Shanghai Temple?

[2BizE]

Is the announcement of a temple in China any different than the one in Russia?  Both are unlikely to happen any time soon.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

No, I don't. But I think she did in this instance. Doing something in one instance but not in most others doesn't make someone "the kind of person" who does it. 

It's like logical fallacies. We all use them from, at times, even though we aren't normally "the kind of person" who does. Hopefully not, anyway . . .  

 

I'm confused.

You 1) think that she was purposefully being 'gaslight-ey' in her answer but you 2) also apologized for making her feel bad about a memory issue?  Those seem contradictory.  Do you believe she was being gaslight-ey or do you believe her post was a sincere question due to a memory issue?

As far as I know, you can't gaslight accidentally.  Motive is essential.

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do I think that any of those posters were attempting to make you doubt your sanity by pretending something they knew was true wasn't true?  No, I don't.  I really don't.  

The "getting you to doubt your sanity" is the extreme form we often beat up as a strawman. That's why I added the diminutive -ey to denote "gaslight-lite."

What usually happens, and this gets argued about, is that there are attempts to make things seem like they have always or never been taught. And people get pulled into the weeds in terms of proof-texts and the degree to which average members were or should have been exposed to them.

In this case, the Shanghai temple clearly was announced. We were all there, we all heard it, and we all were excited about it (it made quite an impression). And yet, there were a range of responses meant to downgrade the roadblocks ahead, from "No temple was announced," to "it will be a different type of temple," to "we have to play the political game of deniability," to, " 'Mormon' temples aren't the same as CoJCoLDS temples," and so on. All of these sought to, in varying degrees, minimize the possibility that Shanghai might be a boondoggle like the Russia one. 

Trying to make me doubt my sanity? No. But don't you see some cringey, convoluted, "pretending something they knew was true wasn't true" (or the reverse of this) in these responses? It's things like this that are gaslight-lite (gaslite?  ). 

[rongo]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm confused.

You 1) think that she was purposefully being 'gaslight-ey' in her answer but you 2) also apologized for making her feel bad about a memory issue?  Those seem contradictory.  Do you believe she was being gaslight-ey or do you believe her post was a sincere question due to a memory issue?

I think you're feigning confusion as a rhetorical tactic here (a la Columbo: "There's just one thing I'm confused about . . .")

1) When I wrote gaslight-ey, I wasn't thinking about her memory issues. I think that's pretty clear. Without that in mind (which I didn't know about), it seemed like she was denying that President Nelson had called it a temple, which seemed ridiculous and easily proved wrong (and known to her to be easily proved wrong, I assumed, without knowing of memory issues).

2) When she brought this to my attention, I apologized. I now believe that her post was a sincere question due to a memory issue, and wasn't an attempt to make it appear that he hadn't called it a temple, as I had thought before I knew of memory issues.

Why are you confused about that? It seems pretty clear from the natural ebb and flow of posts. 

Aren't you doing what you earlier complained about? Assuming the worst about me? 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

The "getting you to doubt your sanity" is the extreme form we often beat up as a strawman. That's why I added the diminutive -ey to denote "gaslight-lite."

What usually happens, and this gets argued about, is that there are attempts to make things seem like they have always or never been taught. And people get pulled into the weeds in terms of proof-texts and the degree to which average members were or should have been exposed to them.

In this case, the Shanghai temple clearly was announced. We were all there, we all heard it, and we all were excited about it (it made quite an impression). And yet, there were a range of responses meant to downgrade the roadblocks ahead, from "No temple was announced," to "it will be a different type of temple," to "we have to play the political game of deniability," to, " 'Mormon' temples aren't the same as CoJCoLDS temples," and so on. All of these sought to, in varying degrees, minimize the possibility that Shanghai might be a boondoggle like the Russia one. 

Trying to make me doubt my sanity? No. But don't you see some cringey, convoluted, "pretending something they knew was true wasn't true" (or the reverse of this) in these responses? It's things like this that are gaslight-lite (gaslite?  ). 

This is what I mean by people misusing the term gaslight (or 'gaslight-ey' I suppose).  The definition of the term is to psychologically manipulate someone into questioning their sanity.  If someone isn't doing that, then they aren't gaslighting.  They could still be doing something unreasonable, but it's not gaslighting anyone.

As for the bolded question, I didn't read their responses with that filter (that their responses were insincere) so they didn't seem cringey or convoluted from my perspective.  Honestly, I haven't revisited the prophet's announcement about the Shanghai temple since it was given live during conference.  I know that it was announced during the temple segment but I would never be able to remember off of the top of my head whether or not it was specifically announced as a temple or just something that would be used as a temple but was still different.

