to his helpful here.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[probablyHagoth7]

24 minutes ago, Hestia said:

ProbablyHagoth and Danzo, I'm looking at you....

Thx. :::waving back:::

[probablyHagoth7]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Because the moderators clearly don't want it discussed for whatever reason.

Tacitus.

35 minutes ago, Hestia said:

The gaslighting thread was locked.  Posters who continue to try to make this thread about that one will be banned from the thread.  .

Kinda makes it challenging to comment on this thread's OP. But  I don't mind a challenge. :0)

[probablyHagoth7]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

One problem is that the term "gaslighting" is often used...to claim certain claims not only are false but are intentionally false...disinformation designed to intentionally confuse people.

Yep. And there are therefore appropriate times to utilize such a word. Agreed?

...annoying because it quickly became about labels and not even arguing the facts of the situation.

Yep. Mebbe, just mebbe, we're beginning to understand one another.

Once it becomes clear a word isn't having the effect one wants, it's typically helpful to rephrase ones point using different terms.

Um, word choice is not really the issue. Can we please be frank about that? (See your previous sentence cited above.)

Based *on this thread*, rephrasing things a similar way would do nothing more than elicit a reaction similar to that seen earlier *in this thread.* :0)

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd be the first to acknowledge structural problems in organizations and even just groups of people. Often we are just not aware of such structures that go against our own intentions. 

That said (and again without referring to anything in the closed thread) I think not everyone will agree with what are structural problems. Even when there are structural problems often the alternatives have their own costs. Deciding what to do is a matter of tradeoffs. It's important when making structural critiques to be aware of those tradeoffs. Often, especially with large groups, the ideal case is impossible to achieve just due to the inherent makeup of the people constituting the group.

We can, for instance, critique teaching within the church. However if we are going to have a lay ministry with callings fulfilled by whomever is in the ward that means that often teachers aren't great. Typically within any ward you'll only have a few people who are excellent teachers. Often they are needed in other callings. Now we could then say that the church should abandon it's model of a lay ministry with people switching callings. However that has its own tradeoffs.

Again I think it fine to talk about how some people feel given their own experiences. When we move from that to a critique of the church organization itself I think we have to acknowledge the limitations the Church faces. It has to deal with the members it has in particular wards. It has to have lessons that work with the wide range of capabilities both of people in the class and instructors. 

Without discussing anything in the prior thread or anyone here, let me just say that my experience is that critics often aren't willing to really engage with those issues or the inherent tradeoffs. Further even if they'd prefer a different set of tradeoffs I think they don't acknowledge the reasons why others might disagree with them on what tradeoffs to make.

It's too bad that the atmosphere here isn't more prone to examining the structure, at the moment.  If you'd be interested in such a thread about unintended consequences of structural issues, and exploring ways to address and mitigate them, I would gladly start one.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's too bad that the atmosphere here isn't more prone to examining the structure, at the moment.  If you'd be interested in such a thread about unintended consequences of structural issues, and exploring ways to address and mitigate them, I would gladly start one.

If the moderators are fine with it I'm definitely fine with it. Especially if the issue of tradeoffs and the inherent limits given who's available for callings is addressed.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Based *on this thread*, rephrasing things a similar way would do nothing more than elicit a reaction similar to that seen earlier *in this thread.* :0)

I don't know if that's true. I honestly think the terminology was a big part of the problem but clearly there were also disagreements on the the content of the claims as well. Certainly that was where my own frustrations laid. But again the moderators don't wish us to continue that discussion so I'll leave it at that.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If the moderators are fine with it I'm definitely fine with it. Especially if the issue of tradeoffs and the inherent limits given who's available for callings is addressed.

Great.  I will ponderize and start one within a day or so.  The delay might help.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

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

Danzo,

The topic of good-faith discussions is pretty relevant to your accusation here.

How can there be a good-faith discussion when some (including you) insist on seeing frank/polite posts only through jaundice-colored glasses?

There was zilch in her post to assume she has "a complete lack of respect...for members of the church." (I'm reasonably sure she respects her son, and she has engaged nicely here with a broad range of members.) If you two have a prior posting history that involved bad blood, I'm hoping we can move beyond that.

As to the assertion that some on the board have a complete lack of respect for church members, in the hopes of getting to the point of good-faith discussion, specifically who else are you referring to?

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

....doubt the sincerity and intentions of other posters...

Which echoes Danzo's recent post.

1. Why is it that some aren't granted the benefit of the doubt...in a discussion *about* good-faith discussions?

2. To help clear the air, who are these "other posters" and why is sincerity/intention questioned? Am I one of them?

[bluebell]

Just now, probablyHagoth7 said:

Which echoes Danzo's recent post.

