For Wade: My dinner with Mr. D.

[_Runtu]

He said his bishop has since repeated to him that he believes that religious differences are a reasonable grounds for divorce.

So what does that Bishop know? He is practicing religious quackery instead of being a religious leader, as per his job title.

Even then, my friend says he's not angry with his bishop, just baffled.

[_christopher]

Even then, my friend says he's not angry with his bishop, just baffled.

I read things like this and think that there has got to be more to the story. I've met a lot of bishops who could be assholes, but for a woman to leave her husband just for this, then make up stories about porn addiction, it just doesn't add up. A bishop nowadays would advise this and nobody would correct him?

Also, who said she could take the kids out of the country too. If they were mine, we would be in court ASAP.

If she is pure nuts, then she shouldn't have custody anyway.


Chris <><

[_Yoda]

It sounds like the husband also has family ties in the UK, but is stationed in the Texas at the moment for work.

Maybe the kids are dual citizens?

[_Runtu]

It sounds like the husband also has family ties in the UK, but is stationed in the Texas at the moment for work.

Maybe the kids are dual citizens?

I don't think so. I think the kids were born in the UK. Both parents are British citizens.

[_Runtu]

Even then, my friend says he's not angry with his bishop, just baffled.

I read things like this and think that there has got to be more to the story. I've met a lot of bishops who could be assholes, but for a woman to leave her husband just for this, then make up stories about porn addiction, it just doesn't add up. A bishop nowadays would advise this and nobody would correct him?

Also, who said she could take the kids out of the country too. If they were mine, we would be in court ASAP.

If she is pure nuts, then she shouldn't have custody anyway.


Chris <><

The way I understand it, she took the kids on a planned visit to the grandparents in England and stayed there, informing her husband she was filing for divorce. It wasn't a surprise, given the threats and the meeting with the bishop.

I've seen the letters from his parents about the porn addiction and enough evidence to know that she has some serious mental problems.

[_wenglund]

Last night I had dinner with my friend at a Vietnamese restaurant. We had coconut chicken, chicken with hot peppers and lemon grass, a bottle of Pinot Grigio, and fried bananas with ice cream for dessert. It was really nice.

That dinner sounds awesome! You're making me hungry! :)

It sounds like your friend by-passed the anger stage and just went straight to the "hurt" stage.

How is he doing? Has he been able to move on since the divorce? What were the ramifications of the false claims of the pornography addiction as far as visitation with his kids are concerned?

It sounds like he definitely has a lot to deal with, and has managed to function better than most.

I think if I was in his situation, I would be angry...but not at the Church...at the wife. I'm sorry....the idiotic bishop in the Ward may have counseled her to divorce her hubby for not having a temple recommend...which is, of course, stupid and way out of line. BUT...I doubt that he counseled her to spread malicious lies about her husband being addicted to pornography when he wasn't. That's just evil, and will have a lasting impact on the kids.

I hope no one misses this excellent point. Too often members and non-members alike fallaciously make the Church pay for the supposed sins of individual members--i.e. they blame the Church, get angry at the Church, vent and grieve towards the Church, when such actions, when functional, would more rightly be directed towards the individual members who "sinned". To me, this kind of misdirected emoting may constitute, or be a function of cognitive distortions.

Misdirected emoting happens alot inadvertantly through fallacious bundling of somewhat related challenges and grievences--i.e. possible challenges associated with lose of faith in the Church being bundled with a variety of challenges with faithful spouses, family, friends, Ward members, and Church leaders at various levels. Bundling of loosely connected grievances may be a function, I believe, of cognitive distortions.

It also is not uncommon to prematurely jump to conclusions based on an abbreviated telling of one side of the story. We haven't heard from your friend's wife or Bishop. What if your friend's wife vented her anger and grief for months at an online gripe session (operating under the guise of a support group for divorced spouses), and used as justification, among other things, the charge of your friend being addicted to pornagraphy (perhaps based on having personal knowedge of several pornographic emails in his Inbox). Should we accept uncritically and as valid what she said? Should we champion her cause, rally to her support, and applaud her chosen way of reacting?

To me, prematurely jumping to conclusions may be, or end up being, a cognitive distortion. And, granted, the presumption of innocence may bear sway--though, doesn't that apply to all parties concerned: the wife and Bishop as well as you friend?

But, what do I know?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I hope no one misses this excellent point. Too often members and non-members alike fallaciously make the Church pay for the supposed sins of individual members--i.e. they blame the Church, get angry at the Church, vent and grieve towards the Church, when such actions, when functional, would more rightly be directed towards the individual members who "sinned". To me, this kind of misdirected emoting may constitute, or be a function of cognitive distortions.

Misdirected emoting happens alot inadvertantly through fallacious bundling of somewhat related challenges and grievences--i.e. possible challenges associated with lose of faith in the Church being bundled with a variety of challenges with faithful spouses, family, friends, Ward members, and Church leaders at various levels. Bundling of loosely connected grievances may be a function, I believe, of cognitive distortions.

It also is not uncommon to prematurely jump to conclusions based on an abbreviated telling of one side of the story. We haven't heard from your friend's wife or Bishop. What if your friend's wife vented her anger and grief for months at an online gripe session (operating under the guise of a support group for divorced spouses), and used as justification, among other things, the charge of your friend being addicted to pornagraphy (perhaps based on having personal knowedge of several pornographic emails in his Inbox). Should we accept uncritically and as valid what she said? Should we champion her cause, rally to her support, and applaud her chosen way of reacting?

