Good Faith Discussions

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Who decides the legitimacy? And guess what, that adaptability should be expected from both sides.

References that support it.  If you can find references on the internet to support the use of the term, then it's legitimate.  That's all I meant.  

I'm not sure what you mean by 'adaptability'.  You'll have to clarify.

Quote

 

I adapted several times in the gaslighting thread only to become a subject of someone's aggressive, personally-directed ire. 

Misunderstandings can occur, but the conduct in that thread that generally agreed with the OP was mild. It seemed to me that the reaction from some who disagreed was that of attempting to remove all legitimacy from the OP and then shaming those who sympathized with it.

 

If you feel like posters aren't following board rules, then you need to report them.  The mods don't generally police threads, they've said in the past that they respond to reports.

Other than that, I think it was pretty clear on the other thread that posters on both sides felt they were being shamed by the other.  That's just the way it is sometimes.  

Quote

There are many, many ways to resolve conflict and many can even happen if a term used is somewhat vague. There are ways for caring people to work with the term and use it provisionally,  or offer alternates, rather than roadblocking the conversation for everyone.

Yes, but that puts the needs of one group above another.  It can just as easily be said that 'there are ways to choose words so that people feel cared for rather than roadblocking the conversation so a pet definition can be used.'

It's not 'resolving conflict' if only one group's needs matter.

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My take on the issue....is that some have passed through some unpleasant experiences with the church and called it g__________.  That made some defenders defensive.

Here's the crux: No one can *make* another person *feel* an emotion like offended or defensive *without*  that person's assent/permission. A link provided earlier in an unrelated thread makes that a bit more clear, even more so with Elder Bednar's talk on being offended.

That doesn't mean one doesn't have the option to take offense or feel defensive...if that's one's preference. But such a reaction isn't one's only option. When it comes to taking offense or getting defensive...is there no other way? Um, yes, there is another/better way. Agency. Empowerment. 

Do I care about people feeling such emotion. Of course. Otherwise I wouldn't suggest a valuable solution.

An unwillingness to engage within *that* sphere of reality/truth is what's granting us zero traction to move beyond tar-baby discussions of subjective emotion towards rational resolution of the much larger concern.   

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Former member wants validation for feeling the way he/she does and for his/her choices to leave....

Or, a majority of vocal board participants demand validation for taking offense and/or becoming defensive, and are holding *this* thread hostage, refusing to let the discussion proceed, until that demand is met. So here it is: "you are free to choose whatever emotiional responses you deem to be in the best interests of building Zion." May we now proceed? Please? 

As to validation, I don't need other church members or board members to hear, understand, agree with, or validate *my* choices or my feelings. I don't need mortal approbation. I can't speak to what others want, but  I simply want my family/home restored. Playing country music backward has yet to provide the promised result. :0)

I want *none* to experience what I (and those I deeply love) have patiently endured. I want the church to be a more effective haven. I want to see Zion arise.  Selfish stuff like that. ;0)

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't know if there is a resolution to the problem. 

Would only be true if your definition of the problem was accurate. It isn't. Please reconsider my earliest response in *this* post. 

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

...Also, maybe member should not feel that he/she is being attacked for something former member claimed the church did as an organization....

N/A. Haven't claimed the church/organization attacked me. That said, if there *is* a KickMe sign on my back, I would appreciate someone letting me know (or silently removing it). ;0)

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

...maybe at least we can wait a few minutes prior to responding so as to keep it as civil as possible?

Waited. Patiently.

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

References that support it.  If you can find references on the internet to support the use of the term, then it's legitimate.  That's all I meant.  

I'm not sure what you mean by 'adaptability'.  You'll have to clarify.

If you feel like posters aren't following board rules, then you need to report them.  The mods don't generally police threads, they've said in the past that they respond to reports.

Other than that, I think it was pretty clear on the other thread that posters on both sides felt they were being shamed by the other.  That's just the way it is sometimes.  

