For Wade: My dinner with Mr. D.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_desert_vulture
_Emeritus
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:07 am

Post by _desert_vulture »

wenglund wrote:Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.

Wade, in the context of the truth claims of the church, I have to defend my right to feel that my anger and frustration upon discovering that the church is not what it claims, was not a cognitive distortion based on shifting blame onto the church for my own mistakes. What mistakes are you talking about? Could it be the "mistake" of trying to learn more about the doctrines of my own church, in the hopes of being able to defend it better to my non-mormon co-workers? Is that a mistake? I don't believe that it is. Could it be the "mistake" of assuming that all of the truth claims of the church were, in fact, genuine? I guess you could categorize that as a mistake, but it wouldn't be my mistake it would be the church's mistake for making unreasonable claims about church history and eternal doctrines, that I have found to be inaccurate. I guess the mistake you could be talking about is my mistaken belief, as a young person, that all of the lessons I received from primary teachers, Sunday School teachers, Seminary teachers, and Institute teachers, were totally accurate. If that is the mistake you are talking about, then "yes" I did make a mistake. I trusted people who told me that they loved me, and didn't want to mislead me, and wanted me to be happy. I trusted these people, including my parents, from a young age, that they wouldn't teach me things they didn't know to be true, as if they were true. My naïvété and trusting nature was lead astray by all of these believing people, who I trusted with my upbringing. Yes, Wade, I did make a mistake. It was trusting the church and its officers to teach me the truth. This was my mistake.

Now, should I shift the blame to others for this mistake? I don't really know. Who is to blame in all of this? Is it the good-hearted primary teachers who actually loved me, but persuaded me to believe the 1838 version of the first vision, instead of relating all 10 versions to me and letting me decide for myself? I don't know. The loving primary teachers that I had, bless all their hearts, probably had no idea to their dying breath that Joseph Smith penned multiple versions of the first vision, and that the official version wasn't even written by Joseph himself. So, should I blame my primary teachers? I think not.

Should I blame my Sunday School teachers for not teaching me of the thousands of grammatical errors in the Book of Mormon, and the substantive changes that have taken place in the book since the original 1830 printing. Should I blame them? Did they sugarcoat it for me? I think not. I think they actually loved me, and actually believed every word they taught me, without having the knowledge themselves that the original concept of the trinity has been substantial doctored in 1 Nephi. I had to rely on an exmo pseudonamed Scottishboy, in my 40s to learn about that. Should I hold it against all of the Sunday School teachers who "knew with every fiber of their being" that the Book of Mormon was true, that major portions of the Book of Mormon were plagiarized from the King James Bible, including translation errors, George Washington's writings, and ideas taken from A View of the Hebrews, and A Manuscript found? Should I hold it against them that BH Roberts proclaimed that the Book of Mormon very well could have been the product of a man, not of God? I don't think so. I think they were innocent in their honest approach to teaching me things that they really didn't know anything about, but told me they were absolutely true.

I can't blame all my teachers. How am I to know of their true depth of knowledge about the church they proclaimed every Sunday as "true." So who is there to blame? I guess just little old me. Gosh, I should have known, as a small child, not to trust adults who say they love you and care about you. That was my mistake. Not fornication, not pornography, not WoW issues, or Tithing issues, or any of those things. I always worked hard at obeying all of the commandments, so those weren't my mistakes. My mistake was believing the leaders and teachers of the church, I admit it.

Is it a cognitive distortion to toss the blame onto others that I should accept for making the mistake of trusting people who told me they loved me? Hmm, I don't know. I know that it is a cognitive accomplishment to discover the errors I was taught, try to understand them in the context of an objective reality, and make my life decisions on the basis of the true, authentic history of the church, untainted by correlation committee hands. I can bear my testimony of the truth of that statement. I, DV, do hereby testify that analyzing and praying in accordance with actual history, and actual documentation is TRUE, and a cognitive accomplishment in the midst of so many "approved" church resources that have been taught to me as authoritative, when they actually only contained parts of the truth. It seems, many of the plain and precious parts of the restored gospel, have been changed and/or removed by parties who are seeking to deceive and distract from the fulness of the gospel. Many unseemly aspects of the restored gospel, polygamy, blood atonement, the true nature of God, the source of the Book of Abraham, have been changed and/or whitewashed. It is unfortunate to realize that these parties have the approval of the leadership of the church itself.

