Conflict Avoidance Among LDS Students

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

LDSs adopt a passive aggressive approach at relatively higher rates on average to the general population"... based on the claims of those who have been impressed enough (and not in a favorable way) by their personal perception to post as much, if I have read these posts correctly.

Just in case you are including me….

I don’t believe this, though I believe LDS are more conflict avoidant.  I do not believe conflict avoidance is always passive aggressive or even typically includes passive aggression based on my personal experience.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just in case you are including me….

I don’t believe this, though I believe LDS are more conflict avoidant.  I do not believe conflict avoidance is always passive aggressive or even typically includes passive aggression based on my personal experience.

I did notice your earlier post (about good reasons for peacemakers to wisely employ strategies to put off, delay or prevent conflict) and am not including you. I also do not track or necessarily remember the names of the posters, and likely have not read every post.

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Semantics; to me

That’s the problem. You aren’t differentiating between a possible state of things and how you feel about it.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

That’s the problem. You aren’t differentiating between a possible state of things and how you feel about it.

I have no particular feeling, other than some knee-jerk doubt and annoyance, about the suggested "possible state of things", based on assertions by a professor who conflated his own study, that LDS are more passive aggressive (on the Wasatch Front or elsewhere) than the larger population. Some evidently feel some commiseration from that, but for me, a legitimate study more directly addressing the topic would be required before I invest any further emotional investment than what I’ve described. For this reason, "a population of people demonstrates an annoying to intolerable level of difficult behavior" is semantically the same as "LDSs adopt a passive aggressive approach [consistently acknowledged in this thread to be a difficult/negative/dysfunctional/unfavorable behavior (my choice of words being "annoying to intolerable")] at relatively higher rates on average to the general population."

[SkyRock]

Lots of prophets and even Christ himself displayed anger, so being angry in itself cannot be a sin.  

There is a very big difference from being angry to being an angry person.  An angry person blows up over every little thing and constantly lashes out at others.

Passive aggressive people are angry people who refuse to express anger and instead act out in other ways.

Assertiveness isn't anger.  Passive doesn't mean passive aggressive.  A developed internal locus of control can help people not to respond to every external stimulus and maintain an internal peace.

Anger is usually a secondary emotion and is about boundary violations.  Feeling anger is an opportunity to examine where we might feel violated.   Upon examination, perhaps it isn't something worthy of expressing, but we should acknowledge it to ourselves and let it go.

If people would express their wishes better, a lot of anger would be avoided.  After they haven't expressed their desires, they develop their resentment, and their efforts to avoid being seen as angry cause harm to themselves and others.

Conflict avoiding isn't Christlike.  It isn't peacemaking.