Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_rcrocket]

Even just taking responsibility for the fact that the LDS hierarchy has created the climate in which the cycle of anger develops would be progress. How have they set the climate? By insisting that since the LDS is the "one true church" and God will clearly reveal that information to any sincere person who asks, there must be something wrong with people who reject that claim. They're influenced by satan, want to sin, hurt by trivial slights, never believed to begin with, and now, according to some apologists, are "fundamentalists" suffering from "cognitive distortions". As long as believers are given this message, over and over, then when and if those same believers do eventually lose faith, the nugget of anger will already be present due to the fact that they know their still believing friends and family are being told this damaging nonsense over and over, and likely believing it.

To make my analogy more accurate, I would have to add that Mr. Liddy takes the proactive move by issuing statements that anyone who concludes the TV he is selling is not what he claims it to be is influenced by satan and nuts. So the first step in stopping the cycle of anger would be for Mr. Liddy to immediately retract that statement. Mr. Liddy doesn't even have to admit that his product is not what he claims. He just has to stop poisoning the well by stating that critics are Satanic and nuts.

Now, I know that some will claim that the church only makes that claim about VOCAL critics, and not simply people who don't believe, but that is the equivalent of Mr. Liddy saying people who believe his TV isn't what he claims it is are fine and dandy as long as they don't tell anyone.

You use italics, CAPS and bold language to emphasize your points in alternating fashion. To which should I pay attention most?

[_Runtu]

You use italics, CAPS and bold language to emphasize your points in alternating fashion. To which should I pay attention most?

Again I note the irony of someone who criticizes the lack of substance in others and then posts a completely substance-free quibble about typography.

I guess that's what you do when you can't engage a post.

[_harmony]

You use italics, CAPS and bold language to emphasize your points in alternating fashion. To which should I pay attention most?

Again I note the irony of someone who criticizes the lack of substance in others and then posts a completely substance-free quibble about typography.

I guess that's what you do when you can't engage a post.

Once again Trixie has backed the apologists into a corner. Why do think so many pro-LDS boards have gone to such lengths to get rid of her? She has the innate ability to cut right to the chase of an argument, and poor Plutarch can only sputter about typography, instead of addressing her points. He's not alone. She's bested some of the greatest minds the LDS church has to offer. Score another one for Trixie.

[_rcrocket]

Once again Trixie has backed the apologists into a corner. Why do think so many pro-LDS boards have gone to such lengths to get rid of her? She has the innate ability to cut right to the chase of an argument, and poor Plutarch can only sputter about typography, instead of addressing her points. He's not alone. She's bested some of the greatest minds the LDS church has to offer. Score another one for Trixie.

Who's Trixie?

Well, I'm not one of the greatest minds the LDS Church has to offer; indeed, it doesn't even offer me.

But, I would like to know the answer to my question. I'm not condemning or criticizing anybody. I mean, I read the Tanners' work a lot -- see the same kind of writing style and find it fascinating. Don't you think that somebody who repeatedly writes with typographic emphasis (and in alternating styles, to boot) has something important to say?

P

[_beastie]

The answer is pay attention to all of it.

The other answer is yes, this is what Plutarch does when he has no substance to offer, but still wants to say something, no matter how inane.

beastie = trixie

[_Mary]

Wade, I'll try and answer your question the best way I can.

I think Beastie has a really good point and that is for healing to take place, both parties must accept responsibility for some of the hurt. (I hope I understand your perspective Beastie, if I am incorrect let me know)

Here is a letter that someone over on Post Mormon.org got from the first presidency which interested me.

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/show ... php?t=1776

You will note that the presidency implores 'if any have been offended, we are sorry'.
What it does, in my opinion is again categorise those who leave inappropriately. Many don't leave because they are offended, they leave because they didn't have the full picture, and when they do get the full picture they re-evaluate their position. It is all about being well informed, and up until recently I don't think people were that well informed. Whose fault is it that they weren't well informed? I'd say the missionaries (of which I was one) who teach them in the case of converts. (missionaries of course get their instructions of how and what to teach directly from the upper eschelons of the church)

It's a tricky issue for all involved, but I think at some point the leaders need to recognise that many leave for valid and actually very good and reasonable and rational etc etc reasons, not just because someone called them a 'smart ass' in the foyer for instance, or the bishop took a dislike to one of their kids, etc ad infinitum.


The first presidency also implore people to come back to partake of the 'happiness they once knew'. Again, they assume that happiness, true happiness can be had only within the confines of the LDS worldview and culture. Actually this may not be universally true. For some, they may experience very real unhappiness in trying to conform to something (I am not talking about commandments here, but a belief system), that they do not feel comfortable with.

I like a lot of Mormonism, but there are very significant portions of it that I reject as having anything to do with God, or his plan for my happiness.

I hope that makes sense.

[_Mercury]

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been selling a product that he firmly believes is true, and the best product of its kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once again you are functioniong under a false assumption, that of the validity of Mr A's product. You believe, distortedly, that the product is viable. We, the majority of humans on planet earth believe the Mormon product to be an unreliable and false product.

Now little wade, go back to your table, take out your crayons and rewrite your hypothetical as if the product was faulty. Until you do this your understanding of anger towards the Mormon church will not be complete.

Once you assume that you do not have the truth you will begin to see why our anger is more valid than your hatred of exmormons.