So, is it a cognitive distortion to shift the blame onto others for my mistake of trusting them. No, it is not. It is their fault. These people all violated my trust by teaching things as objectively true, that were not objectively true. The irony lies in the fact that they did it with the purest of motives, and were relying on truth claims they were taught as children. Irony however does not remove responsibility. When we teach a principle as objectively true, and it is not, we carry the blame. Therefore, your premise that people suffering anguish and pain upon discovering the church is not what it claims, is flawed in the sense that they are not shifting blame, they are placing blame where it belongs. A small child is incapable of cognitively determining whether or not he/she is being deceived by a trusted individual. Therefore the blame rests on the person who is teaching that the Book of Mormon is objectively true, when it is a matter of faith whether it is true. The blame rests on the person teaching that the Book of Abraham is an actual translation of papyrus written by the hand of Abraham, when objectively it was neither written by Abraham, nor is it an actual translation of Egyptian. Check your premise, because you will find that placing blame on the responsible parties is different from shifting blame.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

desert_vulture wrote:So, is it a cognitive distortion to shift the blame onto others for my mistake of trusting them. No, it is not. It is their fault. These people all violated my trust by teaching things as objectively true, that were not objectively true. The irony lies in the fact that they did it with the purest of motives, and were relying on truth claims they were taught as children. Irony however does not remove responsibility. When we teach a principle as objectively true, and it is not, we carry the blame. Therefore, your premise that people suffering anguish and pain upon discovering the church is not what it claims, is flawed in the sense that they are not shifting blame, they are placing blame where it belongs. A small child is incapable of cognitively determining whether or not he/she is being deceived by a trusted individual. Therefore the blame rests on the person who is teaching that the Book of Mormon is objectively true, when it is a matter of faith whether it is true. The blame rests on the person teaching that the Book of Abraham is an actual translation of papyrus written by the hand of Abraham, when objectively it was neither written by Abraham, nor is it an actual translation of Egyptian. Check your premise, because you will find that placing blame on the responsible parties is different from shifting blame.


Ironically, Wade's charitable intervention is an example of attempting to shift the blame from the church to those who have discovered its fraudulent nature. But now I'm sure I'm guilty of cognitive distortion for having said that. ;-)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

wenglund wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: Who is it that you think is "dysfuctional"? Over a week ago, you said it was many of us here. Now you seem to be saying that it's you.


That's news to me. Perhaps you are mistakenly confusing dysfunction with cognitive distortions.


So you're claiming there is a significant difference between the two? Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

That fact that you keep flip-flopping and changing your position tells me that you're basically just interested in picking fights. At least up until now, anyways.


I wasn't aware that I had changed positions. Perhaps you are mistakenly confusing what I actually say with your frequent misunderstandings of what I say. In other words, the errantly supposed flip-flopping is you going back and forth between what I actually say and the straw man you have constructed of me.


No, I don't think so. And you have changed positions, dearie. You've gone from saying "Many of you suffer from cognitive distortions" to saying "I realize I can't win with you people, so I'm just going to focus on myself and Loran." That is a classic example of flip-flopping, my friend.

Viewing as "kicking butt" the inane and self-destructive resistence to such charitable interventions, may also be a cognitive distortion. Luv ya too. ;-) Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Who's "resisting"? I know that I asked many times for you to clarify certain points, only to watch you behave in an evasive and even combative manner.


Mistaken projections such as this may be a function of cognitive distortions.


Projecting how? You're claiming that I'm evasive, and that deep down, I know I'm evasive, and so I'm projecting on to you? You've got to be kidding, Wade. by the way: I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence as to the existence of Mr. Ds. Care to have a go at this, or are you going to evade the question yet again?

Besides, you just admitted that your "charitable interventions" were misdirected.


Again, that is news to me. Perhaps you have mistakenly confused my conceeding the futility of my charitably intervening on your behalf (because of your dysfunction) with "misdirected".


Same thing, no?

Perhaps an apology is in order, my dear friend?


