Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 So much of what is falsely imputed as wrongdoing or secrecy may in actuality be more attributable to scarcity of resources.

Really?  You want to shift the discussion to the Church's "resources" and how it chooses to spend them?

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm charitable in that I say they both were really either unprepared and didn't know what they were saying, really, or they were prepared at least to some extent and really did a poor job in conveying the message.  But it's silly to say they didn't say what they did.  I'm surprised to see you continuing this game.  It doesn't sound like you.  

Let me put it a different way because I think we're talking past one an other.

Do we think Ballard and Oaks didn't know about the 1832 account they brought up, about post-manifesto polygamy, and about Nauvoo polygamy when talking about openness and transparency? I find that hard to believe. That means either they mean something else by it or (as the reddit conspiracies go) they were explicitly lying or as you note were just completely incompetent. To be charitable I'm dismissing the lying bit as I just don't buy the conspiracy theory.

That means we have incompetence or meaning something else. As you note they had a few notes and had the questions in advance. That suggests this wasn't pure incompetence but at best partial mangling. Since after he brings up the First Vision as an example of being open he talks about being honest, I'm suggesting what they mean is that they are honest in what they said, not that they say everything they know. That explains basically everything.

So I agree that the acontextual meaning of the sentence you and others have focused in on is that everything means everything. I just think that once you place it in the context everything doesn't mean all information is shared but rather than when they share things (so everything they share) they are honest, open, and transparent.

This entails some degree of incompetence because they weren't great speaking when not reading off cue cards. So they should have modified everything to make clear that they didn't intend to say every piece of information. 

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Let me put it a different way because I think we're talking past one an other.

Do we think Ballard and Oaks didn't know about the 1832 account they brought up, about post-manifesto polygamy, and about Nauvoo polygamy when talking about openness and transparency? I find that hard to believe. That means either they mean something else by it or (as the reddit conspiracies go) they were explicitly lying or as you note were just completely incompetent. To be charitable I'm dismissing the lying bit as I just don't buy the conspiracy theory.

That means we have incompetence or meaning something else. As you note they had a few notes and had the questions in advance. That suggests this wasn't pure incompetence but at best partial mangling. Since after he brings up the First Vision as an example of being open he talks about being honest, I'm suggesting what they mean is that they are honest in what they said, not that they say everything they know. That explains basically everything.

So I agree that the acontextual meaning of the sentence you and others have focused in on is that everything means everything. I just think that once you place it in the context everything doesn't mean all information is shared but rather than when they share things (so everything they share) they are honest, open, and transparent.

This entails some degree of incompetence because they weren't great speaking when not reading off cue cards. So they should have modified everything to make clear that they didn't intend to say every piece of information. 

Alright.  I certainly can't say I know what he meant.  I only know what was said and that's what I was commenting on.  I'm fine if someone prefers to think they meant something other than they said.  I"d be particularly fine with it if they actually came out and said that they did not mean what they said, offering a retraction and clarification, but I don't see that coming.  Other than that, I'd say my issue in my response was when you accused me of misrepresenting what was said.  I don't think that happened.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Really?  You want to shift the discussion to the Church's "resources" and how it chooses to spend them?

+1

[rockpond]

On 11/27/2017 at 11:33 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/26/commentary-the-gaslighting-within-mormonism-must-stop/

It's a great editorial with many strong points.  I think this one in particular is important:

"It starts with admitting mistakes were made. Not Steven Snow admitting it. Dallin Oaks needs to admit it. Russell Ballard needs to admit it. Every single man who wants the world to believe that they speak for God needs to look their followers in the eye and say that mistakes were made. This removes the ability for members of the Church to dismiss the issue and claim that those that doubt have no valid reason to do so."

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It's a great editorial with many strong points.  I think this one in particular is important:

"It starts with admitting mistakes were made. Not Steven Snow admitting it. Dallin Oaks needs to admit it. Russell Ballard needs to admit it. Every single man who wants the world to believe that they speak for God needs to look their followers in the eye and say that mistakes were made. This removes the ability for members of the Church to dismiss the issue and claim that those that doubt have no valid reason to do so."