Especially the comment about it not being a Mormon temple.  I read that poster as saying that it's possible that the chinese government official does not realize it's the same religion as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  No nefarious motives needed for such a statement.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think you're feigning confusion as a rhetorical tactic here (a la Columbo: "There's just one thing I'm confused about . . .")

1) When I wrote gaslight-ey, I wasn't thinking about her memory issues. I think that's pretty clear. Without that in mind (which I didn't know about), it seemed like she was denying that President Nelson had called it a temple, which seemed ridiculous and easily proved wrong (and known to her to be easily proved wrong, I assumed, without knowing of memory issues).

2) When she brought this to my attention, I apologized. I now believe that her post was a sincere question due to a memory issue, and wasn't an attempt to make it appear that he hadn't called it a temple, as I had thought before I knew of memory issues.

Why are you confused about that? It seems pretty clear from the natural ebb and flow of posts. 

Aren't you doing what you earlier complained about? Assuming the worst about me? 

 

My goodness Rongo, you are all about psychoanalyzing and assigning motives for posters today.   

No, I was sincerely confused and looking for clarification.  I'm not feigning anything.  

You posted one thing to me and then something contradictory to Cal.  Taken together the comments are confusing.  Especially considering that if you were reading the thread in order, you would have read Cal's memory explanation before you doubled down on her being 'gaslight-ey' in a reply to me.  If you didn't read the thread in order, then I can understand that.  I don't always read them in order.  But it's not an unreasonable assumption on my part.

I'm not sure how asking for clarification on two contradictory posts is 'assuming the worst' about you.  

Edited May 6, 2020 by bluebell

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

don't you see some cringey, convoluted, "pretending something they knew was true wasn't true"

So you are saying I am lying about making a mistake and misremembering?  Because that is what pretending something I knew was true wasn’t would mean.

You apologized and then in the next post or two used two of my comments as part of your gaslightey explanation. 
 

I am still confused. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are saying I am lying about making a mistake and misremembering?  Because that is what pretending something I knew was true wasn’t would mean.

I'm not including you in that. Your part, pre-knowledge of memory issues, was whether or not he specifically said temple.

I'm referring to posters who said things similar to, "There isn't a temple," or "Mormon temple isn't a CoJCoLDS temple," etc. They know darn well that a temple is meant, and which temple, but were playing semantic games (a la teenage kids I've seen). Yes, I'll stand by cringey with those. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by rongo

[webbles]

Do temples have to be announced to the general membership?  Since Shanghai is going to be a limited use temple (only citizens of China are allowed and it could be temporary), why did it need to be announced?  The only people that will be able to use it would be Chinese citizens and it could easily be announced to them through more direct channels (such as their district/stake presidents).  I'm starting to wonder what was the purpose of announcing it to the general membership.  Couldn't President Nelson or someone authorized by him have just dedicated a building in Shanghai as a temporary temple/endowment house and never told anyone but the Chinese membership?

[Calm]

Rongo,

So you think CV, Judd, and rpn are willing to lie to what....score some sort of points on a message board that pretty much exists for its entertainment value?

I think there should be substantially more evidence to invest in an accusation of deception rather than simply different perceptions.  I have seen two people who were living with each other for years, so should have understood each other, walk away from the discussion about a simple contract they had made with each other to sell or not sell a shared property with opposite understandings.  How hard is it to communicate "we are selling"?  Yet miscommunication still occurred.  After seeing that, I am much, much more open to believing a person can see something as red and someone else as blue and both are being honest.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Couldn't President Nelson or someone authorized by him have just dedicated a building in Shanghai as a temporary temple/endowment house and never told anyone but the Chinese membership?

Who of course never would have mentioned this to another living person?

[Calm]

I was just having a discussion today with my niece whose sister is marrying a young man from China. He converted in the US, his family in China has not.  By law, he can’t even suggest to them to attend when he goes back (he is still going to school here).  I can imagine Chinese officials, learning baptisms were being done in the building or records being consulted (assuming they do proxy work) to perform rituals being very, very upset if they heard this was going on without permission. 
 

Once social distancing is over with, I plan on having a long discussion on how church things work in mainland China among other things with my new in-law. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

All of these sought to, in varying degrees, minimize the possibility that Shanghai might be a boondoggle like the Russia one. 

And herein lies the problem. You've determined that the Russia temple is a 'boondoggle'. And anyone who doesn't agree that Shanghai might be one too is guilty, not of trying to understand the nuances of what has been said within the context of the Church's relationship with the PRC, but of 'gaslighting'.

But it would appear that your first belief -- that announcing a future temple in Russia was somehow a 'self-inflicted PR wound' -- is not universally shared by most other posters in this thread. Therefore, you should not be surprised to learn that we don't embrace what you think necessarily follows from that assumption.

[Calm]

Dates for Salt Lake Temple

Announcement:  July 28, 1847

Groundbreaking:  February 14, 1853 by 
Brigham Young

Open House:  April 5, 1893

Sometimes it takes longer than expected. 