Yes, but that puts the needs of one group above another.  It can just as easily be said that 'there are ways to choose words so that people feel cared for rather than roadblocking the conversation so a pet definition can be used.'

It's not 'resolving conflict' if only one group's needs matter.

Allowing a provisional or vaguely-defined term does consider groups' not just one group's needs: by saying "not quite x," no one gets what they want, but a way to proceed is created.

By adaptability, there's usually more than one hill that people may choose to stand on, not just the one word in the case of that thread.

For example,

I stepped away from the term in question with some posters.

If I remember correctly, the OP respected the need for credibility and took the time to back up the claim with their own personal experience.

And with another poster, I granted that the term didn't necessarily apply to their actions.  It seems to me that, in turn, when such a clarification is made, that the other could adapt by stepping away somewhat from defensiveness. Mutual concessions, backing down, provisional terms: just a few among infinite forms of adaptability in a disagreement.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Minos]

15 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Hello BlueDreams! wow you are beautiful! Wanna go on a date with me ?

I am attractive and I haven't played video games in years I promise. 

This is sexual harrassment in real life. We don't have a different standard The poster has been suspended.

 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And with another poster, I granted that the term didn't necessarily apply to their actions.  It seems to me that, in turn, when such a clarification is made, that the other could adapt by stepping away somewhat from defensiveness. Mutual concessions, backing down, provisional terms: just a few among infinite forms of adaptability in a disagreement.

I agree.  But since we can't control other posters, we ultimately have to either report bad behavior or let it go.  It's not at all easy to do sometimes and i fail at it as often as i succeed.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

References that support it.  If you can find references on the internet to support the use of the term, then it's legitimate.

Took me less than 10 seconds to find....days ago. 

And for those with itchy finger on CFR:  google.com :0)  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 ...it was pretty clear on the other thread that posters on both sides felt they were being shamed by the other.  

I don't recall feeling shamed. (Was I supposed to?)

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that puts the needs of one group above another.

*Two* separate groups. ?

We're either *one* and thereby Christ's, or we're not.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It can just as easily be said that 'there are ways to choose words so that people feel cared for...

Offender for word choice? Can we *please* move beyond that? People *are* cared for. Deeply. More than most might imagine. Otherwise many would have been led to retreat completely...years ago.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's not 'resolving conflict' if only one group's needs matter.

Again, we are either one, or we're kidding ourselves.

That said, which specific needs do you feel haven't been granted due merit?

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  But since we can't control other posters, we ultimately have to either report bad behavior or let it go.  It's not at all easy to do sometimes and i fail at it as often as i succeed.

I might let it go in that moment, as in stop engaging the person, but I might still talk about it if it's relevant. 

Internet boards have taught me a lot over the years. Like you, I fail too. Sometimes I learn the most from my failure. Once I learned how fast I could start a flame war by posting when I had the flu:

Once upon a time, it was a sleepy Saturday morning in 2007....

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Meadowchik

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

First, on this board, no one is allowed to create their own definitions of words.  They must be able to support their use with references if it comes down to it.  

Earnest question why would narrowing or expanding a definition be problematic on this board so long as one is clear that one is doing so? It's certainly not a problem in scholarship. I'm not saying people should do it willy-nilly. There should be reasons. And if people are misinterpreting it behooves the writer to explain and possibly switch terms. But I don't quite understand why you'd object.

Quote

If it's a legitimate use of the term then it should be easy to find references to support the way the person is trying to use it.

But if I explain how I am using it, doesn't that count as a reference? For instance in the post I linked to the question was the term "faith." Clearly it was being used in a related yet idiosyncratic sense. I certainly have no problem with that. I didn't quite understand his point, which is always the danger. However I have no problem simply asking for explanation. To do that he provided a quote that didn't use the term in question. Seems like the way dialog is supposed to work.

