healing/recovery through venting?

[_Yoda]

OK, Wade...so this whole thread was your way of saying that everyone who no longer believes in the Church is wrong, and that they all suffer from cognitive distortion.

The only way for them to resolve or fix the cognitive distortion is to go back to Church.

See how simple that is, Wade? It took me two paragraphs. It took you 18 pages.

[_beastie]

:::applauding for liz::::

[_wenglund]

For example, lets say you told a romantic interest that you loved him/her, and you truely believed that you did and still do love that person. Were that person to once believe you, and then later stop believing that you love him/her, does that mean you were lying, disingenuine, insincere, acting in bad faith, and deceptive, even thought you still believe you truthfully, genuinely, sincerely, in good faith, and honestly loved and still love that person? Wouldn't you consider it a cognitive distortion for your former romantic interest to conclude that about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

Let me also build on it. Let's say the woman found some things out about the guy that the guy wasn't honest about. Let's say that there was good reason for the woman to not trust the guy anymore, because of certain actions of his that she felt went against his words. Let's say the guy truly did love her, but he did some deceptive things and didn't tell her about it. Would you consider it a cognitive distortion for her to conclude that the guy wasn't totally truthful with her, that she may not be able to believe anything he says any more?

No. I wouldn't think that was a cognitive distortion. It would only be a cognitive distortion were she to believe he was lying and deceiving her about loving her.

Let me also ask you this Wade: Do you consider it cognitive distortion for someone to embrace Mormonism, become happy about it, and go about telling everyone that the church is true, that they should join the church? (You're essentially saying the opposite of this is cognitive distortion)

No and no. No, I would not consider it a cognitive distortion for people to declare their belief in the verity of the gospel of Christ. No, it is not the opposite of what I am suggesting is a cognitive distortion. The opposite would be for someone to declare their personal belief that the Church is false. I would not consider that a congnitive distortion--at least not the one I am conserned about.

What I am suggesting is a cognitive distortion is your thinking the faithful members and leaders, who genuienly believe the Church is true, are lying and decieving about the what the Church claims. The opposite of this would be for a member of the Church to claim you, in spite of your genuine and sincere belief that the Church is false, are lying and deceiving people because the members think what you believe is false. In either case it is not a matter or lying and deceit, but simply a difference of opinion. It is a cognitive distortion to consider gunuine and sincere beliefs as lying and deceit. Did you get it that time?

Face it Wade - for your 'theories' to be true (this whole cognitive distortion thing) - you need the church to be true - you need the church to be what it claims to be. Since you can't claim that - let alone prove it, you have nothing.

Well, at least when it comes to being WRONG, you are consistent. The fact is, I could believe the Church is entirely false, and still think it a cognitive distortion for you to call genuine and sincere believers as liars and deceivers regarding their genuine and sincere beliefs.

But, don't take my word for it. There are numerous people in the Church who don't believe the Church is lying about what it claims, and there are numerous people who have left the Church who also don't believe the Church is lying and deceiving. There are a relitive few, like you, who do. Why do you suppose that is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

No. I wouldn't think that was a cognitive distortion. It would only be a cognitive distortion were she to believe he was lying and deceiving her about loving her.

Ok, so if he was lying about it, then it wouldn't be cognitive distortion. Right?

No and no. No, I would not consider it a cognitive distortion for people to declare their belief in the verity of the gospel of Christ. No, it is not the opposite of what I am suggesting is a cognitive distortion. The opposite would be for someone to declare their personal belief that the Church is false. I would not consider that a congnitive distortion--at least not the one I am conserned about.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

What I am suggesting is a cognitive distortion is your thinking the faithful members and leaders, who genuienly believe the Church is true, are lying and decieving about the what the Church claims. The opposite of this would be for a member of the Church to claim you, in spite of your genuine and sincere belief that the Church is false, are lying and deceiving people because the members think what you believe is false. In either case it is not a matter or lying and deceit, but simply a difference of opinion. It is a cognitive distortion to consider gunuine and sincere beliefs as lying and deceit. Did you get it that time?

So anytime someone thinks someone is lying about what a person professes is a sincere belief, that's cognitive distortion? So if you think OJ really did commit the murder - is that cognitive distortion?

Anyways, I don't think anyone here has accused the leaders of the church about lying about their beliefs (well, that's not even an issue for me). I could care less if Joseph Smith really was sincere in his belief that he was a prophet. Actions speak louder than words. Some people believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I think they're lying. Do you? Is that cognitive distortion?

Well, at least when it comes to being WRONG, you are consistent. The fact is, I could believe the Church is entirely false, and still think it a cognitive distortion for you to call genuine and sincere believers as liars and deceivers regarding their genuine and sincere beliefs.