To me, prematurely jumping to conclusions may be, or end up being, a cognitive distortion. And, granted, the presumption of innocence may bear sway--though, doesn't that apply to all parties concerned: the wife and Bishop as well as you friend?

But, what do I know?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course there's a presumption of innocence. I've just seen some of the letters she wrote and some of the things the bishop has written in emails. I've seen the initial letter from his father outlining the consequences of porn addiction and then later letters from his father saying that his interaction with the wife has led him to change his opinion about the situation.

And again, I was asking him about anger towards the church over its not being honest about its own claims. Again, he said he believes the church to be wholly fraudulent, but he never experienced anger.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals. Our conversation has always been about the church and its representations of itself. The wife and the bishop are simply issues that I felt might negatively color his view of the church. As I've said, they haven't.

[_Mister Scratch]

Last night I had dinner with my friend at a Vietnamese restaurant. We had coconut chicken, chicken with hot peppers and lemon grass, a bottle of Pinot Grigio, and fried bananas with ice cream for dessert. It was really nice.

That dinner sounds awesome! You're making me hungry! :)

It sounds like your friend by-passed the anger stage and just went straight to the "hurt" stage.

How is he doing? Has he been able to move on since the divorce? What were the ramifications of the false claims of the pornography addiction as far as visitation with his kids are concerned?

It sounds like he definitely has a lot to deal with, and has managed to function better than most.

I think if I was in his situation, I would be angry...but not at the Church...at the wife. I'm sorry....the idiotic bishop in the Ward may have counseled her to divorce her hubby for not having a temple recommend...which is, of course, stupid and way out of line. BUT...I doubt that he counseled her to spread malicious lies about her husband being addicted to pornography when he wasn't. That's just evil, and will have a lasting impact on the kids.

I hope no one misses this excellent point. Too often members and non-members alike fallaciously make the Church pay for the supposed sins of individual members--i.e. they blame the Church, get angry at the Church, vent and grieve towards the Church, when such actions, when functional, would more rightly be directed towards the individual members who "sinned". To me, this kind of misdirected emoting may constitute, or be a function of cognitive distortions.

This seems like yet another instance of that tiresome saw, "The Church is perfect; it's the members that are imperfect." This despite the fact that it is the institutional Church that: put the Bishop into power; makes holding a TR a priority; condemns pornography in the extreme, etc. Let's be frank here: if it weren't for the nearly ubiquitous condemnations of porn from the Brethren, the wife would never have been able to use it as a wedge to drive "Mr. D" away from his family. The Church and its teachings are at least partly responsible for this scenario, Wade.

Misdirected emoting happens alot inadvertantly through fallacious bundling of somewhat related challenges and grievences--i.e. possible challenges associated with lose of faith in the Church being bundled with a variety of challenges with faithful spouses, family, friends, Ward members, and Church leaders at various levels. Bundling of loosely connected grievances may be a function, I believe, of cognitive distortions.

What a weird rhetorical track you've been on the last couple of days, Wade. Now all you seem to be doing is playing this semantic game whereby you insist that all you were ever claiming is that "cognitive distortions" may have been responsible for the pain. Essentially, you have totally gutted your own argument. Pretty unbelievable, in my opinion.

t also is not uncommon to prematurely jump to conclusions based on an abbreviated telling of one side of the story. We haven't heard from your friend's wife or Bishop. What if your friend's wife vented her anger and grief for months at an online gripe session (operating under the guise of a support group for divorced spouses), and used as justification, among other things, the charge of your friend being addicted to pornagraphy (perhaps based on having personal knowedge of several pornographic emails in his Inbox). Should we accept uncritically and as valid what she said? Should we champion her cause, rally to her support, and applaud her chosen way of reacting?

To me, prematurely jumping to conclusions may be, or end up being, a cognitive distortion. And, granted, the presumption of innocence may bear sway--though, doesn't that apply to all parties concerned: the wife and Bishop as well as you friend?

But, what do I know?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair enough. However, I believe that this anecdote does yet another bit of serious damage to your thesis concerning Mr. D. Once again, I ask you: Do you have any evidence as to the existence of "Mr. Ds"?

[_Runtu]

What a weird rhetorical track you've been on the last couple of days, Wade. Now all you seem to be doing is playing this semantic game whereby you insist that all you were ever claiming is that "cognitive distortions" may have been responsible for the pain. Essentially, you have totally gutted your own argument. Pretty unbelievable, in my opinion.

Fair enough. However, I believe that this anecdote does yet another bit of serious damage to your thesis concerning Mr. D. Once again, I ask you: Do you have any evidence as to the existence of "Mr. Ds"?

I specifically brought up this friend because he of all people should be a prime candidate for the kind of cognitive distortion that Wade believes we exmos suffer from. He figured out that the church was what it is, and then his wife divorced him on the advice of his church leader. If anyone should be predisposed to anger, it should be him. But he's not.

He is genuinely baffled by his bishop. He seems to feel more pity than anything for his wife. He has told me again and again how he feels badly that she will find out soon enough that being a single mother is not easy. He's not bitter toward the church; he just says that he knows what it is and has moved on.

My impression of Wade's posts is that he believes that the mere belief that the church is not a good-faith actor in representing itself is a priori a cognitive distortion. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Wade can correct me if I am.

[_Yoda]

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Wade can correct me if I am.

You're not wrong, but Wade will, no doubt, "correct" you anyway....because he's Wade. ;)