Quote

Second, if there is a disagreement about what a word means (not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement), a dictionary (or other references) is a valid way (on this board) to settle the issue.

Disagreement in what sense though? If we're talking about how to read a text then that is explicitly a logical fallacy. 

Quote

To use a sports analogy (I am not at all sporty but i'll see if this works), it becomes a kind of an unspoken 'no blood, no foul' situation where everyone tacitly agrees with the limits that have been set, whether they are 'regulation' or not, so it works.  When disagreement arises and the game comes to a halt because of it, then regulation rules come into play and are a valid way to decide how to move forward. 

Except that in the case in question relative to the term that can't be mentioned that agreement wasn't there. Even though I disagreed vehemently with the person using the term, I understood what they meant. I certainly had no trouble with them using the term. Judging by the upvotes for the comments mentioning my objections to dictionary attacks on it, many agreed with me too. So I'm just not sure there's board consensus on this point to the degree you assert.

Don't get me wrong. Personally I don't have trouble using whatever terminology people want. I try and do my best to explain things, even if perhaps the common criticism is I explain too much. But if others do it differently I don't mind that either.

[ttribe]

On 5/10/2017 at 11:10 AM, 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. 

 

 

This post, in a thread about good faith discussions...

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Earnest question why would narrowing or expanding a definition be problematic on this board so long as one is clear that one is doing so? It's certainly not a problem in scholarship. I'm not saying people should do it willy-nilly. There should be reasons. And if people are misinterpreting it behooves the writer to explain and possibly switch terms. But I don't quite understand why you'd object.

But if I explain how I am using it, doesn't that count as a reference? For instance in the post I linked to the question was the term "faith." Clearly it was being used in a related yet idiosyncratic sense. I certainly have no problem with that. I didn't quite understand his point, which is always the danger. However I have no problem simply asking for explanation. To do that he provided a quote that didn't use the term in question. Seems like the way dialog is supposed to work.

Disagreement in what sense though? If we're talking about how to read a text then that is explicitly a logical fallacy. 

Except that in the case in question relative to the term that can't be mentioned that agreement wasn't there. Even though I disagreed vehemently with the person using the term, I understood what they meant. I certainly had no trouble with them using the term. Judging by the upvotes for the comments mentioning my objections to dictionary attacks on it, many agreed with me too. So I'm just not sure there's board consensus on this point to the degree you assert.

Don't get me wrong. Personally I don't have trouble using whatever terminology people want. I try and do my best to explain things, even if perhaps the common criticism is I explain too much. But if others do it differently I don't mind that either.

I think many people feel that words have power and that misusing words (using them to mean something that they don't generally mean) lessens the legitimacy of the word overall.  It can also trivialize serious accusations.  

For example, if we started making up definitions for rape and using it to describe things that have nothing to do with sexual assault, many people believe that that does a disservice to people who have actually been raped.  I've seen people label such a thing as irresponsible and argue that it's desensitizing people to the horrors of actual rape.  

It's like when you hear a teenager complain that homework is abusive.  Yeah, they are just trying to be funny and also express how much they dislike homework (for whatever reasons) but it co-ops a very serious word and changes it to mean 'having to do something you don't want to do.'  It makes light of the experiences of people who have actually been abused and makes it easier for abusers to justify abuse.  Kind of a 'if homework is abusive then being called abusive must not be that bad' situation.  

Or when people use the word 'gay' to mean bad.  That's another example of why expanding definitions of words can be problematic on this board (and other places too).  It doesn't make any difference if the person is clear on doing it or what their justifications were, it's still something that many people would object to.  

We make think such a thing couldn't possibly make a difference since we're rational, thinking beings, but when we hear words used over and over again out of context of the original meaning, it does affect us and it affects how we view that word and what the word symbolizes.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Took me less than 10 seconds to find....days ago. 

And for those with itchy finger on CFR:  google.com :0)  

I don't recall feeling shamed. (Was I supposed to?)