And for some, Rockpond, the admittance of mistakes could take away blaming God. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's a great editorial with many strong points.  I think this one in particular is important:

"It starts with admitting mistakes were made. Not Steven Snow admitting it. Dallin Oaks needs to admit it. Russell Ballard needs to admit it. Every single man who wants the world to believe that they speak for God needs to look their followers in the eye and say that mistakes were made. This removes the ability for members of the Church to dismiss the issue and claim that those that doubt have no valid reason to do so."

Didn't FF know that Pres. Uchtdorf said as much? that leaders make mistakes? 

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Let me put it a different way because I think we're talking past one an other.

Do we think Ballard and Oaks didn't know about the 1832 account they brought up, about post-manifesto polygamy, and about Nauvoo polygamy when talking about openness and transparency? I find that hard to believe. That means either they mean something else by it or (as the reddit conspiracies go) they were explicitly lying or as you note were just completely incompetent. To be charitable I'm dismissing the lying bit as I just don't buy the conspiracy theory.

That means we have incompetence or meaning something else. As you note they had a few notes and had the questions in advance. That suggests this wasn't pure incompetence but at best partial mangling. Since after he brings up the First Vision as an example of being open he talks about being honest, I'm suggesting what they mean is that they are honest in what they said, not that they say everything they know. That explains basically everything.

So I agree that the acontextual meaning of the sentence you and others have focused in on is that everything means everything. I just think that once you place it in the context everything doesn't mean all information is shared but rather than when they share things (so everything they share) they are honest, open, and transparent.

This entails some degree of incompetence because they weren't great speaking when not reading off cue cards. So they should have modified everything to make clear that they didn't intend to say every piece of information. 

I don't totally agree with your conclusions here.  But if your conclusions are correct, Ballard ought to issue a retraction and clarification.  Wouldn't the honesty and integrity he identifies with and the trust he asked for demand such an action?

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's a great editorial with many strong points.  I think this one in particular is important:

"It starts with admitting mistakes were made. Not Steven Snow admitting it. Dallin Oaks needs to admit it. Russell Ballard needs to admit it. Every single man who wants the world to believe that they speak for God needs to look their followers in the eye and say that mistakes were made. This removes the ability for members of the Church to dismiss the issue and claim that those that doubt have no valid reason to do so."

Read my post with dozens of quotes.  The church has sufficiently admitted as much and to pretend otherwise would be “gaslighting”.

Edited November 29, 2017 by pogi

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Didn't FF know that Pres. Uchtdorf said as much? that leaders make mistakes? 

Yes.  But that isn't quite what McKnight/Dodge say in the paragraph I quoted.  They wrote:

"Every single man who wants the world to believe that they speak for God needs to look their followers in the eye and say that mistakes were made."

I would add to that they should clarify what "mistakes" they are talking about.  For example, Ballard ought to come forward and admit that there have been attempt to hide important truths, facts, and documents from church membership.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Read my post with dozens of quotes.  There church has sufficiently admitted as much and to pretend otherwise would be “gaslighting”.

I guess they need to admit it again, now, since Ballard just made such a massive mistake.  And then they ought to correct the mistake and admit that things have been hid.

Edited November 29, 2017 by rockpond

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess they need to admit it again, now, since Ballard just made such a massive mistake.  And then they ought to correct the mistake and admit that things have been hid.

I guess Ryan and Ethan need to do the same thing.  Why so one sided?

 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I guess Ryan and Ethan need to do the same thing.  Why so one sided?

 

To the extent that McKnight and Dodge have made mistakes, they ought to apologize and work to correct those.

Ballard, stood before (virtually) a large gathering of church members and under his title as an apostle, he claimed knowledge of the church history and leaders "from the beginning", made a far-reaching false statement, and then told members that we should trust him.  That kind of action, for me, requires a correction by Ballard.

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/27/2017 at 12:04 PM, bluebell said:

Is this the definition of 'gaslighting'?  I thought gaslighting was something different.

I thought gaslighting was something immature males do.

