Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_Runtu]

You're conflating two separate concepts, Wade. Lying and Rightness are two separate things.

And there is indeed a way to definitively determine if the church is what it claims to be (that's another thread, though, so I won't derail this one by telling you how that's done). You just prefer to ignore that, because it does not support the church's claim.

As far as the lying is concerned, it's relatively easy to determine if the Church is lying or not, even when the lies are lies of omission. Check the historical record. If the church's version of church history doesn't match the historical record (and it doesn't), then the church is lying about it's history. Keep in mind that just because the church lies about one thing doesn't mean it's lying about everything.

Wade's entire "cognitive distortion" rests on the assumption that both sides acted in good faith and that there is no evidence that one or the other did not. To me, that's a cognitive distortion in itself.

[_Sam Harris]

OK, Wade...if I understand your armchair therapy correctly, what you're getting at is that Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own hurt, and not blame Mr. A or anyone/anything else. Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own life, and not wallow in a victim mode.

Several of us have spoken to that very point, Wade, but you conveniently ignore it.

I've said that repeatedly. What I see here is that to avoid these feelings in the future, we must realize that other people don't actually do anything wrong; it's just our distorted perception that makes us think so.

Good People,

I haven't ignored what you have said. In fact I have carefully considered your comments, and gone on to simply point out how your proposed "solutions" fall somewhat short of being "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned. It is not just a matter of taking responsibility for one's own life, it is a matter of finding a functional way to take responsibility for your own life.

And, I am not suggesting that we "realize" that other people don't actually do things that are wrong. They do. However, what I have been hinting at is that it isn't always in everyone's best interest to rigidly focus on who is "RIGHT" and who is "WRONG", rather than what "WORKS" and what doesn't. In fact, not always is it NECESSARY to view someone or something as "WRONG"--though there are instances where it is necessary and appropriate to view them that way, nor is it always NECESSARY to view them as "WRONG" in a certain way or to a certain degree. In which cases, all parties may be better served to focus on what "WORKS", rather than on who is "RIGHT" and "WRONG"?

You will note that I haven't said that any of the proposed solutions are "WRONG". I have said the proposed solutions are not "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Man, screw the other party, to put it nicely! If the other party knows that they're decieving, the "B" party is in no way obligated to make them feel comfortable with that deception...and don't tell me that Mr. A didn't know...if he didn't know, he's more in need of your so-called therapy than we are.

[_wenglund]

Please keep in mind that what I mean by "taking back control" is, in large part, a function of making "WORKABLE" CHOICES for ourselves and in the interest of all parties concerned.

And, I am not just talking about this in terms of cognitive strategies for regulating one's own emotional disposition (i.e. ways to prevent or properly manage depression and anxiety, and/or avoid UNNECESSARY or irrational hurt and anger and grief), but also in terms of cognitive strategies that entail social/relationship skills (the way in which we act or react or interact with others).

Furthermore, I am not just talking about this in terms of the Church's allegedly lying about what it claims to be (there are other cognitive distortions to which this applies that I intend to address in other threads, like "victimization" and "racism", etc.), nor am I just talking in terms of people's relationship with the Church. The general principle that I am attempting to illuminate applies to every relationship people may have (spousal, parental, familial, friendship, membership, leadership, boss/employee, vender/customer, citizenship, etc.).

So, correctly understanding this principle may prove extremely useful in various aspects of people's lives. It could improve marital relationships. It could enhance one's ability to parent. It could increase one's effectiveness in the work place. It might even positively influence interactions on internet discussion boards. ;-)

In other words, it is in each of our best interest, as well as the interest of all parties, for you to stop fighting me so hard on this, and start WORKING with me.

In my next post I will list some of the CHOICES one can make that will more functionally take back control of one's emotional disposition and also position one far better to functionally relate with others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

In my next post I will list some of the CHOICES one can make that will more functionally take back control of one's emotional disposition and also position one far better to functionally relate with others.

Finally, we're getting somewhere. It's only taken 20 pages on one thread and 4 on another! LOL

by the way, Wade, you HAVE told everyone here on AT LEAST one occasion that they were WRONG in their conclusions. In one instance, you told both Beastie and me that were 180 degrees WRONG.