*Two* separate groups. ?

We're either *one* and thereby Christ's, or we're not.

Offender for word choice? Can we *please* move beyond that? People *are* cared for. Deeply. More than most might imagine. Otherwise many would have been led to retreat completely...years ago.

Again, we are either one, or we're kidding ourselves.

That said, which specific needs do you feel haven't been granted due merit?

I'm sorry PH, i'm not seeing how this reply to me is really relevant to the context of my post.  

• I wasn't talking about a specific word.
• In the context of my post it's reasonable to refer to two groups who are in disagreement as two separate groups.   
• I never said you felt shamed and wasn't talking about you.
• Not everyone feels cared for, as meadowchik and others have implied.
• I wasn't addressing any specific needs but was speaking in generalities. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Earnest question why would narrowing or expanding a definition be problematic on this board so long as one is clear that one is doing so? It's certainly not a problem in scholarship. I'm not saying people should do it willy-nilly. There should be reasons. 

 

Words have meaning. (I do have some professional credentials when it comes to language.) So it is problematic when someone takes a well known word like gaslighting (that is what started all this) and uses it in an irresponsible way that does not acknowledge the accepted and, yes, dictionary meaning. And then play innocent after they have maligned a group of people by ascribing a malicious psychological disorder to them. 

Again, scholarship is not applicable to this. No one in scholarship merely announces a term means something else and demands everyone else accept it. In fact, the more unusual the application is the more foundation will be laid. And that is not a throw away demand that another definition is irrelevant just because. It is supported.

[probablyHagoth7]

My overall assessment of this thread:

Edited May 12, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Guest]

On May 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM, 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). 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.

 

You make a very good point(s) here, and my guess that your comment about how we all do it, and that you do it, will doubt be ignored by the offending person(s). The truth is, words have meaning, and that means something to many but not all. Also, as someone else pointed out people carry baggage, all people. But with some (it seems of late) what is carried in those bags are hammers and nails, in an effort to nail, The Church, those who disagree and even Christ anew to the cross as a sacrifice. It is heartbreaking, but it is just an attempt to crush debate. You should post more, you should start threads more, as this thread addresses a real problem...it is also well thought out. 

Thank You

[probablyHagoth7]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Words have meaning. (I do have some professional credentials when it comes to language.) So it is problematic when someone takes a well known word like gaslighting (that is what started all this) and uses it in an irresponsible way that does not acknowledge the...meaning.

Dictionary. Completely. Encompasses. Both. Meanings.

I have tried. Patiently. Repeatedly.  For years.

I wish each of you well.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Minos said:

This is sexual harrassment in real life. We don't have a different standard The poster has been suspended.

 

Thank you.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 hours ago, Minos said:

This is sexual harrassment in real life. We don't have a different standard The poster has been suspended.

 

Sexual harassment might be a little strong. I've represented both sides on these cases and I don't think telling someone they are beautiful and asking that person out on a date, one time, is harassment under the legal definition. Nevertheless, this isn't a dating site and suspending was the right move.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You make a very good point(s) here, and my guess that your comment about how we all do it, and that you do it, will doubt be ignored by the offending person(s). The truth is, words have meaning, and that means something to many but not all. Also, as someone else pointed out people carry baggage, all people. But with some (it seems of late) what is carried in those bags are hammers and nails, in an effort to nail, The Church, those who disagree and even Christ anew to the cross as a sacrifice. It is heartbreaking, but it is just an attempt to crush debate. You should post more, you should start threads more, as this thread addresses a real problem...it is also well thought out. 

Thank You

Does it even occur to you what you just said?

You just implied that people on this board through posting are trying to renew Christ's agony on the cross.

Such statements do not seem like a healthy approach to disagreement. 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sexual harassment might be a little strong. I've represented both sides on these cases and I don't think telling someone they are beautiful and asking that person out on a date, one time, is harassment under the legal definition. Nevertheless, this isn't a dating site and suspending was the right move.

