Did we throw away years of our lives?

[_wenglund]

What if the "people we want to be" happen to be critics of the Church? I am curious as to how such a scenario would fit in with your newfound philosophy....

My "philosophy" is in reference to the kind of people we want to be (the type of character and attitude and disposition we may wish to develop and have, etc.), not the kind of vocation or avocation people may want to pursue--though such pursuits may well be influenced by the kind of people we choose to be.

And, the kind of people we choose to be (assuming that our choices are healthy and functional), will be geared towards satisfying the basic human need for mutual love, value, and respect.

Finally, since this all may best be achieved by following the Guiding Principles, and given that the Guiding Principles focus one's attention internally, what little external criticism one may be lovingly motivated to proffer, will only be constructive in nature (designed to enhance the attainment of the basic human needs--mutual love, value, and respect), and delivered in a way that promotes the attainment of those basic human needs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade, first i concure with Scratch. You've come a long way from the guy who started special threads to make fun of, and be-little those you "CHOSE" as targets of your disdain. Recall those darker days ;-)???

My focus now is on where I am at now and where I am headed, not where I may have been. I am pleased though, that you and others have recognized and acknowledged the improvement. And, I dare say that my improved approach has had a positive influence not only on my own disposition, but hopefully to some degree on improving the approach and disposition of others.

However, pasted from one of your above posts:

I am of the opinion, though, that this worthy objective may best be occomplished when one looks to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable, and when one focuses on meaningful things that are within one's control to improve, and when one focuses in a way that best enables that improvement.

RM: I think you might be supposing that all folks have the same capacity to "extrapolate"(whatever meaning You attach to that word?) As you know, we all "generalize" from our own experiences and conditioning: + or --. At what stage in a persons life can they begin to CHOOSE meaningfully? And under what environmental conditions and circumstances? As well taking into consideration their genetic limits?

Actually, I don't suppose that at all. I simply suggest it (i.e. "looking to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable") as a workable strategy for one to strive towards, when and wherever, to the best of one's ability. I don't think it useful to complicate it beyond that.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view

RM: That's the ideal! Not easily achieved if one has been psyche mutilated in their developmental years. And to what degree of love/hate they have experienced...

True...but to me, it is beside the point. As I see things, regardless of what intra/inter-personal deficites one may have due to their past, their success in the future is dependent upon their implementing proven life strategies and skill-sets.

The good news is, while the deficites may pose more of a challenge than cases of surpluses, most anyone can, in a relatively reasonable length of time, experience growth in competency and even master the proven life strategies and skill-sets.

--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience.

RM: VF tells an inspiring story. One must wonder why there weren't more 'Viktors' among 6,000,000? I have my theory. What is yours?

I suspect it is because VF's way of thinking didn't occur to many of the other 6m prisoners--at least not in a way where they could readily see its value. Thankfully, though, multi-millions of people have since greatly benefitted from VF's helpful insights.

I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

RM: I heartily agree! Simplistically we're talking "the Good News". Unfortunately, to this point in time, "...people and THEIR relationships..." (to paraphrase you) have not, generally speaking, been the focus of Christianism, and Mormons as one of the Christian sects. To/too many religious types were/are more concerned with a Jesus-relationship. Which is an escape mechanism from reality, IMSCO.

I, personally, am not interested in or prepared to make such sweeping judgements about Christianity or even Mormonism. My focus is on who and what I am, and what it is that I wish to become--though, when striving to look back to learn from the past in charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful ways, I feel obliged to acknowledge that many, if not all, of the intra/inter-personal principles and practices I now espouse (particularly those enumerated in my Guiding Principles), I acquired through my growth in faith in the restored gospel of Christ.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. RM: Yes-but... However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

RM: I respectfully suggest, "...NOW is the time...procrastinate not your moment of joy or service...sufficient for today is life... Live it and Love it, tomorrow you may be dead, Warm regards, Roger

That is, in some ways, a great suggestion--though I am less conserned with dying on the morrow than I am with living yet another day without a fulness of mutual love, value, and respect. ;-)

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

RM: The tense of "lay"? Your experience?

To some degree and in some ways, yes...I am still a work in progress. But, my statement was intended to apply to all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

What if the "people we want to be" happen to be critics of the Church? I am curious as to how such a scenario would fit in with your newfound philosophy....

