Good Faith Discussions

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

 

That applied specifically to the poster who I was talking to: imo it was fair given her commentary there.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

 

 

No, it is borrowed phrase I once heard about how when we fail to be truly Christian, we "sacafice Christ anew". 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

There you go again. Accusing us doing terrible things to each other.

That first sentence is the perfect example,  convicted with out a trial. No possibility for any error on your part. You are surprised that we just can't see what we are doing to ourselves.

And of course, you must be correct. You have defined any word you are using to mean whatever behaviour you are describing.

What does x mean? Why whatever it was I was describing, so it is impossible for me to be wrong, stop invalidating me.

Since the word means anything you want it to, there cannot be any discussion about it and we are all pronounced guilty.  Posts become viewed as  rants instead of meaningful dialogue.

Hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who thinks you are an abuser.

 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There you go again. Accusing us doing terrible things to each other.

That first sentence is the perfect example,  convicted with out a trial. No possibility for any error on your part. You are surprised that we just can't see what we are doing to ourselves.

And of course, you must be correct. You have defined any word you are using to mean whatever behaviour you are describing.

What does x mean? Why whatever it was I was describing, so it is impossible for me to be wrong, stop invalidating me.

Since the word means anything you want it to, there cannot be any discussion about it and we are all pronounced guilty.  Posts become viewed as  rants instead of meaningful dialogue.

Hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who thinks you are an abuser.

 

Go ahead and actually argue the concept itself, instead of saying it shouldn't be up for debate.

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

No, it is borrowed phrase I once heard about how when we fail to be truly Christian, we "sacafice Christ anew". 

I grew up in the Bible Belt,  I've heard it. You used it.

[Danzo]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Go ahead and actually argue the concept itself, instead of saying it shouldn't be up for debate.

The topic of the thread is how to have a good faith discussion. I will try to limit my discussion to that topic. It's what was requested by the moderator. 

I am just pointing out why I feel that you might not seem to be making good faith discussion.  

 

[clarkgoble]

8 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.

I think the moderators want to topic dropped. I'll just say many of us strongly disagree with the argument this is going on. And I say that as someone fine with the terms used.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That applied specifically to the poster who I was talking to: imo it was fair given her commentary there.

But what if others disagree?  What if others sincerely believe that putting words into people's mouths and essentially assigning them motives and feelings they did not assign themselves is abusive?  

[RevTestament]

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

So Moses and Jesus and all the prophets are "gaslighters" because they assert to give us the word of God - Jesus did claim to be our Master and to give us the word of God directly from the Father. Pardon me, but you seem just to have a problem with authority. Is there "potential" for manipulation in the Church - sure there is. There is that potential for every sect. You say you grew up in the Bible Belt - how about the hell-fire brimstone type preaching which used to be prevalent. Can't it be seen as a form of manipulation causing fear and psychological harm to listeners? And we haven't even discussed Catholicism yet. Just the other day my mom was telling me with great emotion in her voice how her Church disowned her because she divorced her abusive husband - one was a horrible drug addict. Both beat her. Then she finally met my dad. She told me of a friend who followed her priest's advice and kept going back to her husband who finally beat her to death. I think you are going way overboard with this gaslighting thing, and turning it into your torch of emancipation. As you define it, I see it everywhere.

[Rain]

20 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My take on the issue of this thread and the other, now closed thread, is that some have passed through some unpleasant experiences with the church and called it g__________.  That made some defenders defensive.  I think this highlights the communication problem I see between member and former member.  Former member wants validation for feeling the way he/she does and for his/her choices to leave and member feels this is an attack on the member's religion. 

I don't know if there is a resolution to the problem.  Maybe it is just the nature of religion.  However, maybe former member should realize that validation is not in the cards as the leadership doesn't want to legitimize what they term as "apostasy."   Also, maybe member should not feel that he/she is being attacked for something former member claimed the church did as an organization.  If this isn't completely possible, maybe at least we can wait a few minutes prior to responding so as to keep it as civil as possible?

