wenglund wrote:I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A.
Your whole 'set-up'. Where Mr. A is the prophet (or leaders of the church) and he is selling 'the gospel'. You're setting up a situation that is not realistic (but you think correlates well with what is happening in the real world), and one that you think suits your purposes.
wenglund wrote:I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A.
Your whole 'set-up'. Where Mr. A is the prophet (or leaders of the church) and he is selling 'the gospel'. You're setting up a situation that is not realistic (but you think correlates well with what is happening in the real world), and one that you think suits your purposes.
That is why it is 'straw manish'.
Were I to have specified or limited Mr. A to the prophet or leaders of the Church, then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Ironically, though, your thinking and stating that I had, is....well, a straw man. ;-)
At the risk of testing your patience further, I have other priorities at the moment, so I won't be able at this time to post the CHOICES (which ential the WORKABLE solution that benefits one and all), but I hope to post them in the next day or so. Please bear with me.
wenglund wrote:I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A.
Your whole 'set-up'. Where Mr. A is the prophet (or leaders of the church) and he is selling 'the gospel'. You're setting up a situation that is not realistic (but you think correlates well with what is happening in the real world), and one that you think suits your purposes.
That is why it is 'straw manish'.
Were I to have specified or limited Mr. A to the prophet or leaders of the Church, then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Ironically, though, your thinking and stating that I had, is....well, a straw man. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know what I mean - Mr. A is some member of the church. The product he's selling is the church. Mr. B is an exmo. etc.
I think people would take you a tad more seriously if they saw you trying to work on the LDS part of this problematic equation, and trying to get them to address their own cognitive distortions.
And another huge problem in this entire discussion is your eagerness to project anger where none exists. Of course some exmormons are angry, especially in the early period of their exodus. But as time goes on, the anger lessens, unless one is placed in a situation where one is continually harassed and one's livelihood and/or familial relations are endangered due to one's lack of belief. Anger is a normal, healthy reaction to certain behaviors in others. You can't magically wave a wand and decide to stop feeling anger if another individual is harming you. And please don't bother pretending that all of this harm is only perceived, not real. Both you and I know that people risk losing their LDS families and spouses when they leave the church, and if they live in a LDS dominated community, risk losing their professional contacts as well. Some people have to live their lives in secret disbelief, all the while attending church, paying tithing, raising one's children to believe, due to the likelihood of divorce if the nonbeliever insists on the right to make decisions based on that nonbelief. Due to the church's insistence on portraying apostates as sinners (or your own version, cognitively distorted), it is extremely difficult for exbelievers to maintain normal relationships with believers who accept the party line.
Of course it is possible to pretend that one does not feel anger as a result of harm, but that is actually repression, which is very unhealthy and leads to emotional and health problems.
You want a simple solution, and a one sided solution, where none exists. You want exmormons to pretend that the reaction of believers to their loss of faith does not cause real harm when it does. You want to pretend that if exmormons would just not talk about it, everything would be fine.
It's really an unhealthy viewpoint. Of course, if an individual had a high emotional investment in not feeling anger towards the LDS church due to sacrificing a part of themselves to remain LDS, then I could understand the need to engage in such repression of anger.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
And, by the way, your construct contradicts your assertion that you're only interested in what is WORKABLE. If you were only interested in what is WORKABLE rather than who is wrong or right, you would not have bothered with your construct. If anger, in and of itself, is detrimental to a human being and must be resolved, under your theory of workability, it wouldn't even matter what the cause of the anger was. But you dwelt at length on the cause of the anger.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
wenglund wrote:I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A.
Your whole 'set-up'. Where Mr. A is the prophet (or leaders of the church) and he is selling 'the gospel'. You're setting up a situation that is not realistic (but you think correlates well with what is happening in the real world), and one that you think suits your purposes.
That is why it is 'straw manish'.
Were I to have specified or limited Mr. A to the prophet or leaders of the Church, then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Ironically, though, your thinking and stating that I had, is....well, a straw man. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know what I mean - Mr. A is some member of the church. The product he's selling is the church. Mr. B is an exmo. etc.
Make sure to use small words when explaining things to wade. It helps if you draw pictures too.
Even with all that though its still a lost cause. Wade has an accute case of "cognitivus dissonitus".
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
wenglund wrote:I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A.
Your whole 'set-up'. Where Mr. A is the prophet (or leaders of the church) and he is selling 'the gospel'. You're setting up a situation that is not realistic (but you think correlates well with what is happening in the real world), and one that you think suits your purposes.
That is why it is 'straw manish'.
Were I to have specified or limited Mr. A to the prophet or leaders of the Church, then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Ironically, though, your thinking and stating that I had, is....well, a straw man. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know what I mean - Mr. A is some member of the church. The product he's selling is the church. Mr. B is an exmo. etc.
Make sure to use small words when explaining things to wade. It helps if you draw pictures too.
Even with all that though its still a lost cause. Wade has an accute case of "cognitivus dissonitus".
Yep. "cognivitus dissonitus" accompanied with "extremus fundamentalus asininus". Bad combo.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Also, Wade, your labeling angry exbelievers as suffering from "cognitive distortion" is another dead give-away. Of course you think it matters who is "right".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.