My "philosophy" is in reference to the kind of people we want to be (the type of character and attitude and disposition we may wish to develop and have, etc.), not the kind of vocation or avocation people may want to pursue--though such pursuits may well be influenced by the kind of people we choose to be.

No, no, Wade---I mean, what if we *want* to be critics of the Church? What if changing the Church for the better, seeking out more honesty and truth, is who we both want and choose to be? How does this fit into your newfound philosophy?

And, the kind of people we choose to be (assuming that our choices are healthy and functional),

Are you saying that being critical of the Church is, by default, "dysfunctional"?

will be geared towards satisfying the basic human need for mutual love, value, and respect.

Finally, since this all may best be achieved by following the Guiding Principles, and given that the Guiding Principles focus one's attention internally, what little external criticism one may be lovingly motivated to proffer, will only be constructive in nature (designed to enhance the attainment of the basic human needs--mutual love, value, and respect), and delivered in a way that promotes the attainment of those basic human needs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that many criticisms directed towards the Church---i.e., that the Brethren should open the books---are designed to "enhance mutual love, value, and respect." So does this fit with your philosophy?

[_wenglund]

What if the "people we want to be" happen to be critics of the Church? I am curious as to how such a scenario would fit in with your newfound philosophy....

My "philosophy" is in reference to the kind of people we want to be (the type of character and attitude and disposition we may wish to develop and have, etc.), not the kind of vocation or avocation people may want to pursue--though such pursuits may well be influenced by the kind of people we choose to be.

No, no, Wade---I mean, what if we *want* to be critics of the Church? What if changing the Church for the better, seeking out more honesty and truth, is who we both want and choose to be? How does this fit into your newfound philosophy?

I understood that the first time you asked it. Apparently, you didn't understand my repsonse. So, let me try one more time. My philosophy is geared towards improving the "self", and not organizations to which the "self" may or may not belong--that is, except in so far as the improved "self" indirectly improves the organizations to which the "self" belongs, by belonging to it (if the part is improved, the whole it belongs to thereby become improved).

Think of it like a drivers manual that is designed to help individual drivers become the very best drivers they can be. The manual is geared towards individual drivers, and not whatever auto clubs that the driver may belong to--though, as the individual drivers in the auto club improve their driving, the auto club, as a whole, is improved driving-wise.

And, the kind of people we choose to be (assuming that our choices are healthy and functional),

Are you saying that being critical of the Church is, by default, "dysfunctional"?

No.

will be geared towards satisfying the basic human need for mutual love, value, and respect.

Finally, since this all may best be achieved by following the Guiding Principles, and given that the Guiding Principles focus one's attention internally, what little external criticism one may be lovingly motivated to proffer, will only be constructive in nature (designed to enhance the attainment of the basic human needs--mutual love, value, and respect), and delivered in a way that promotes the attainment of those basic human needs. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that many criticisms directed towards the Church---i.e., that the Brethren should open the books---are designed to "enhance mutual love, value, and respect." So does this fit with your philosophy?

See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Let me just add that if one wishes to help others to improve their driving skills, and even if one wishes tp help one's driving club to improve their driving as well, then one may best do so by becoming an improved driver, oneself, and lead by example (demonstrating the value to others for improved driving). In other words, one accomplishes this objective, not by being a "critic", but rather by being an exempliary.

One may also help others to improve their driving by charitably advocating and instructing about good driving principles. In other words, one may accomplish this objective, not by being a "critic", but rather by being a teacher.

I have found that the less I am a "critic" of my good friends here, and more an exempliary and teacher, the more successful I am in helping them to become "good drivers".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me just add that if one wishes to help others to improve their driving skills, and even if one wishes tp help one's driving club to improve their driving as well, then one may best do so by becoming an improved driver, oneself, and lead by example (demonstrating the value to others for improved driving). In other words, one accomplishes this objective, not by being a "critic", but rather by being an exempliary.

One may also help others to improve their driving by charitably advocating and instructing about good driving principles. In other words, one may accomplish this objective, not by being a "critic", but rather by being a teacher.

I have found that the less I am a "critic" of my good friends here, and more an exempliary and teacher, the more successful I am in helping them to become "good drivers".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you for that excellent and lucid analogy, Wade. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I believe that by being an "exempliary" critic of the Church, I can help to show others how to be good critics of the Church. Thus, if I teach you that the Church has lied about what it claims to be, I have succeeded in "helping you to improve your driving." Eventually, perhaps, if enough of us climb on board, perhaps we will witness the day when the Church is no longer dishonest, deceptive, or secretive about any aspect of itself.