I think a lot can be solved with the first lines/posts/words in any conversation. So very often conversations start out with things that put the other person on defence. "You always leave your socks on the floor." "You cheated on me when you looked at that man." "The church manipulates." "Former members just can't leave the church alone."

It gets frustrating because often we don't see in what we are saying why there might be a problem and then suddenly war is on us and we can't pull it back in.

On the other side, we read some of those first posts and defenses kick in whether the slight was intended or not. It is often difficult to calm that down in order to not reply back defensively. 

Sometimes it could help to talk to a third person. 

"Lately my relationship with my teen has deteriorated. I'd like to talk to him about his socks being on the floor without a fight. Would you help me word it so we can both benefit?"

"Lately all my posts seem to be starting WW3. This topic is important to me. Would you help me word it before I post?"

Someone, somewhere here or on the other thread mentioned the line, "when you ________, I felt _________." That could be used in the conversations on these boards as well. "When the church ________ I felt ____________." Note that the first blank should be filled in with a specific action, not an intent or outcome - "when the church made that policy" not "when the church hurt my family".

That first post by whoever goes a looooong way with how the thread goes. 

Then with good faith responders - I think you are right about waiting a few minutes, but during that waiting time it is important to ask ourselves if this is really what the OP meant? Am I missing something? If this were my loved one how would I want this conversation to go? 

That intent thing is tough. My intent is to work through things with each other. Other people have stated their purpose for being here was debate. Others are here to defend the church. It wouldn't surprise me if others were here cause drama as I have seen admitted on other boards. So it may be helpful in an OP  to state what the intent is of the OP straight out. Of course there may be trust issues, but maybe it could help a little.

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The topic of the thread is how to have a good faith discussion. I will try to limit my discussion to that topic. It's what was requested by the moderator. 

I am just pointing out why I feel that you might not seem to be making good faith discussion.  

 

And I pointed out how to proceed in good faith: argue the actual point.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I pointed out how to proceed in good faith: argue the actual point.

After you have, in good faith,  accused a group of people of having a malicious psychological disorder. Uh huh. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

After you have, in good faith,  accused a group of people of having a malicious psychological disorder. Uh huh. 

Argue the point.

[Meadowchik]

If it really is preposterous that institutional gaslighting is prevalent in the church, let's show it.  I'm not saying the debate should be now, but I am saying that a path is possible to have one: agree on the goalposts, argue for or against them and them alone.

I go on record saying I think there is a strong argument for it but that I welcome strong arguments against it.

These things can be addressed in a well-defined debate and I believe such dialogue can be productive. 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Argue the point.

So you are wanting a debate? Or are you wanting understanding between those who leave and those who stay? 

If you are just wanting a debate then I agree, people should argue the point. If however you are wanting understanding then the way what you said was stated must be addressed. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

So you are wanting a debate? Or are you wanting understanding between those who leave and those who stay? 

If you are just wanting a debate then I agree, people should argue the point. If however you are wanting understanding then the way what you said was stated must be addressed. 

Imo debate is one of many ways to learn understanding.

Can you restate your last sentence, please? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If it really is preposterous that institutional gaslighting is prevalent in the church, let's show it.  I'm not saying the debate should be now, but I am saying that a path is possible to have one: agree on the goalposts, argue for or against them and them alone.

I go on record saying I think there is a strong argument for it but that I welcome strong arguments against it.

These things can be addressed in a well-defined debate and I believe such dialogue can be productive. 

How can we show it though?  Part of the problem is that a lot of this is perception and opinion.  Other than talking about the real meaning of gaslighting and abuse, what else can be done?

For example, if someone wanted to really argue that your previous post was abusive (I don't believe it was, though i don't think it was fair or accurate) you could argue that it wasn't until the cows come home and you would not be able to support your arguments because the accusation is based on someone else's perception and opinion.

You've given some reasons that you believe the church gaslights.  I completely disagree with you.  I sincerely think you are out in left field.  But there is no way for either of us to prove ourselves right.  Some will agree with you, and others will agree with me.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Imo debate is one of many ways to learn understanding.

