In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[CA Steve]

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

 

Sometimes it does.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Wait a second, how do you go from what Scott said to it being OK to occasionally tell a lie?

If a person tells one lie in  their whole life time, would you feel comfortable in labeling them a liar? 

 I think behaviors vary in how we label them. If we see someone in the swimming pool, they qualify at that moment  for the label swimmer. But if we only knew they had gone swimming once in their life, it is unlikely we would be calling them a swimmer. 

So it depends on context whether such nouns are appropriate or not in my opinion.

 

Bottom line is we are all technically liars (occasional or habitually).  That was my point.

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Sometimes it does.

Are you using "it" in a general sense or a specific sense?

 

Come on Calm, this is beyond ridiculous.  

 

If we are at a point where definition of simple words are in dispute we might as well close down the board. 

[Calm]

Just now, JulieM said:

Bottom line is we are all technically liars (occasional or habitually).  That was my point.

Won't disagree with that, but .i definitely reserve my use of the label "liar" for egregious efforts.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Are you using "it" in a general sense or a specific sense?

 

Come on Calm, this is beyond ridiculous.  

 

If we are at a point where definition of simple words are in dispute we might as well close down the board. 

Is it really that hard to accept that people use words differently at times?  Or that there are ranges of meaning applicable to some words and some use a broader meaning while others keep to limited usage?

I don't believe the original comment approached "gossip".  I think it was wrong to criticize SoMo for asking.

  I personally use the label of "a gossip" for only habitual gossips.  I don't think labels such as liar, gossip, brat, etc. should be apply to someone doing something once unless it is major.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it really that hard to accept that people use words differently at times?  Or that there are ranges of meaning applicable to some words and some use a broader meaning while others keep to limited usage?

I am not sure what you mean here given the range of meanings one might apply to your words.

 

 

[ttribe]

Why is it "gossip" to wonder out loud about the timing of the release of the Smartt information?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am not sure what you mean here given the range of meanings one might apply to your words.

 

 

Eons ago I read a study where the vast majority of internet discussions were shown to include misunderstandings.  If words are so easily defined to one definition, why is there so much miscommunication going on?

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Why is it "gossip" to wonder out loud about the timing of the release of the Smartt information?

Evidently it isn't if it is the only time someone has so wondered, but if they have a habit of doing so it then becomes gossip.

So in order to actually determine if it is gossip, one has to inquire about the life history of the person making the statement.

Or at least that seems to be the new order here.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it really that hard to accept that people use words differently at times?  Or that there are ranges of meaning applicable to some words and some use a broader meaning while others keep to limited usage?

I don't believe the original comment approached "gossip".  I think it was wrong to criticize SoMo for asking.

  I personally use the label of "a gossip" for only habitual gossips.  I don't think labels such as liar, gossip, brat, etc. should be apply to someone doing something once unless it is major.

It really wasn’t nice to accuse a new member of engaging in gossip when there was no indication they’d been discussing this with anyone, but just had an honest question.   That’s what started this part of the discussion.  It wasn’t right to do that if you read the actual first comment by SouthernMo.  It was ridiculous to say they were “evil speaking of Church leaders” too.  Way over the top in both accounts, imo.  And neither of the two (Scott or 6EQUJ5) would even answer or give their thoughts when asked to many times (they were only interested in putting down anyone inquiring about this).

Edited May 2, 2018 by JulieM

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Eons ago I read a study where the vast majority of internet discussions were shown to include misunderstandings.  If words are so easily defined to one definition, why is there so much miscommunication going on?

Kind of makes the point of issuing a CFR moot sometimes then doesn't it, I mean if it is all just miscommunication, for all we know both sides really just agree.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yup 

This is the same confusion that led some LDS to conflate being a homosexual with occasional homosexual behavior, and thus assert an identity based on the sin or inclination rather than their true selfhood as children of God. So I can see how one can gossip without being a gossip, and certainly engage in homosexual acts without being a homosexual.

It's a lot harder it seems to label board etiquette, where semantics can help posters understand what others mean in good faith.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Evidently it isn't if it is the only time someone has so wondered, but if they have a habit of doing so it then becomes gossip.

So in order to actually determine if it is gossip, one has to inquire about the life history of the person making the statement.

Or at least that seems to be the new order here.

No, I think you misunderstand.  Scott was protesting to saying he was calling the person "a gossip", I don't think he was saying he wasn't saying the post itself was gossip. (Which it was not, imo)

----

There are behaviours and there are characteristics.  One can judge behaviours as individual events.  Imo, you should not judge a person's characteristics until you have seen them over time in order to understand whether behaviours are habits, consistent with a personality, or a fluke caused by unique conditions that led to an uncharacteristic response.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's a lot harder it seems to label board etiquette, where semantics can help posters understand what others mean in good faith.