It puzzled me.  When I first read the post I thought it was awkward, but meant both as a compliment for the manner in which she wrote her posts - it did not make sense to me that it was addressing a physical attribute given the state of the Forum itself, and then ended in silly humor and a play on his own moniker.

Perceptions can be so vastly different from person to person.  I thought a suspension was too strong when a simple warning would have slapped him back in line.  On the other hand, a suspension costs nothing and does not produce a great loss.  

I appreciate your comments, Pete, I was beginning to think I had absolutely no understanding of what is and what is not sexual harassment.  

[BlueDreams]

52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It puzzled me.  When I first read the post I thought it was awkward, but meant both as a compliment for the manner in which she wrote her posts - it did not make sense to me that it was addressing a physical attribute given the state of the Forum itself, and then ended in silly humor and a play on his own moniker.

Perceptions can be so vastly different from person to person.  I thought a suspension was too strong when a simple warning would have slapped him back in line.  On the other hand, a suspension costs nothing and does not produce a great loss.  

I appreciate your comments, Pete, I was beginning to think I had absolutely no understanding of what is and what is not sexual harassment.  

There's a link in my post that has a short blurb about my work and has my picture. He wasn't talking about my manner of writing, he was talking about my physical face. I was hesitant to post it, because I usually get someone commenting on my looks when there's a picture of me available. I don't mind a random compliment, but I get nervous about that online because it's a short walk to unsolicited attention or solicitations that I wasn't asking for. Personally for me MVG's post was creepy.  Not in a nervous way, just in a sense that MVG doesn't know me, we tend to very much disagree or have opposite views on things, and the only thing he honed in on was my looks. I was just choosing to ignore it but that's not ok. 

The internet (like life) is a little different for a woman. It's a quick slippery slope from jokes to harassment. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Words have meaning. (I do have some professional credentials when it comes to language.) So it is problematic when someone takes a well known word like gaslighting (that is what started all this) and uses it in an irresponsible way that does not acknowledge the accepted and, yes, dictionary meaning. And then play innocent after they have maligned a group of people by ascribing a malicious psychological disorder to them. 

Again, scholarship is not applicable to this. No one in scholarship merely announces a term means something else and demands everyone else accept it. In fact, the more unusual the application is the more foundation will be laid. And that is not a throw away demand that another definition is irrelevant just because. It is supported.

Words do indeed have meaning. 

Look at the OP of that thread, which described a common occurance in the church, where members or leaders say something that did happen did not happen, and then imply that those thinking otherwise are being deceived by Satan.  Telling someone that believing the truth is Satanic, rather than just reasonable and honest, is abusive. It's also calling their perception of reality, their sanity, into question.

There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting.

Maybe that explains the uproar.

Ignoring this strong possibility, shooing it away in mock outcry will not make it untrue. The problem persists.

Some took advantage of the good will of posters willing, for the sake of argument, to back away from the term.

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/10/2017 at 9:38 PM, Calm said:

Oh yes, that is Bluedreams.

And Juliann can confirm that I am me.

And I can confirm her reality since we are one, after all.

You all contain multitudes, I'm sure!

Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!!!!!!

[Cue thunder.]

What?  

Oh.  Sorry.  

Carry on!  

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Words do indeed have meaning. 

Look at the OP of that thread, which described a common occurance in the church, where members or leaders say something that did happen did not happen, and then imply that those thinking otherwise are being deceived by Satan.  Telling someone that believing the truth is Satanic, rather than just reasonable and honest, is abusive. It's also calling their perception of reality, their sanity, into question. 