I am so glad we agree on this, Wade! It took a while, but I knew we would eventually arrive at a mutually agreeable place. Here's to you, my friend!

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wade, first i concure with Scratch. You've come a long way from the guy who started special threads to make fun of, and be-little those you "CHOSE" as targets of your disdain. Recall those darker days ;-)???

My focus now is on where I am at now and where I am headed, RM: I'm happy for you! not where I may have been.RM: Isn't 1 of the 12 steps to ask forgiveness of those one offended along their way? I am pleased though, that you and others have recognized and acknowledged the improvement. RM: You're welcome! And, I dare say that my improved approach has had a positive influence not only on my own disposition, but hopefully to some degree on improving the approach and disposition of others. RM: I hope so too... Although some "might" think you are a bit quick to be an advisor without knowing intimate details of those to whom you proffer...

However, pasted from one of your above posts:

I am of the opinion, though, that this worthy objective may best be occomplished when one looks to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable, and when one focuses on meaningful things that are within one's control to improve, and when one focuses in a way that best enables that improvement.

RM: I think you might be supposing that all folks have the same capacity to "extrapolate"(whatever meaning You attach to that word?) As you know, we all "generalize" from our own experiences and conditioning: + or --. At what stage in a persons life can they begin to CHOOSE meaningfully? And under what environmental conditions and circumstances? As well taking into consideration their genetic limits?

Actually, I don't suppose that at all. I simply suggest it (i.e. "looking to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable") as a workable strategy for one to strive towards, when and wherever, to the best of one's ability. I don't think it useful to complicate it beyond that.

RM: To complicate is generally not my 'style'. However, i think it essential to be informed, and realistic with expectations from each as individuals work within their "ability". Too often "Self-Help Gurus", from the Anthony Robbins type to the 100&1 U 2 Can be SLIM! advocates, care for little but registered #s and fees collected. Unfortunately many 'Students' do not have the prerequesites for their imagined "Success". This is not as much a concern of the promoters as it is of those once again finding themselves Fat &/or Broke, disheartened and deeper in self-distain. I hope in all of your eagerness you do not over look our varied IQs, EQs, and how we each process our individual experiences. I sense a tendency for you to over generalize with Vegas, in particular. His comments are as valid, and worthy of understanding as anyones'.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view

RM: That's the ideal! Not easily achieved if one has been psyche mutilated in their developmental years. And to what degree of love/hate they have experienced...

True...but to me, it is beside the point. As I see things, regardless of what intra/inter-personal deficites one may have due to their past, their success in the future is dependent upon their implementing proven life strategies and skill-sets.

RM: I sense a blid-spot here Wade. Psyche health IS THE POINT!! That is the reason why some--V. Frankle is an excellent example--in spite of their observed horrible circumstances rise above them to become Nelson Mandela, or Oprah Winnfrey... Others starting from preferred starting points just don't achieve as might be expected...

"...their success in the future is dependent upon..." the capacity of the individual to learn and understand "proven life strategies and skills..." Then apply them. You evidently had the prerequisites. Congrats!!

The good news is, while the deficites may pose more of a challenge than cases of surpluses, most anyone can, in a relatively reasonable length of time, experience growth in competency and even master the proven life strategies and skill-sets. RM: Schools and training centres count on that... Labour pools depend on the capacity of their employees to learn skills and gain competency. All within the various ranges of absorption and dispension of knowledge and physical dexterity. One may know the theory and lack the ability to apply...

--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience.

RM: VF tells an inspiring story. One must wonder why there weren't more 'Viktors' among 6,000,000? I have my theory. What is yours?

I suspect it is because VF's way of thinking didn't occur to many of the other 6m prisoners--at least not in a way where they could readily see its value. RM: Might it have been beyond their capacity? Being conditioned to subservience and obedience (AND failure) they were in a sense primed? Thankfully, though, multi-millions of people have since greatly benefitted from VF's helpful insights. RM: Yes. If those "life skills" were financed in our school system in place of some of the 'athletics'... The principle of co-operation rather than competition would produce a humane and caring society embracing the values you (and i) espouse...