[rockpond]

Wikipedia provides this definition of gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.

What Ballard said in the devotional most certainly qualified as gaslighting under this definition.  He claimed to have a knowledge of the history and leaders of the church "from the beginning" and then made a false claim and declared that he can be trusted.  I hope he'll issue a correction.

[kiwi57]

On 11/28/2017 at 8:19 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened.  In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history. 

Which it has not done.

In which case, the accusation of "gaslighting" is a rather deliberate attempt to poison the well.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Which it has not done.

You are taking the position that the church has not tried to hide aspects of its history?  Ever?

Elder Snow acknowledged that the church has done exactly that. 

Packer and Oaks have both told CES that they shouldn’t share everything. 

Ballard’s “gone are the days” quote to CES, while not totally clear, certainly had that connotation. 

[Duncan]

Let's say Elder Ballard does clarify, I bet that still wouldn't get McKnight and Dodge et al to come back to Church

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Let's say Elder Ballard does clarify, I bet that still wouldn't get McKnight and Dodge et al to come back to Church

It’s tough to get people back once they’ve left.  I think it’s important to help people stay.  That’s where I think a retraction/correction/clarification or whatever you want to call it would be good.  Especially if he wants to be trusted.  And it seems that he does. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It’s tough to get people back once they’ve left.  I think it’s important to help people stay.  That’s where I think a retraction/correction/clarification or whatever you want to call it would be good.  Especially if he wants to be trusted.  And it seems that he does. 

that's fair

[kiwi57]

On 11/28/2017 at 7:33 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/26/commentary-the-gaslighting-within-mormonism-must-stop/

Why should we set aside the deliberately manipulative and inflammatory rhetoric? It shows how the anti-Mormon propagandists who produced this hate spiel are trying to influence opinion. As such, it is relevant.

[kiwi57]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are taking the position that the church has not tried to hide aspects of its history?  Ever?

Yes.

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Snow acknowledged that the church has done exactly that. 

Did he? Let's see what Elder Snow actually said, according to the source being quoted:

"I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information."

Elder Snow - and any honest critic of the Church, if such there be - would probably also say that most large organisations have tended to keep most of their records "closed or at least not give access to information" most of the time. If I don't show you my bank statements, it's not because I'm "hiding" any "aspects," but because such things are routinely regarded as confidential, and nobody else's business.

The expected anti-Mormon spin that this amounts to an admission of "hiding" something is, of course, false.

But don't let that slow you down.

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Packer and Oaks have both told CES that they shouldn’t share everything. 

Yes, and once again the anti-Mormons have had a field day with that, but it doesn't mean what they (I'm being kind with that pronoun) would so dearly love to think it means. It's simply the rule that, in any teaching situation, teachers select the material that is most relevant to the class and most valuable for teaching.

But hey - go ahead and pretend that it's an admission of some sinister conspiracy. You know you want to.

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ballard’s “gone are the days” quote to CES, while not totally clear, certainly had that connotation. 

No. It does not.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Why should we set aside the deliberately manipulative and inflammatory rhetoric? It shows how the anti-Mormon propagandists who produced this hate spiel are trying to influence opinion. As such, it is relevant.

"Apart from the inflammatory rhetoric" seems to be the equivalent of, "Sure, someone just knocked out all 32 of your teeth, rhetorically speaking, but, trust him, he's still interested in good-faith dialogue with you, in not poisoning the well, stacking the deck, et cetera."  

Rhetoric matters.  Motives matter.  Not automatically imputing bad faith to one's interlocutor(s) matters. 

[kiwi57]

Having read the article: it is a nasty piece of trash.

If it makes any good points, they are lost in the spite.

No wonder the usual suspects are gushing over it.

[sunstoned]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Having read the article: it is a nasty piece of trash.

If it makes any good points, they are lost in the spite.

No wonder the usual suspects are gushing over it.

They call out two apostles for false statements.  That is probably hard for many members to swallow, and a tendency is to shoot the messenger. But the message is very clear, it is in black and white.  What Ballard and Oaks said was just untrue.