I apologize for having grossly understimated the extent of your dysfunction, and for acting on the false hope that you might be open to reasonably and rationally examining your cognitive distortions, let alone being open to correcting them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
[/quote]

Huh? Above you said that I had confused "cognitive distortions" with "dysfunction", and yet here you are using them as synonyms. Maybe you need to take another break to clear your head, eh buddy boy?
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

desert_vulture wrote:
wenglund wrote:Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.

Wade, in the context of the truth claims of the church, I have to defend my right to feel that my anger and frustration upon discovering that the church is not what it claims, was not a cognitive distortion based on shifting blame onto the church for my own mistakes....


I accept that is how you think and feel.

However, if at some time in the future you get to the point where you no longer feel a need to defend your supposed right to be angry and frustrated with the Church and/or to afix blame on the Church, you may then be in a better position to engage in a rational discussion on this issue. Until then, what would be the point? I could, in as closed-minded and emotive way, easily turn your same "reasoning" back on you, and likewise rationalize whatever anger and frustration I or others in the Church may have in discovering you aren't what you claim to be. But, it is unlikely that you would get the point, and we would then be somewhat locked in a counterproductive cycle of finger-pointing and self-justification. I, for one, am disinclined to go there (been there...done that...).

As it is, you don't think you suffer from cognitive distortions on this issue, and I, on the other hand, have become all the more convinced with each statement you make that you do suffer from them. That is where things will stand until BOTH OF US are amenable to open-mindedly and rationally exploring this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:I accept that is how you think and feel.

However, if at some time in the future you get to the point where you no longer feel a need to defend your supposed right to be angry and frustrated with the Church and/or to afix blame on the Church, you may then be in a better position to engage in a rational discussion on this issue. Until then, what would be the point? I could, in as closed-minded and emotive way, easily turn your same "reasoning" back on you, and likewise rationalize whatever anger and frustration I or others in the Church may have in discovering you aren't what you claim to be. But, it is unlikely that you would get the point, and we would then be somewhat locked in a counterproductive cycle of finger-pointing and self-justification. I, for one, am disinclined to go there (been there...done that...).

As it is, you don't think you suffer from cognitive distortions on this issue, and I, on the other hand, have become all the more convinced with each statement you make that you do suffer from them. That is where things will stand until BOTH OF US are amenable to open-mindedly and rationally exploring this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I love you, Wade. This "mirror" approach is fun, isn't it?
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:I accept that is how you think and feel.

However, if at some time in the future you get to the point where you no longer feel a need to defend your supposed right to be angry and frustrated with the Church and/or to afix blame on the Church, you may then be in a better position to engage in a rational discussion on this issue. Until then, what would be the point? I could, in as closed-minded and emotive way, easily turn your same "reasoning" back on you, and likewise rationalize whatever anger and frustration I or others in the Church may have in discovering you aren't what you claim to be. But, it is unlikely that you would get the point, and we would then be somewhat locked in a counterproductive cycle of finger-pointing and self-justification. I, for one, am disinclined to go there (been there...done that...).

As it is, you don't think you suffer from cognitive distortions on this issue, and I, on the other hand, have become all the more convinced with each statement you make that you do suffer from them. That is where things will stand until BOTH OF US are amenable to open-mindedly and rationally exploring this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I love you, Wade. This "mirror" approach is fun, isn't it?


I used to think so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:
I love you, Wade. This "mirror" approach is fun, isn't it?


I used to think so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I never did. :-)

Seems to me that one would need two things for this approach to work:

1. Empathy

2. Comprehension
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:
I love you, Wade. This "mirror" approach is fun, isn't it?


I used to think so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I never did. :-)

Seems to me that one would need two things for this approach to work:

1. Empathy

2. Comprehension


I am not so sure about empathy. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see blemishes and red/sleepy eyes and disheveled hair, etc.. The mirror isn't all that empathetic, if at all. But, I don't expect it to be. In fact, I am glad to be made aware of things about me that may be out of sorts, so that I can gladly correct them. In that sense, the unempathetic mirror works for me.