I looked at the OP of that thread again after reading your comment because of what your were stating was said. I didn't remember it that strongly worded. I focused more on the term gaslighting in my responses there, but I also disagree with the examples he used, their interpretation, and his conclusions with them. To stay away from making this another extension of that thread, there's a problem with the ridiculously loose interpretation of the term in the OP. Insomuch that it can create a double bind. If I disagree adamantly, state that's not what I experience in the church, and that's not an accurate interpretation but his perception of his experiences (all of which, I believe)....I could equally fall into the uber-loose reinterpretation of the term. That's a problem. It means I can't really push back on what's being said if I accept his word use. Similarly, I wouldn't be able to question your words here even though I find them highly inaccurate and hyperbolic. Doing so could be considered "abusive," again, based on overly loose interpretations of the words. 

Quote

There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting.

Maybe that explains the uproar.

Ignoring this strong possibility, shooing it away in mock outcry will not make it untrue. The problem persists.

Some took advantage of the good will of posters willing, for the sake of argument, to back away from the term.

 

 I can't speak for everyone on that thread, but that is certainly not the reason that I strongly disagreed. I mentioned my reasons fairly clearly, I believe. And my outcry was definitely not in mock outcry. It's a real, legitimate concern for how psychological terms are being rebranded to fit the hurts people experience in the Church. Instead of illuminating or creating dialogue, it can both inadvertently shut down conversations and lead to a very skewed picture of the church. I am not claiming perfection in the church structure or body and never will, but I'm not willing to simply accept these interpretations of my community, that I am actively apart of. And that in aggregate, paints an ugly picture that can breed prejudice.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 12, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Words do indeed have meaning. 

Look at the OP of that thread, which described a common occurance in the church, where members or leaders say something that did happen did not happen, and then imply that those thinking otherwise are being deceived by Satan.  Telling someone that believing the truth is Satanic, rather than just reasonable and honest, is abusive. It's also calling their perception of reality, their sanity, into question.

There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting.

Maybe that explains the uproar.

Ignoring this strong possibility, shooing it away in mock outcry will not make it untrue. The problem persists.

Some took advantage of the good will of posters willing, for the sake of argument, to back away from the term.

 

Continuing with the way the word 'abusive' has been defined in the other thread, could it be argued that telling someone their negative response to someone else's accusation is 'a mock outcry' and not sincere, and only exists because the accusation is true, abusive?

 

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I looked at the OP of that thread again after reading your comment because of what your were stating was said. I didn't remember it that strongly worded. I focused more on the term gaslighting in my responses there, but I also disagree with the examples he used, their interpretation, and his conclusions with them. To stay away from making this another extension of that thread, there's a problem with the ridiculously loose interpretation of the term in the OP. Insomuch that it can create a double bind. If I disagree adamantly, state that's not what I experience in the church, and that's not an accurate interpretation but his perception of his experiences (all of which, I believe)....I could equally fall into the uber-loose reinterpretation of the term. That's a problem. It means I can't really push back on what's being said if I accept his word use. Similarly, I wouldn't be able to question your words here even though I find them highly inaccurate and hyperbolic. Doing so could be considered "abusive," again, based on overly loose interpretations of the words. 

 I can't speak for everyone on that thread, but that is certainly not the reason that I strongly disagreed. I mentioned my reasons fairly clearly, I believe. And my outcry was definitely not in mock outcry. It's a real, legitimate concern for how psychological terms are being rebranded to fit the hurts people experience in the Church. Instead of illuminating or creating dialogue, it can both inadvertently shut down conversations and lead to a very skewed picture of the church. I am not claiming perfection in the church structure or body and never will, but I'm not willing to simply accept these interpretations of my community, that I am actively apart of. And that in aggregate, paints an ugly picture that can breed prejudice.  

 

With luv,

BD

I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand the intense psychological damage people can experience in the church through gaslighting.  The claim of spiritual authority alone that is pervasive at all levels of the church makes gaslighting more likely: using the "revelation card" to assert a  justposition so that someone will prioritize that revelation over their own perception, and doing this repeatedly, is gaslighting. 

That's just one kind of systemic example. I think very careful leaders work hard to avoid this, but it is unfortunately still common.