Can you restate your last sentence, please? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Some words/phrases tend to be hot buttons for people. If we want people to focus on an idea because we want to share how we feel and help others to understand that feeling, then we have to recognize how we word things matter, not just the points we are making. If people feel attacked by what we say then it is important to go through why they may feel that way  - was it just something in them and if so how can we aleviate that? Was it something in the way we worded it, then how can we word it differently and what can we do to gain trust back? 

When people feel enough trust then they feel they can go into that conversation and debate or discuss the merits. If they don't feel some amount of trust then the debate will never make it to understanding. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Rain

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I grew up in the Bible Belt,  I've heard it. You used it.

I had heard it growing up as well, but the actual quote is something I heard (or read) in Catholic teachings. The point was in context to the OP, concerning and addressing the issue of less charitable acts among "all ourselves" at times. Often in debate, where "baggage and ego" come in to play or get in the way of listening and respect, no one seems to be listening and learning. It is a cross all have to bare, but one that we do not need too bare. This thought is what made me remember the quote. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I went on a morning hike...I see a number of others responded to you about this and I agree with some of what was said. 

As mentioned, the moderators have asked us not to continue on directly debating what was in the other thread. But I think this can be tied to the original point of this thread. The reason I don't see it is because I see the basic term and it's application as at best misapplied and a mischaraterization of potential problems in the church. This is simply not something I see and I strongly disagree with the term. And though I'm dead certain gaslighting could happen on the micro level and does among members. This still falls short of then using another assumption about institutional practices or enabling that, again I have no proof with but someone's feelings of hurt or emotional pain. 

It's really just all over the place when it comes to that and is based far more on opinion and conjecture than actual evidence and properly applied terms. It's also not looking at all the factors but a specific point overblown and without mentioning any potential negating factors. There is no nuance, no real grounding into the reality of the institutional church or the members that make the institution. There are simply assumptions being propped up as factual and evidence about as solid as a house of cards. And if that weren't enough, trumping up such perspectives can inevitably harm or allienate members. It can create an image of the community that makes it more difficult to interact and dialogue.

In short, I can't just engage in a debate about something when so many of the underlying assumptions appear way off and we're not even speaking the same language to describe concerns. I'm not going to use a term that I know could cause greater damage for my community than it would actually solve because the term isn't actually saying what it commonly means. I'm not going to make what generally I've seen as more complicated relationships, messages, and at times problems be pidgeon holed. It isn't helping, it's not some form of enlightenment, it won't solve any real problems. And it will likely escalate divisions.

 

With luv,

BD

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If it really is preposterous that institutional gaslighting is prevalent in the church, let's show it.  I'm not saying the debate should be now, but I am saying that a path is possible to have one: agree on the goalposts, argue for or against them and them alone.

Right there is where we ran into problems. Those who think that "gaslighting" is a legitimate term to use to describe institutional abuse by the Church bristled when those who don't think the term is appropriate tried to establish a definition. The pro-gaslighters argued that the available written definitions (seeking to sow seeds of doubt; hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity; attempting to destabilize the target and deligitimize the target's beliefs; staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim; and so on) are not appropriate for anti-gaslighters to bring up in defending the Church of the gaslighting charges, because pro-gas lighters merely meant to express their hurt and anger at lack of transparency in history, milk before meat, memory-holing and whitewashing of the past, etc. in using the term. They didn't want to be held to a definition of the term, but rather, wanted to project their own unhappiness with certain aspects of Church history and its presentation under a very general umbrella of "gaslighting." 

I think the whole problem is that "gaslighting" has become an inflammatory term, and people in using it take advantage of connotations that have accrued like barnacles. Then, when called on it, they can claim that they weren't employing a narrow, accepted definition.

"Gaslighting" is kind of a Godwin's Law term in that regard. One can evoke all kinds of connotations merely by using it, without having to prove anything or have the claims measure up to definitions. It's like calling someone a Nazi or a Communist. 