[Tacenda]

Poor Rongo, he's getting the pile on by everyone..know what that feels like, geez.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Poor Rongo, he's getting the pile on by everyone..know what that feels like, geez.

He is the one saying others are lying (pretending something is true when it isn't), people are just saying he is mistaken, has a wrong idea.  At least no one is accusing him of being deceptive.  Which do you see as a worse attack...having faulty assumptions or lying?

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

He is the one saying others are lying (pretending something is true when it isn't), people are just saying he is mistaken, has a wrong idea.  At least no one is accusing him of being deceptive.  Which do you see as a worse attack...having faulty assumptions or lying?

But he apologized

[Judd]

Perhaps a discussion we could have is if Joseph Smith jumped the gun on his revelation of the temple in Jackson County, or if the Savior was premature about his statements regarding the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. Any neophyte could tell from a cursory view that these are improbable and it’s certainly possible the Savior was being publicly optimistic for the masses and thinking less about the actual situation on the ground, which could more accurately discerned by our current vantage points than by his wishful thinking.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Judd

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But he apologized

To me, which I appreciate.  But does this mean it is okay he continues to accuse others?  

If someone apologized to you for accusing you of lying, would it be okay if they continued to accuse your friends when you believed they were innocent?

Wouldn't you feel they deserve the same level of consideration?

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But he apologized

He eventually apologized to Cal. He continued to stand by his accusations that other posters were lying though.  

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm not including you in that. Your part, pre-knowledge of memory issues, was whether or not he specifically said temple.

I'm referring to posters who said things similar to, "There isn't a temple," or "Mormon temple isn't a CoJCoLDS temple," etc. They know darn well that a temple is meant, and which temple, but were playing semantic games (a la teenage kids I've seen). Yes, I'll stand by cringey with those. 

This is gas-lightey.

[telnetd]

On 5/5/2020 at 11:49 AM, webbles said:

The semantic hair-splitting might actually be needed because of the Chinese relationship.  Just like how we don't have missionaries in Russia; instead we have "volunteers".  Maybe China will not accept a temple but will accept an endowment house.  To us, they are the same thing.  But to the Chinese government, they are different.  So, maybe, any discussion about a temple with the Chinese government will get incorrect answers because a temple isn't going into Shanghai.

I have heard reports of church services being videotaped.  So it would be contrary to Communist China practice
to allow a temple to be built without some form of surveillance (what happens inside or who goes in and out).
That's why we don't have an accurate count of how many Christians there are in China because many are in
non-monitored 'underground' churches so to speak.  Talk of a Second Coming when Jesus will establish His
kingdom is anathema to the Chinese government.

[halconero]

On 5/4/2020 at 1:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The concerns listed in the SLTribune article are of no real concern.  Pres Nelson has an excellent relationship with China and no doubt got permission to create a temple in Shanghai only in a preexisting bldg.  That means no new temple will be built there, and it likely means that no signage will be permitted -- something Peggy seems to understand.  This will all be done on the QT, which is the reason for vehement denials.  The denials mean nothing, and Beijing officials will be obeyed no matter what.  Chinese members will be able to go to Shanghai until renovation of the Hong Kong Temple is completed.  Who knows what will happen thereafter?  It will be best if we hear nothing further about it.

ETA:  I keep thinking of Pres Oaks there negotiating in China (as described by Peggy) looking just like a Buddhist monk with his shaved head. 

Agreed with all of this. My parents lived in China for years, and given all the non-Church-related business stories they have about the country's dealmaking culture, nothing about this story is surprising. Things will move forward, I have no doubt.

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/4/2020 at 2:01 PM, rongo said:

Some troubling reports out of China

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/04/29/plans-an-lds-temple/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chinese-government-resumes-removal-of-crosses-from-church-buildings-47792

indicate that there might be significant roadblocks to the announced Shanghai temple. Even if it's an unmarked, repurposed building. I hope that the comments from the government officials are just typical Chinese Communist Party bluster, but acting like this is the first they've heard of it, and saying things like "wishful thinking, not based in reality" don't sound good. It also looks like there is Chinese backlash against Christian churches in response to Coronavirus criticisms. 

I notice that Shanghai isn't listed on the most recent list of current and announced temples. Is this because it's of the table, or because we're being secretive about it so as not to anger China?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng

Commies gonna commie.

Trib's gonan fib.

Temple-builders gonna Temple-build.

The CCP virus has become such a large issue, the CCP is doing what it does best - lying and threatening those who stand in the way of it's global ambitions. 

If the CCP doesn't allow the Shanghai Temple, it will be to their loss and their detriment. 

CItizens of China travel abroad, meet w/ missionaries, get baptized and confirmed, then return to China.