Yet more evidence of Mr. "D"

[_Mister Scratch]

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

From whence comes the requirement that leaving the Mormon Church must be done in a "nice" way? Who imposes this standard? Who has the right to impose this standard?

Believing Mormons appear in many cases to assume a sense of entitlement. They grudgingly grant you the right to leave (though not without attributing it to character flaw), but then they demand that you be nice about it. Why? Well, because it's THEIR church. Go ahead and say what you want about whatever else, but not about OUR church. You must be nice to us; don't speak badly about our church.

BS. If I, or anyone, leave the Mormon Church, we has all the right in the world to openly, freely, and honestly express our opinions and our experiences regarding the doctrines, the people, the history, and in many cases these opinions and experiences are not nice.

Get over it; not everybody loves Mormonism. Many people acutely dislike it. Some hate it. Just because its YOUR church is totally irrelevant. I, and anyone else, have no obligation whatsoever to be nice regarding our views about Mormonism. In fact, one might argue, if there's an ethical obgliatin, and we think the the Mormon Church is, on balance, a harmful cult, don't we possess some obligation to at least warn those we love about it, if not also those who are flirting with getting hooked into it?

I prefer civility on the whole, but sometimes it's appropriate to call a spade a spade and not be nice about it. It's high time for believers to let go of this silly sense of entitlement they have that the rest of the world owes them respect, for no other reason than they fervently believe in something, regardless of how silly or mistaken the belief is, or how right they think it is.

The same can and has been said of ex-Mormons and unbelievers--but to what end or benefit?

I am not trying to deny people their anxst, their vitriol, their vengence, or their victimology, etc. I am simply suggesting a workable alternative. We each have a choice. We don't have to wallow in self-pity, or gnash our teeth, or wax self-righteous and judgemental and hyper-critical, or contribute to the cycle of violence and human degredation. We can choose to devote our efforts to constructive endevours that uplift and enrich the human condition, and enable the satifying of the critical human need for mutual love, value, and respect.....or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The irony (and hypocrisy) of what you are saying is that YOUR OWN POST is a an example of you being "self-righteous and judgmental." You claim to admire R. Dutcher's post insofar as it basically remains mum on the issue of doctrine or Church truth claims.... Does that mean that you also wish DCP, Pahoran, Bill Hamblin, and other outspoken Mopologists would "shut up" and stop contributing to the "cycle....of human degradation"?

[_Yong Xi]

Wade,

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

[_Bond...James Bond]

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

This book will be subtitled: "Or How to take a spiritual screwing like a submissive mute...without a word of complaint and a twinkle in your eye."

[_wenglund]

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

From whence comes the requirement that leaving the Mormon Church must be done in a "nice" way? Who imposes this standard? Who has the right to impose this standard?

Believing Mormons appear in many cases to assume a sense of entitlement. They grudgingly grant you the right to leave (though not without attributing it to character flaw), but then they demand that you be nice about it. Why? Well, because it's THEIR church. Go ahead and say what you want about whatever else, but not about OUR church. You must be nice to us; don't speak badly about our church.

BS. If I, or anyone, leave the Mormon Church, we has all the right in the world to openly, freely, and honestly express our opinions and our experiences regarding the doctrines, the people, the history, and in many cases these opinions and experiences are not nice.

Get over it; not everybody loves Mormonism. Many people acutely dislike it. Some hate it. Just because its YOUR church is totally irrelevant. I, and anyone else, have no obligation whatsoever to be nice regarding our views about Mormonism. In fact, one might argue, if there's an ethical obgliatin, and we think the the Mormon Church is, on balance, a harmful cult, don't we possess some obligation to at least warn those we love about it, if not also those who are flirting with getting hooked into it?

I prefer civility on the whole, but sometimes it's appropriate to call a spade a spade and not be nice about it. It's high time for believers to let go of this silly sense of entitlement they have that the rest of the world owes them respect, for no other reason than they fervently believe in something, regardless of how silly or mistaken the belief is, or how right they think it is.

The same can and has been said of ex-Mormons and unbelievers--but to what end or benefit?

I am not trying to deny people their anxst, their vitriol, their vengence, or their victimology, etc. I am simply suggesting a workable alternative. We each have a choice. We don't have to wallow in self-pity, or gnash our teeth, or wax self-righteous and judgemental and hyper-critical, or contribute to the cycle of violence and human degredation. We can choose to devote our efforts to constructive endevours that uplift and enrich the human condition, and enable the satifying of the critical human need for mutual love, value, and respect.....or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed, it is preferable that we devote our efforts to constructive endeavors. But then, truth, the search for it, and the unmasking of un-truth posing as truth are constructive endeavors. Those who undertook the constructive endeavor to expose Mormonism for what it is, did me, and thousands of other people, and tremendous service in helping us break free of the cult. You seem to want to define "constructive endeavor" in more limited terms than I do.