1. Why is it that some aren't granted the benefit of the doubt...in a discussion *about* good-faith discussions?

2. To help clear the air, who are these "other posters" and why is sincerity/intention questioned? Am I one of them?

1.  There are likely lots of reasons.

We're all human and it's hard to let go of past hurt feelings and/or heated disagreements.  We all present a persona on the board and sometimes that persona isn't one that is easy to trust.  It's also very easy to misjudge tone when reading posts or construct posts that present an unintentional tone.  Sometimes it's because posters in the past haven't been sincere in their motives so we all know it's a possibility.

2.  There's no reason to name any names (besides that, it's probably true of most of us from time to time).

[juliann]

5 hours 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

 

A word definition is not a "feeling." 

As long as a word has a dictionary definition, that is the definition. That a random person "thinks" it is too extreme does not change the meaning of the word. 

There can be no discussion without using designated meanings of words, and that meaning is determined by dictionaries. That is the problem you will have to change, if you see dictionaries as the problem. 

[probablyHagoth7]

Quote

2. To help clear the air, ...why is sincerity/intention questioned? Am I one of them?

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

2.  There's no reason to name any names....

But there is *good* reason.

I've politely asked for direct/frank feedback about *my* standing here.

If your reticence means what it suggests (does it?), I'm quite surprised/disappointed that after almost a decade of online contribution here, hundreds of pages published, thousands of posts, plus other interaction, that I don't merit a frank answer to a simple question.

If your reticence means what it suggests, I encountered a similar situation months ago, where someone who thought they had known me for decades told me to my face that I wished to cause the church serious harm. Blew me away. She obviously didn't know me in the least. I asked who had claimed such a thing, and she wouldn't say where that bag of feathers came from. (The assertion likely traces to an instigator mentioned earlier, who interacts with her more frequently than anyone else does.) Asked her to read a book about the restoration that I had written, and to consider an earlier one of my books that she had read. We later discussed it all, I answered a few frank questions about the church and about my views, and she promptly relinquished her previous assertion.

As far back as 2008, I've been frank with closest friends that I don't consider myself LDS - (although I would prefer to say that I do). And I have been quite open about such in this forum. Last I checked (this month), I am still a member of record, have talked with my local bishop as recently as yesterday, and have no animosity towards the church, but appreciation/respect for it.

By way of full disclosure, it doesn't mean I haven't run into a very small handful of people who opted to make life much more difficult than it needed to be. But people will be people inside or outside of any organization. I read a helpful book on that topic in February.

In my world, true friends/family *will* be frank with friends/family. Perhaps I don't have people here who really consider themselves my friends/family. If so, that would surprise/disappoint me deeply, and my time contributing here may wrap up soon.

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

A word definition is not a "feeling." 

As long as a word has a dictionary definition, that is the definition. That a random person "thinks" it is too extreme does not change the meaning of the word. 

There can be no discussion without using designated meanings of words, and that meaning is determined by dictionaries. That is the problem you will have to change, if you see dictionaries as the problem. 

Dictionaries are tools that reflect the generally accepted usage of a word at a certain point according to certain rules, not the other way around. 'Silly' used to mean blessed or worthy, but certainly doesn't anymore. Language is inherently fluid and is hard to pin down. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

There can be no discussion without using designated meanings of words, and that meaning is determined by dictionaries. That is the problem you will have to change, if you see dictionaries as the problem. 

I don't think you understand how dictionaries work. In college appealing to a dictionary definition will quickly get you a bad grade and a lot of red ink on your paper. This particular error is listed in most lists of logical fallacies. Although surprisingly it doesn't have a common name despite being a common problem in freshman papers -- although many see it as a subtype of the fallacy of appeal to authority. I should note not all appeals to authority are fallacious of course and likewise not all use of dictionaries are fallacious.

Dictionaries don't determine meanings. Rather they report major uses. Those uses change with time which is why a dictionary from 2017 won't have entries the same as a dictionary from 1957. When analyzing any argument the dictionary meaning might give you a starting point for your exegesis of the argument but is not trustworthy to determine how a word is used in a particular instance. Nor does it normatively determine how a word should be used. In particular specialists almost always use words in narrow unique ways. (Philosophy is particularly egregious at that)

Without addresses that particular word in question, which the moderators clearly want dropped, I'd just say that it's extremely common to take a word with a common use and then narrow that meaning down for the sake of discussion. Without the ability to do that we'd have to repeat our qualification of the term every time we use the term. That'd quickly become unwieldy. The typical approach is to discuss what we mean early in our text and then use the word we relate to that as we continue. So, to give an example, a Mormon apologist using the word "translate" clearly means it in a more expansive sense than "a person knowing two languages rendering the meaning of a text in one language into the other." They might appeal to 19th century dictionaries to note that when Joseph Smith uses the term he's actually reflecting one of the senses in the early 19th century. But when they use the term throughout the paper they don't repeat all those qualifications.