"Good faith?" There was never any indication that SouthernMo had engaged in any gossip.  Accusing her of engaging in gossip was wrong.

Scott should really apologize, but I don't expect that will happen.

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Kind of makes the point of issuing a CFR moot sometimes then doesn't it, I mean if it is all just miscommunication, for all we know both sides really just agree.

Actually answering a CFR can clarify positions so that less miscommunication takes place, imo.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It really wasn’t nice to accuse a new member of engaging in gossip when there was no indication they’d been discussing this with anyone, but just had an honest question.   That’s what started this part of the discussion.  It wasn’t right to do that if you read the actual first comment by SouthernMo.  It was ridiculous to say they were “evil speaking of Church leaders” too.  Way over the top in both accounts, imo. 

I agree with this...

Still don't think Scott was calling SoMo "a gossip" because of one post though.  That he was able to find a dictionary that included the requirement of habitual behaviour shows there is a range of meanings and Scott was using one (or rather not using it) while others in this thread used another.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

"Good faith?" There was never any indication that SouthernMo had engaged in any gossip.  Accusing her of engaging in gossip was wrong.

Scott should really apologize, but I don't expect that will happen.

I wasn't talking about that specifically...

At any rate, the timing of the article: sometimes publications use "feature" articles rather than current events. I imagine the audience is interested in the topic of how LDS ecclesiastical leaders are treated when they are caught committing sexual abuse, given current events and climate. As can be expected of feature articles, the opinion of the paper is probably reflected in the tone and conclusions that can be drawn.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I wasn't talking about that specifically...

Ok...sorry, if I misunderstood.

 

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

At any rate, the timing of the article: sometimes publications use "feature" articles rather than current events. I imagine the audience is interested in the topic of how LDS ecclesiastical leaders are treated when they are caught committing sexual abuse, given current events and climate.

That's rather unfortunate to publish this now if those are the reasons.  Weighing the pain this story has most likely caused the family members, I doubt this seemed like a good reason for them.  I'm sure they are reliving the nightmare they went through 5 years ago, but now in a much more public arena.  

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok...sorry, if I misunderstood.

That's rather unfortunate to publish this now if those are the reasons.  Weighing the pain this story has most likely caused the family members, I doubt this seemed like a good reason for them.  I'm sure they are reliving the nightmare they went through 5 years ago, but now in a much more public arena.  

This was in the Salt Lake Tribune with Peggy Stack as the reporter, right? I'm sure she weighed all that out and figured it was in the best interest of all concerned to provide some variety and maintain an interest level in the current serial with some investigative journalism.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This was in the Salt Lake Tribune with Peggy Stack as the reporter, right? 

I believe it was published first by Deseret News (in the morning) and then Peggy Stack's article was published later that day.

It would be interesting to track down the source of this story and why it became news 5 years after the fact.  Either way, I hope the leaders weighed the good they felt this article could do vs. the incredible pain this has to have caused the Smartt family members.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe it was published first by Deseret News (in the morning) and then Peggy Stack's article was published later that day.

It would be interesting to track down the source of this story and why it became news 5 years after the fact.  Either way, I hope the leaders weighed the good they felt this article could do vs. the incredible pain this has to have caused the Smartt family members.

My point is, it's not "news-news," but a feature that the SLT (from the OP) decided was good enough to perpetuate. I noted why features are used; the same holds for the Deseret News and the SLT.

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe it was published first by Deseret News (in the morning) and then Peggy Stack's article was published later that day.

It would be interesting to track down the source of this story and why it became news 5 years after the fact.  Either way, I hope the leaders weighed the good they felt this article could do vs. the incredible pain this has to have caused the Smartt family members.

 

If only there was someone who works at DN who could ask, or maybe someone who has contacts at Church PR. There wouldn't be any "gossip" if we just had some way to ask these questions. Hmmm. Who do we know who has this kind of access and is opposed to gossip?

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If only there was someone who works at DN who could ask, or maybe someone who has contacts at Church PR. There wouldn't be any "gossip" if we just had some way to ask these questions. Hmmm. Who do we know who has this kind of access and is opposed to gossip?

MormonLeaks?

Separate topic, I'm surprised there's not a website out there that publishes the scoop on fallen Church leaders from legitimate public sources.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

MormonLeaks?

I was thinking Scott Lloyd