Got it. Anytime someone thinks someone is lying, that's cognitive distortion. Whatever.

But, don't take my word for it. There are numerous people in the Church who don't believe the Church is lying about what it claims, and there are numerous people who have left the Church who also don't believe the Church is lying and deceiving. There are a relitive few, like you, who do. Why do you suppose that is?

Now you're just talking out of your ass. Please show some references before saying this a third time (while ignoring the call for references).

[_wenglund]

OK, Wade...so this whole thread was your way of saying that everyone who no longer believes in the Church is wrong, and that they all suffer from cognitive distortion.

The only way for them to resolve or fix the cognitive distortion is to go back to Church.

See how simple that is, Wade? It took me two paragraphs. It took you 18 pages.

The applause you just got from Beastie may reasonably give you clear indication that you couldn't have misunderstood me any more wrong than you have.

Let me try one more time to set this repeated, nearly 180 degree to the opposite, misperception straight. I have explicitely stated that my concern isn't about whether people believe the Church is true or not (believing it is false is a cognitive distortion that I have little or no interest in pursuing), nor is it getting people back to Church.

Here, let me highlight it this time so none of you will hopefully mis it: "Let me try one more time to set this repeated misperception straight. I have explicitely stated that my concern isn't about whether people believe the Church is true or not (believing it is false is a cognitive distortion that I have little or no interest in pursuing), nor is it getting people back to Church."

Did you all get it that time, or do I need to increase the font size? (Note, liz, that was a single paragraph)

Rather, the cognitive distortions that I am speaking to are those cognitions that cause the atypical, dysfunctional emotional reactions towards the Church--i.e. the relatively rare kinds of victimological "venting" and "grieving" (anger, hatred, gossip, backbiting, profanations, mockery of the sacred, etc.) like what I see at RFM and on other discussion boards like this. In short, it is those kinds of cognitive distortion that may make one vulnerable to, or fallen prey to, bigotry against the restored gospel of Christ, not PRINCIPLY unlike the congnitive distortions underlaying anti-Semitism. (Note again, liz, that this is a single paragraph)

Is that clear? Or, do I need to repeat it in bold and increase the font size as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Scratch, you must remember things are sacred, not secret - such as the financial records. That is why they may not be seen or discussed.

Oh is that why....I think I will tell the IRS next time I don't want pay my taxes...my money is sacred...not secret...so they have no right to see my W'2

Think it might work....???? So they can't discuss my income or whatever I do with my sacred money

[_truth dancer]

Try as I do, I think I am getting more confused with each page of this thread.

:-) Let me try this...

Wade, if ten people all believe the church is not true, they all believe there were deceived, they all believe they wasted a lot of time and money for the church, yet they react differently (some vent, some cry, some repress, some shout for joy, some scream, some get depressed, others get angry, some let it all go), what (to your way of thinking) are the cognitive distortions that create the behavior of those who yell or vent or post on RFM?

~dancer~

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nevertheless, there is evidence of "deception" Particularly with the polygamy bit. I.e., does it seem okay to you for someone to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," and then to engage in other romantic relationships without saying anything?

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to marry more than one woman? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon the number of wives one marries.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were one to marry other women without the knowledge and consent of one's first wife? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon disclosure or nondisclosure to one's first wife of marriages to other wives, or any other things that are not directly related to prophethood.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to be considered deceptive by others or even himself in not telling his first wife about the other wives. Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon a perceived deception not directly related to the prophets belief in himself as a prophet. One can genuinely and sincerely believe onesself to be a prophet, and lie and deceive about one or several or even everything else in one's life, and that would not render one's belief about oneself as a prophet the least bit deceptive, or disingenuous, or insincere, or in bad faith or dishonest.

Are you starting to correctly understand yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. You're trying to evade the question of whether or not any deception is involved.
Once again: Is it okay to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," while failing to mention polygamous relationships? What say ye, Wade: deceptive or not?

Evidently you haven't correctly understood yet. There was no evading whatsoever. Perhaps in your attempts at "reciprocity" you typically failed to see or comprehend where I specifically and explicitely dealt with the question of whether deception was involved. I spoke not only of it being perceived that way (perceived as deception was involved), but I also mentioned the significance to the question at hand (whether a prophet is deceptive about being a prophet when the prophet genuinely and sincerely believes he is a prophet?) of deception being involved once, or several times, or even in everything else about one's life that are irrelevant to the prophet being deceptive about being a prophet.

Let me see if I can paraphrase your view: If a prophet is a prophet, everything else is irrelevant. It does not matter if that prophet lies about his sexual escapades, or if he is a criminal, because none of this changes his status as a prophet, which he did not lie about. Granted, he lied about other things, and was quite a deceptive person more generally, but anyone who is angry about the lies he told is experiencing a cognitive distortion due to the fact that he never lied about being a prophet?