Since you seem to be so adept at playing word games, at least keep the words you use yourself straight. You only recently used the word WORKABLE.

Frankly, if you had used the word, WORKABLE, to begin with, I would have been more apt to listen to what you had to say.

[_wenglund]

Good People,

I haven't ignored what you have said. In fact I have carefully considered your comments, and gone on to simply point out how your proposed "solutions" fall somewhat short of being "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned. It is not just a matter of taking responsibility for one's own life, it is a matter of finding a functional way to take responsibility for your own life.

And, I am not suggesting that we "realize" that other people don't actually do things that are wrong. They do. However, what I have been hinting at is that it isn't always in everyone's best interest to rigidly focus on who is "RIGHT" and who is "WRONG", rather than what "WORKS" and what doesn't. In fact, not always is it NECESSARY to view someone or something as "WRONG"--though there are instances where it is necessary and appropriate to view them that way, nor is it always NECESSARY to view them as "WRONG" in a certain way or to a certain degree. In which cases, all parties may be better served to focus on what "WORKS", rather than on who is "RIGHT" and "WRONG"?

You will note that I haven't said that any of the proposed solutions are "WRONG". I have said the proposed solutions are not "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I frankly don't care if the solution is workable for the church. I suspect that they don't really concern themselves with how I deal with things, either. All I have control over is what is workable for me. For me, that is forgiving and moving on, simply put. I'm not focused on being right. I'm just trying to get on with my life.

I can appreciate that you are trying to get on with your life, and that is to be commended. And, I think it often wise to look to the future rather than back at the past when moving forward--otherwise, as Dr. Phil often says, "the past will become your future".

However, not that you might care, I wonder if your self-centric strategy will be sufficiently workable in moving you entirely on from the past, as well as in preventing you from becoming UNNECESSARILY (as evinced by Mr. D) emotionally racked and grief-stricken with some other issue in your life that could engender deep depression, and in ways that may be potentially corrosive to various relationships you may have.

I also wonder if you really aren't focused on being right. After all, you seem to be holding on tenaciously to your semi-workable (in terms of your self), self-centric strategy at the potential expense of your own emotional disposition and your relationship with others. And, you seem terribly resistant to exploring or even considering alternative strategies that could work to everyone's best interest.

But, who knows? I am not so much interested whether you are right or wrong. I am just interested in whether your strategy really works or not. I don't believe it does--not even for you. Do you suppose Mr. D had to vent and grieve for months at RFM? Do you suppose even now, a year later, he is still trying to "move on"? Do you suppose his strategy may have had the kind of corrosive and uncaring impact on the Church (including his wife and children, etc.) as yours did and still does?

Just some things to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I can appreciate that you are trying to get on with your life, and that is to be commended. And, I think it often wise to look to the future rather than back at the past when moving forward--otherwise, as Dr. Phil often says, "the past will become your future".

However, not that you might care, I wonder if your self-centric strategy will be sufficiently workable in moving you entirely on from the past, as well as in preventing you from becoming UNNECESSARILY (as evinced by Mr. D) emotionally racked and grief-stricken with some other issue in your life that could engender deep depression, and in ways that may be potentially corrosive to various relationships you may have.

I also wonder if you really aren't focused on being right. After all, you seem to be holding on tenaciously to your semi-workable (in terms of your self), self-centric strategy at the potential expense of your own emotional disposition and your relationship with others. And, you seem terribly resistant to exploring or even considering alternative strategies that could work to everyone's best interest.

But, who knows? I am not so much interested whether you are right or wrong. I am just interested in whether your strategy really works or not. I don't believe it does--not even for you. Do you suppose Mr. D had to vent and grieve for months at RFM? Do you suppose even now, a year later, he is still trying to "move on"? Do you suppose his strategy may have had the kind of corrosive and uncaring impact on the Church (including his wife and children, etc.) as yours did and still does?

Just some things to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, what I'm saying is that the church's reaction is not something I can control, and attempting to work on their reactions seems counterproductive and, as you put it, would suggest that I'm dependent on what the church does or doesn't do for my emotional health.

Was I emotionally wracked and grief-stricken? Yep, sure was. Was it unnecessary? I'm not so sure about that.