I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

RM: I heartily agree! Simplistically we're talking "the Good News". Unfortunately, to this point in time, "...people and THEIR relationships..." (to paraphrase you) have not, generally speaking, been the focus of Christianism, and Mormons as one of the Christian sects. To/too many religious types were/are more concerned with a Jesus-relationship. Which is an escape mechanism from reality, IMSCO.

I, personally, am not interested in or prepared to make such sweeping judgements about Christianity or even Mormonism. My focus is on who and what I am, and what it is that I wish to become--though, when striving to look back to learn from the past in charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful ways, I feel obliged to acknowledge that many, if not all, of the intra/inter-personal principles and practices I now espouse (particularly those enumerated in my Guiding Principles), I acquired through my growth in faith in the restored gospel of Christ.

RM: I can't help but 'evaluate'... Judgement isn't mine... I understand too, every "...intra/inter-personal..." experience one has, wherever aquired adds to the sum-total of our public persona, AND our private perception of self.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. RM: Yes-but... However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

RM: I respectfully suggest, "...NOW is the time...procrastinate not your moment of joy or service...sufficient for today is life... Live it and Love it, tomorrow you may be dead, Warm regards, Roger

That is, in some ways, a great suggestion--though I am less conserned with dying on the morrow than I am with living yet another day without a fulness of mutual love, value, and respect. ;-)

RM: Dying is not my preoccupation either. Having seldom known a day that i didn't experience validation, love and respect
from parents, family, friends and associates my baggage has been light. I don't really know what it is to "bear a Cross". Could be one of my reason for disenchantment with LDSism over time. It seems to me over my 50 years of church exposure there has been a gradual shift from a positive, individualism--in which i thrived--to a negative, fatalism of regementation and legalistic ritualism. That being a very unhealthy psyche/spiritual environment. At least in my perception. Not one i endorse.

I think Scratch might be alluding to the same thing: He, and i, do not see LDSism as you do. Wonderful that we all enjoy life where we are!! Praise "God"!! ;-)

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

RM: The tense of "lay"? Your experience?

To some degree and in some ways, yes...I am still a work in progress. But, my statement was intended to apply to all.

RM: Aren't we all, "a work in progress"? Keep-on-workin'! Warm regards, Roger

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yer welcome, Roger Morrison

[_Gazelam]

I never said Runtu had a callous heart, just that if he continues to cut himself off from the church he could do so.

The Light of Christ is in all things, its what some people refer to as a concience. Its also why people choose to worship a deity, even though they often create their own.

The Holy Ghost testifies of truth, and is seperate from the light of Christ. Seek him out through prayer and follow the promptings.

[_Runtu]

I never said Runtu had a callous heart, just that if he continues to cut himself off from the church he could do so.

The Light of Christ is in all things, its what some people refer to as a concience. Its also why people choose to worship a deity, even though they often create their own.

The Holy Ghost testifies of truth, and is seperate from the light of Christ. Seek him out through prayer and follow the promptings.

I've heard from a lot of members that God works through people in and out of the church, but it sounds to me like you believe that doesn't apply to us exmembers.

I hope my heart isn't calloused or hard. I just got accused of being hypocritical and playing the victim, but I don't think that means I'm hardhearted.

[_beastie]

I don't feel like I threw those years away at all. I certainly made decisions due to the influence of the LDS world view that I would not have otherwise made, but I am satisfied with the way my life is turning out, and some of those decisions didn't turn out too badly after all.

However, I wasn't raised in the church. I think lifers have different issues to deal with due to that pervasive influence in their childhood. In particular, it seems to me that one recurring theme that lifers sometimes struggle with is their sexuality - particularly females. So if I had grown up in the church and felt that its "message" had molded my attitudes in a way that were difficult to reverse, and left me struggling with intimacy or other issues, my attitude might be different.

I tend to be more, for lack of a better word, "generous" in my judgment regarding the church in general and its leaders than my boyfriend, who was born in the church. He never had a choice in the matter, Mormonism was thrust upon him by accident of birth, whereas I chose to become a member. That alone can be a significant factor to consider. (by the way, he's an example of the kind of exmormon certain MADdites "like", in that after a very brief initial period, he doesn't talk to people about the church or post on the internet about it. So he's one of the "good" ones, ie, a silent one. Yet his attitude towards the church and its leaders is far harsher than mine. But I, by the mere fact that I discuss these things, am one of the "bad" exmormons.)

In addition, if I had a family that personally rejected me due to my lack of belief, I think I would likely have more bitterness to deal with. People have to work out these issues as best they can.