I am justified in my anger. You are not justified in misunderstanding my anger, because you fail to contemplate our core tenets. Your petty thought experiment is proof positive of why you cannot understand our attitude.

[_wenglund]

True healing and cessation of a cycle of anger can only take place when all parties involved accept responsibility for their own part in the cycle, and that includes the trigger event. That is why, in my example, it is important to determine whether the TV was truly a high definition TV or not. Until that is determined, no healing and progress can be made other than a superficial pasting over of disagreements, which normally is obtained only by the parties ignoring one another as much as possible, or by pretending the event never happened. While that may appear to be appealing to individuals who believe that SILENCE equates healing, it is meaningless in terms of addressing the cycle of anger.

It is so obvious to everyone but you, Wade. In my example, Customer A has to know whether or not the TV was a standard or High Definition TV before being able to take responsibility for his/her own reaction, and the same is true for Mr. Liddy.

Here is the flaw in your analogy and "solution": In your analogy there is a relatively definitive way of determining which type of TV it is (i.e. by scientifically testing it to determine if it meets the standards of an HD TV or not), whereas with the product in my scenerio, and in terms of the Church allegedly "lying" about what it claims to be, there isn't a way of definitively determining (to the satisfaction of both parties) who is "RIGHT". In fact, in my scenerio, both Mr. A and Mr. B firmly believe they are "RIGHT". Their focusing on who is "RIGHT" is one of the key elements that causes the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grief. In other words, your "solution" feeds into the dynamic/cylce, rather than solving it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, I'll try and answer your question the best way I can.

I think Beastie has a really good point and that is for healing to take place, both parties must accept responsibility for some of the hurt. (I hope I understand your perspective Beastie, if I am incorrect let me know)

Here is a letter that someone over on Post Mormon.org got from the first presidency which interested me.

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/show ... php?t=1776

You will note that the presidency implores 'if any have been offended, we are sorry'.
What it does, in my opinion is again categorise those who leave inappropriately. Many don't leave because they are offended, they leave because they didn't have the full picture, and when they do get the full picture they re-evaluate their position. It is all about being well informed, and up until recently I don't think people were that well informed. Whose fault is it that they weren't well informed? I'd say the missionaries (of which I was one) who teach them in the case of converts. (missionaries of course get their instructions of how and what to teach directly from the upper eschelons of the church)

It's a tricky issue for all involved, but I think at some point the leaders need to recognise that many leave for valid and actually very good and reasonable and rational etc etc reasons, not just because someone called them a 'smart ass' in the foyer for instance, or the bishop took a dislike to one of their kids, etc ad infinitum.

The first presidency also implore people to come back to partake of the 'happiness they once knew'. Again, they assume that happiness, true happiness can be had only within the confines of the LDS worldview and culture. Actually this may not be universally true. For some, they may experience very real unhappiness in trying to conform to something (I am not talking about commandments here, but a belief system), that they do not feel comfortable with.

I like a lot of Mormonism, but there are very significant portions of it that I reject as having anything to do with God, or his plan for my happiness. I hope that makes sense.

There are some attractive elements to what you suggest. However, I think your soulution isn't entirely "WORKABLE" for two very important reasons:

1) It addresses the by-product or symtom rather than the dynamic/cyle itself. In other words, it addresses the hurt and anger and grief rather than the cause of the hurt and anger and grief. It is like offering asprine to ease or mask the hurt, etc.. If the dynamic/cycle is still in place, the hurt and anger and grief will repeat itself.
2) Given that the dynamic/cycle is left in place with your "solution", there is an inherent limit to how far either party can go in accepting responsibility for the other parties hurt and anger and grief. If both parties firmly believe they are "RIGHT" and the other party is "WRONG", and that is what their focus is on (this is a huge hint folks), then what you are effectively suggesting is that they apologize for something they believe is "RIGHT" to a party they believe is "WRONG". For example, how do you suppose Mr. B should take responsibility for the hurt that Mr. A felt from thinking that Mr. B had lied about him and unwarrantedly smeared his reputation? Is Mr. B going to grant that he lied about Mr. A? Is he going to grant that he unwarrantedly smeared Mr. A's reputation? It is doubtful that he would do that any more than Mr. A would grant that he had lied about his product, or that his product is a fraud.

That having been said, how do you suppose Mr. D was able to avoid the dynamic/cycle? (This is a really big clue, folks).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Here is the flaw in your analogy and "solution": In your analogy there is a relatively definitive way of determining which type of TV it is (i.e. by scientifically testing it to determine if it meets the standards of an HD TV or not), whereas with the product in my scenerio, and in terms of the Church allegedly "lying" about what it claims to be, there isn't a way of definitively determining (to the satisfaction of both parties) who is "RIGHT".

Well, there's the problem - Mr. A holds out his product as the only true product, and all of the other products are wrong.

If Mr. A would say something like - here's a product that has brought joy to some people, but we're really not sure if the product is actually true, then we'd be getting somewhere. In other words, he could say something like "I'm not sure if this is actually and HD tv. Some people think it is, some people don't think it is." But he doesn't - he is selling the tv as an HDtv.

If Mr. A holds his product out to be exactly what he claims it is, then if it isn't, he's being deceitful. If most people look at the tv, but say, "that's not an HDtv", then Mr. A should stop claiming that it's an HDtv. Side note - what does that say about the few who actually think it's an HDtv? :o

And like I said earlier - Mr. A should offer a no questions asked full money back guarantee.