Now of course we can dispute the meanings of words. But when we do this we can't merely appeal to a dictionary. We have to appeal to the text in question and the use it's put to there.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

7 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 include at times.

I've been thinking about this topic and I've heard you use the term "good faith" before, MM, when referring to a post here or a thread.  I have a sincere question for you and I'm not trying to be naive but really want to know. 

When you use "good faith discussion", do you mean only discussions that are in favor of the church or leaders (supportive with no doubts expressed, issues, or questions)?  Or do you just mean that the person needs to be honest in broaching a topic or starting a thread regarding wanting answers or having problems with some teachings, leaders, or other issues?

I think that HJW was doing the later (if that applies to your definition).  I believe he was expressing some of his past experiences or feelings/issues to discuss.

I really didn't know what the term meant that he used and learned about it on that thread.  I think some of the definition fit, but not the extremes in a behavior applied to it.  Maybe the word "manipulate" would have been a better choice to describe what HJW meant?

But even if he'd used another term, would you still feel the thread wasn't a "good faith discussion" because it was questioning or doubting some behaviors or procedures within the church?

Edited May 10, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 

But there is *good* reason.

I've politely asked for direct/frank feedback about *my* standing here.

If your reticence means what it suggests (does it?), I'm quite surprised/disappointed that after almost a decade of online contribution here, hundreds of pages published, thousands of posts, plus other interaction, that I don't merit a frank answer to a simple question.

If your reticence means what it suggests, I encountered a similar situation months ago, where someone who thought they had known me for decades told me to my face that I wished to cause the church serious harm. Blew me away. She obviously didn't know me in the least. I asked who had claimed such a thing, and she wouldn't say where that bag of feathers came from. (The assertion likely traces to an instigator mentioned earlier, who interacts with her more frequently than anyone else does.) Asked her to read a book about the restoration that I had written, and to consider an earlier one of my books that she had read. We later discussed it all, I answered a few frank questions about the church and about my views, and she promptly relinquished her previous assertion.

As far back as 2008, I've been frank with closest friends that I don't consider myself LDS - (although I would prefer to say that I do). And I have been quite open about such in this forum. Last I checked (this month), I am still a member of record, have talked with my local bishop as recently as yesterday, and have no animosity towards the church, but appreciation/respect for it.

By way of full disclosure, it doesn't mean I haven't run into a very small handful of people who opted to make life much more difficult than it needed to be. But people will be people inside or outside of any organization. I read a helpful book on that topic in February.

In my world, true friends/family *will* be frank with friends/family. Perhaps I don't have people here who really consider themselves my friends/family. If so, that would surprise/disappoint me deeply, and my time contributing here may wrap up soon.

No I wasn't talking about you. 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've been thinking about this topic and I've heard you use the term "good faith" before, MM, when referring to a post here or a thread.  I have a sincere question for you and I'm not trying to be naive but really want to know. 

When you use "good faith discussion", do you mean only discussions that are in favor of the church or leaders (supportive with no doubts expressed, issues, or questions)?  Or do you just mean that the person needs to be honest in broaching a topic or starting a thread regarding wanting answers or having problems with some teachings, leaders, or other issues?

I think that HJW was doing the later (if that applies to your definition).  I believe he was expressing some of his past experiences or feelings/issues to discuss.

I really didn't know what the term meant that he used and learned about it on that thread.  I think some of the definition fit, but not the extremes in a behavior applied to it.  Maybe the word "manipulate" would have been a better choice to describe what HJW meant?

But even if he'd used another term, would you still feel the thread wasn't a "good faith discussion" because it was questioning or doubting some behaviors or procedures within the church?

Manipulation is very relevant.

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think you understand how dictionaries work. 

 

Actually, I do. 

I also understand how message board debates work. There has to be accepted usage if meaning is disputed. That is why we have a CFR. You may not want the dictionary but you do have to come up with something besides "feelings" or "no it doesn't."  Generally, in short post debates, the dictionary will work. Not too many of us do term papers that we are turning into profs. (Who also required standard English last I was involved.)