Did I get that right?

(I took the liberty of bolding the section so you wouldn't mis it again--though I can't control for your correctly comprehending it this time around, especially given your so-called "reciprocity" and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Reciprocity" just means that you have to have a bit of empathy for your reader, and to understand that you are not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY for a given text's meaning. You know, sort of like how you ignored the question I asked you, which I have bolded for you this time around. ; )

[_Runtu]

I haven't read Juliann's "stuff" (except brief snippets from the discussion I had with Scratch and Beastie regarding her definition of "apostate"). Nor, for that matter, have I read much of anything on poststructuralism. In other words, neither has informed my current view. What little I have read of poststructuralism, it doesn't resonate with me. Unlike poststructuralists, I don't reject the claim to have discovered truths or facts about the worlds. I strenuously disagree with Barth, a leading poststructuralist, when he assertied, in "Death of the Author", that the author is not the prime source for meaning in a text.

Actually, his name is "Barthes," Wade. And you have, ironically enough, only reaffirmed his argument from "The Death of the Author." He says, towards the end of that essay, that the "birth of the reader" only comes about at the expense of the author. In other words, he is making a case for reciprocity. It is naïve to assume that the author is the final arbiter of any text's meaning. You can go back to well before the poststructuralists for that.

I was going to respond to Wade here, but you've pretty much nailed it. Barthes would say that meaning resides in the interaction between reader and text, and that once the text leaves the author, the author in effect dies. Have you ever read Barthes' "A Lover's Discourse"? He argues that love in reality is not a connection between two people, but an affirmation of an extreme solitude, an unconscious admission that the self cannot ever connect with another self; it's just this issue that informs reading: we cannot ever connect with the author. Rather, the act of reading is reciprocal only in our interaction with the text. Which is why the use of poststructuralism by Juliann and others is absurd because Mormonism posits God as the ultimate Author, whereas the poststructuralists would say that the very act of reading is an admission of our isolation from God.

And, I accept the "self" as a singular and coherent entity.

Nonsense. Your "self" can be viewed as a construction, too. Or do you want to claim that you are somehow magically "yourself" without the structure and undergirding provided by Mormonism?

Exactly. Again, the poststructuralists would say that our very conception of self is filtered by language. What we perceive is random stimuli, which our brains through language structure and organize into a self. And that very act of organization makes the self an artificial construct. This is not exactly compatible with Mormon ideas of the eternity of the soul.

The bottom line is that this approach is inimical to Mormonism, but paradoxically it's the only way to make Mormonism work because "objectively," Mormonism does not add up. As long as Mormonism's truth claims are relegated to the subjective, it matters not what the truth is. Thus, the poststructuralists destroy the very thing they mean to defend.

But whatever works, right?

[_Runtu]

Do you know what I mean by "fundamentalism"?

It doesn't matter what you mean by fundamentalism. Do you know what fundamentalism is?

Here's a not-bad definition from Terry Eagleton:

The word "fundamentalism" was first used in the early years of the last century by anti-liberal US Christians, who singled out seven supposed fundamentals of their faith. The word, then, is not one of those derogatory terms that only other people use about you, like "fatso". It began life as a proud self-description. The first of the seven fundamentals was a belief in the literal truth of the Bible; and this is probably the best definition of fundamentalism there is. It is basically a textual affair. Fundamentalists are those who believe that our linguistic currency is trustworthy only if it is backed by the gold standard of the Word of Words. They see God as copperfastening human meaning. Fundamentalism means sticking strictly to the script, which in turn means being deeply fearful of the improvised, ambiguous or indeterminate.

Wade, the reason Juliann and others accuse critics of fundamentalism is because fundamentalists are the polar opposites of the postmoderns: whereas postmoderns deny the existence of absolute truth, fundamentalists believe that absolute truth resides in the word of God, as Eagleton says, they "believe that our linguistic currency is trustworthy only if it is backed by the gold standard of the Word of Words. They see God as copperfastening human meaning."

I'm not really sure you intend to put yourself in the camp of the postmoderns, Wade. Unfortunately, the postmodern Mormons I've interacted with on FAIR and elsewhere have been praised rather uncritically, so most average Mormons think that they are defending truth when in fact they are destroying the very notion of truth itself.

I understand why they do this; one rather well-known postmodern Mormon told me that the stance was a reaction to the impossibility of reconciling a testimony with the evidence.

Do you really want to place yourself in this camp, Wade? I think you need to do a little more reading before you jump on the postmodern bandwagon. After all, if truth and meaning are subjective, then whatever we perceive is real and true, and there can be no such thing as cognitive distortion.