If I remember correctly, the pro-gaslighters didn't like intent or intended aims to be part of the discussion of "the prevalence of institutional gaslighting in the Church." That shuts any discussion down, especially in light of actual gaslighting ( a la the movie Gas Light, the source of the term).

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by rongo

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Right there is where we ran into problems. Those who think that "gaslighting" is a legitimate term to use to describe institutional abuse by the Church bristled when those who don't think the term is appropriate tried to establish a definition. The pro-gaslighters argued that the available written definitions (seeking to sow seeds of doubt; hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity; attempting to destabilize the target and deligitimize the target's beliefs; staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim; and so on) are not appropriate for anti-gaslighters to bring up in defending the Church of the gaslighting charges, because pro-gas lighters merely meant to express their hurt and anger at lack of transparency in history, milk before meat, memory-holing and whitewashing of the past, etc. in using the term. They didn't want to be held to a definition of the term, but rather, wanted to project their own unhappiness with certain aspects of Church history and its presentation under a very general umbrella of "gaslighting." 

I think the whole problem is that "gaslighting" has become an inflammatory term, and people in using it take advantage of connotations that have accrued like barnacles. Then, when called on it, they can claim that they weren't employing a narrow, accepted definition.

"Gaslighting" is kind of a Godwin's Law term in that regard. One can evoke all kinds of connotations merely by using it, without having to prove anything or have the claims measure up to definitions. It's like calling someone a Nazi or a Communist. 

If I remember correctly, the pro-gaslighters didn't like intent or intended aims to be part of the discussion of "the prevalence of institutional gaslighting in the Church." That shuts any discussion down, especially in light of actual gaslighting ( a la the movie Gas Light, the source of the term).

 

 

I liked this post. Thanks for it.

Overnight I was pondering this thread and the other in addition to the trends the church now faces in the information age. People are leaving for a variety of reasons but what is remarkable is that more and more are leaving because they want to go out, because they no longer believe.

It's becoming more commonplace to leave Mormonism, less taboo, and thus in my opinion we'll be seeing more and more people openly discuss the psychosocial dysfunctions they endured in church life.

In short, I think we'll be hearing more on this.

For the record, I think "seeking to sow seeds of doubt; hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity; attempting to destabilize the target and deligitimize the target's beliefs; staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim; and so on" is indeed applicable. It's just that the church sincerely considers it right to do these things and that the end result is really good.

And one more thought, regarding how explosive this word/concept seems for some: how many years has the church or have we on this board openly considered words or concepts that explode the paradigms of people?  Just the conversations here on gays would take weeks to go over and reread. It's easier for us to talk about their place in society and church if it's not personally threatening,  but imagine how upsetting even traumatic is can be for a gay Mormon to have their group on the chopping block of scrutiny and judgment? 

 

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I had heard it growing up as well, but the actual quote is something I heard (or read) in Catholic teachings. The point was in context to the OP, concerning and addressing the issue of less charitable acts among "all ourselves" at times. Often in debate, where "baggage and ego" come in to play or get in the way of listening and respect, no one seems to be listening and learning. It is a cross all have to bare, but one that we do not need too bare. This thought is what made me remember the quote. 

I sincerely believe that church members do not know the pain many people endure as a product of church life. 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/11/2017 at 2:10 PM, Minos said:

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

 

You are kidding me? 

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I sincerely believe that church members do not know the pain many people endure as a product of church life. 

This may be a better starting point for an open discussion on here (maybe start a new thread presenting the topic with those exact words?).

I just learned this week that my 5th sibling is leaving the church (meaning I'm the only one of 6 who is still active and we were all BIC, married in the temple, etc.).  

I talked to my sister a lot this week (who just decided she could no longer attend with what she now knows).  She is in tremendous pain and has been for months.  I had no idea as she'd kept it hidden.

I do believe that very few leave who haven't been or who aren't still in pain.  It's like a death for them almost.  

So what you suggest above could be a beneficial discussion, IMO.

Edited May 13, 2017 by JulieM