However, for those people, for whatever reason (perhaps due to personal insecurities and a low senses of self, which may engender over-protection of one's self) who may want empathy from a mirror, and are put off by seeing their blemishes and so forth reflected back at them, then it wouldn't work. But, to me, that would be dysfunctional--some of the very things that may be unempathetically reflected in the mirror, may be at the very heart of one's personal insecurities and so forth. And if, because of those those personal insecurities and so forth, one is prevented from looking in the unempathetic mirror, one would then be self-denied (dysfunctionally) from seeing, let alone enabled to correct, the things causing the personal insecurities and so forth.

As for comprehension, that is true both for the person doing the mirroring, as well as the person being mirrored. In my experience, invariably there has been a breakdown on one or both ends (to me, this may be due in part to the dysfunction mentioned above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:I am not so sure about empathy. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see blemishes and red/sleepy eyes and disheveled hair, etc.. The mirror isn't all that empathetic, if at all. But, I don't expect it to be. In fact, I am glad to be made aware of things about me that may be out of sorts, so that I can gladly correct them. In that sense, the unempathetic mirror works for me.

However, for those people, for whatever reason (perhaps due to personal insecurities and a low senses of self, which may engender over-protection of one's self) who may want empathy from a mirror, and are put off by seeing their blemishes and so forth reflected back at them, then it wouldn't work. But, to me, that would be dysfunctional--some of the very things that may be unempathetically reflected in the mirror, may be at the very heart of one's personal insecurities and so forth. And if, because of those those personal insecurities and so forth, one is prevented from looking in the unempathetic mirror, one would then be self-denied (dysfunctionally) from seeing, let alone enabled to correct, the things causing the personal insecurities and so forth.

As for comprehension, that is true both for the person doing the mirroring, as well as the person being mirrored. In my experience, invariably there has been a breakdown on one or both ends (to me, this may be due in part to the dysfunction mentioned above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I'm not sure you understand the meaning of empathy, Wade. Empathetic people are happy to help us see our blemishes. As missionaries, we were taught to find common ground, mutual understanding, and put ourselves in our investigators' shoes. That's empathy, Wade, a desire to try to understand where another person is coming from. What you are describing is merely aversion of self-analysis, which has nothing to do with empathy. There's no need to find negative reasons for desiring empathy. I'm wondering why you went in that direction when there was no reason to do so.

I'm glad you agree with me about the need for comprehension. And I'm finding that a lot of the misunderstanding has been indeed a result of some sort of distorted way of looking at reality.

Hey, maybe we're actually getting somewhere for once.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:I am not so sure about empathy. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see blemishes and red/sleepy eyes and disheveled hair, etc.. The mirror isn't all that empathetic, if at all. But, I don't expect it to be. In fact, I am glad to be made aware of things about me that may be out of sorts, so that I can gladly correct them. In that sense, the unempathetic mirror works for me.

However, for those people, for whatever reason (perhaps due to personal insecurities and a low senses of self, which may engender over-protection of one's self) who may want empathy from a mirror, and are put off by seeing their blemishes and so forth reflected back at them, then it wouldn't work. But, to me, that would be dysfunctional--some of the very things that may be unempathetically reflected in the mirror, may be at the very heart of one's personal insecurities and so forth. And if, because of those those personal insecurities and so forth, one is prevented from looking in the unempathetic mirror, one would then be self-denied (dysfunctionally) from seeing, let alone enabled to correct, the things causing the personal insecurities and so forth.

As for comprehension, that is true both for the person doing the mirroring, as well as the person being mirrored. In my experience, invariably there has been a breakdown on one or both ends (to me, this may be due in part to the dysfunction mentioned above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I'm not sure you understand the meaning of empathy, Wade. Empathetic people are happy to help us see our blemishes. As missionaries, we were taught to find common ground, mutual understanding, and put ourselves in our investigators' shoes. That's empathy, Wade, a desire to try to understand where another person is coming from. What you are describing is merely aversion of self-analysis, which has nothing to do with empathy. There's no need to find negative reasons for desiring empathy. I'm wondering why you went in that direction when there was no reason to do so.

I'm glad you agree with me about the need for comprehension. And I'm finding that a lot of the misunderstanding has been indeed a result of some sort of distorted way of looking at reality.

Hey, maybe we're actually getting somewhere for once.


I understand what empathy is. I am just not clear on how it supposedly applies to a "mirror". Is your bathroom mirror somehow empathetic? If not, does it still work for you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Post Reply