I believe in the ongoing search for truth. Mormonism, as a belief system, does not. It peddles a false truth, and does so in deceptive ways. Exposing it, criticizing it, holding it, and its leaders accountable, is, in my opinion, highly constructive. And I am grateful to the persons who have undertaken this task.

Again, the same dogmatic declarations and smug appreciation can and have been said in reverse, but to what avail?

What ends up being promoted is contention rather than "truth", divisiveness rather than unity, defensiveness rather than openness, degredation rather than progression, food-fights rather than feasts, smoke rather than fire, or as Brent Metcalfe has said: "heat rather than light".

If you are really intent on promoting truth, then I think it important to understand that it is relatively rare that converts are made on either side when the prevailing tool of evangelizing is negativity and the message is "what's wrong with the other guy's belief" (you may be the exception rather than the rule). And too often, those converted under those conditions end up directionless and floundering like a ship whose anchor has been cut loose on the storm-tossed seas, or whose compass has been deemed errant.

Much more productive (particularly on a mutual basis) is a positive and respectful message of "here is what I believe is right and good and workable with my belief", particularly when it is conveyed in such a way that the message is made self-evident--i.e. by living and acting in such a way that others will see that seeds of 'truth" you have planted yeild an abundance of desirous and benefitial fruit.

Think of it this way: which menu would you be attracted to and most likely to be nourished by, and which do you think will draw family and friends to sit and partake around the table?

1) Sour grapes, bitter root, thorny thistle, rotten tomatoes, and spoiled or burnt meat.

2) Fresh and ripe peaches and cream, chicken BBQed to perfection, tossed salad with your favorite dressing, cool and refreshing glass of water.

The question, then, for each of us is: "Which menu are you and I serving up?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

you forgot to answer this question:

So is it a form of cognitive distortion when believers say that exbelievers lost faith due to pride, ignorance, laziness, desire to sin, or psychological dysfunctions?

[_wenglund]

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

This book will be subtitled: "Or How to take a spiritual screwing like a submissive mute...without a word of complaint and a twinkle in your eye."

This title and subtitle are strongly suggestive of disrespect and victimology, and are thus opposite to any message I wish to convey to exiting Mormons. But, given your own mindsets, I am not suprised that you would suggest them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

you forgot to answer this question:

So is it a form of cognitive distortion when believers say that exbelievers lost faith due to pride, ignorance, laziness, desire to sin, or psychological dysfunctions?

I didn't forget to answer. I chose not to answer. The reason being: you have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that your mind is closed, and thus there is no chance of our having a meaningful and productive conversation. So why bother? (I am bothering to say this much so as to save you the time and effort of reposting queries to me to no avail)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I didn't forget to answer. I chose not to answer. The reason being: you have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that your mind is closed, and thus there is no chance of our having a meaningful and productive conversation. So why bother? (I am bothering to say this much so as to save you the time and effort of reposting queries to me to no avail)

Well, if I am a hopeless case, perhaps you can reach others whose minds are not so closed.

After all your discussion here about exmormon cognitive distortion, I actually think it is quite fair and reasonable to ask you to answer this simple question.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

This book will be subtitled: "Or How to take a spiritual screwing like a submissive mute...without a word of complaint and a twinkle in your eye."

This title and subtitle are strongly suggestive of disrespect and victimology, and are thus opposite to any message I wish to convey to exiting Mormons. But, given your own mindsets, I am not suprised that you would suggest them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

From your posts it seems like that's exactly what you're saying; at least the submissive mute and twinkle in the eye part. Perhaps where you disagree is in Bond's assertion that people who buy into Joseph Smith's lies and the apologists' distortions and get shunned when they leave have been spiritually screwed? But of course, they all feel they have, and if you minimize that feeling then you have failed to empathize with them. Isn't it self-righteous to lecture someone for their response to a feeling of victimization when in fact you are unable or unwilling to empathize with that feeling?

-CK

[_Mercury]

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

This book will be subtitled: "Or How to take a spiritual screwing like a submissive mute...without a word of complaint and a twinkle in your eye."

This title and subtitle are strongly suggestive of disrespect and victimology, and are thus opposite to any message I wish to convey to exiting Mormons. But, given your own mindsets, I am not suprised that you would suggest them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess your degrees in Victimology and McTherapy qualify you to speak on such matters.

Tell me wade, is it sad at night knowing you will be alone for the rest of your life?