As for resistance, I've already said that I'm completely comfortable exploring alternative strategies with people who know what they're doing and don't have an agenda, such as the therapist I worked with for several months. That I'm resistant to exploring strategies with you says nothing about a tenacious refusal to work things out. I simply do not consider you either qualified to help devise such a strategy or unbiased enough to suggest a helpful strategy.

Have I had a corrosive and uncaring effect on the church? I very much doubt it.

[_wenglund]

You're conflating two separate concepts, Wade. Lying and Rightness are two separate things.

And there is indeed a way to definitively determine if the church is what it claims to be (that's another thread, though, so I won't derail this one by telling you how that's done). You just prefer to ignore that, because it does not support the church's claim.

As far as the lying is concerned, it's relatively easy to determine if the Church is lying or not, even when the lies are lies of omission. Check the historical record. If the church's version of church history doesn't match the historical record (and it doesn't), then the church is lying about it's history. Keep in mind that just because the church lies about one thing doesn't mean it's lying about everything.

I understand that you feel you are "RIGHT" and the Church and I are "WRONG" about the Church allegedly lying regarding what it claims to be, and that you feel you are "RIGHT" and I am "WRONG" about there being a definitive way of determining who is right or wrong. But, I care too much about you, and I care too much about finding and vetting what "WORKS", to not get into an "UNWORKABLE" debate with you on the subject. I will just "WORKABLY" and happily and contentedly chalk it up to a difference of opinion, and respect that you have your reasons for believing differently than I do (charitably assuming that you aren't lying in general or specific), and thereby avoid engendering any ill feelings in me or perhaps you like what has often occurred in the past between us.

Now, I could have CHOSEN to focus on being RIGHT, and to verbally lock horns with you in as uncharitable, accusatory, and non-understanding way as you have attempted to verbally lock horns with me, but I have discovered that that wouldn't be in my interest, nor would it be in yours. In other words, it wouldn't WORK.

But, I do appreciate you providing me with this opportunity to present this object lesson, hopefully to the benefit of all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, what I'm saying is that the church's reaction is not something I can control, and attempting to work on their reactions seems counterproductive and, as you put it, would suggest that I'm dependent on what the church does or doesn't do for my emotional health.

Was I emotionally wracked and grief-stricken? Yep, sure was. Was it unnecessary? I'm not so sure about that.

As for resistance, I've already said that I'm completely comfortable exploring alternative strategies with people who know what they're doing and don't have an agenda, such as the therapist I worked with for several months. That I'm resistant to exploring strategies with you says nothing about a tenacious refusal to work things out. I simply do not consider you either qualified to help devise such a strategy or unbiased enough to suggest a helpful strategy.

Have I had a corrosive and uncaring effect on the church? I very much doubt it.

I can accept and respect your point of view. And, in spite of what I have perceived as tenacity and resistence, you still strike me as someone who really wants to do what is best and what works. And, I can understand if you are distrusting of me and my abilities, and that you prefer to leave such things to licensed professionals. If that works for you, I am okay with that.

However, I do believe I have some helpful viewpoints and strategies to offer those who may yet be interested and open to them. So, out of respect for you and your stated view of me, I will direct my comments to them rather than you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Now, I could have CHOSEN to focus on being RIGHT, and to verbally lock horns with you in as uncharitable, accusatory, and non-understanding way as you have attempted to verbally lock horns with me, but I have discovered that that wouldn't be in my interest, nor would it be in yours. In other words, it wouldn't WORK.

The problem Wade, is that you have chosen to verbally lock horns by setting up this ridiculous Mr. A strawman.

I've played your silly little game here. Are you going to respond to the thread I set up just for you?

[_wenglund]

Now, I could have CHOSEN to focus on being RIGHT, and to verbally lock horns with you in as uncharitable, accusatory, and non-understanding way as you have attempted to verbally lock horns with me, but I have discovered that that wouldn't be in my interest, nor would it be in yours. In other words, it wouldn't WORK.

The problem Wade, is that you have chosen to verbally lock horns by setting up this ridiculous Mr. A strawman.

I've played your silly little game here. Are you going to respond to the thread I set up just for you?

I am not sure what is "straw manish" about Mr. A, but I just responded on your thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-