Standard narratives and anger

[_Runtu]

I think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between "reasoning with" one's emotions vs. "reasoning them away." You seem to continuously demand the latter, which strikes me as being rather akin to brainwashing.

My understanding of cognitive therapy is not the emotions vanish, but that you use reason to put them into proper perspective. Once you understand why you're reacting the way you are, and what a more reasonable reaction might look like, you can deal with your emotions. What I find untenable is the suggestion that any emotional response to leaving the church is a priori a result of cognitive distortion.

[_wenglund]

I think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between "reasoning with" one's emotions vs. "reasoning them away." You seem to continuously demand the latter, which strikes me as being rather akin to brainwashing.

If not all reasoning is "akin to brainwashing", then please explain specifically how you think the reasoning in CBT is "akin to brainwashing".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

What I find untenable is the suggestion that any emotional response to leaving the church is a priori a result of cognitive distortion.

I agree. Such a sweeping suggestion would be untenable--as untenable as assuming that such a suggestion has been made.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

What I find untenable is the suggestion that any emotional response to leaving the church is a priori a result of cognitive distortion.

I agree. Such a sweeping suggestion would be untenable--as untenable as assuming that such a suggestion has been made.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me be more precise. You suggested that any anger or grief associated with leaving Mormonism was a result of cognitive distortion.

[_desert_vulture]

What I find untenable is the suggestion that any emotional response to leaving the church is a priori a result of cognitive distortion.

I agree. Such a sweeping suggestion would be untenable--as untenable as assuming that such a suggestion has been made.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me be more precise. You suggested that any anger or grief associated with leaving Mormonism was a result of cognitive distortion.

Hmm, cognitive distortion? Wow. Having actually experience the disillusionment of discovering Mormonism is NOT what it claims to be, and dealing the with the accompanying emotional roller-coaster, I can safely say that there is no distortion whatsoever. In fact, its the exact opposite. Your senses become heightened to a new, completely open sense of wonder and amazement as your mind liberates you from the many contradictions within Mormonism. Some have referred to this moment as an epiphany. It is far from cognitive distortion. I would describe it as a cognitive rebirth, or an objective assessment of reality.

The anger and pain are only side effects of this type of liberating mental awakening. The anger is usually a reaction to the perceived loss from operating under erroneous premises for so long, and the frustration is a reaction to a feeling of helplessness or freefall, from trying to determine what course to pursue after the mental bonds have been broken. These are temporary emotions, and I believe they only happen to some people upon their awakening from the whitewashed version of Mormonism. Others simply understand, and move on, without losing sleep over it. Personally, I lost some sleep. But cognitive distortion does not describe the process at all, it really doesn't. Sorry.

[_Runtu]

Let me be more precise. You suggested that any anger or grief associated with leaving Mormonism was a result of cognitive distortion.

Hmm, cognitive distortion? Wow. Having actually experience the disillusionment of discovering Mormonism is NOT what it claims to be, and dealing the with the accompanying emotional roller-coaster, I can safely say that there is no distortion whatsoever. In fact, its the exact opposite. Your senses become heightened to a new, completely open sense of wonder and amazement as your mind liberates you from the many contradictions within Mormonism. Some have referred to this moment as an epiphany. It is far from cognitive distortion. I would describe it as a cognitive rebirth, or an objective assessment of reality.

The anger and pain are only side effects of this type of liberating mental awakening. The anger is usually a reaction to the perceived loss from operating under erroneous premises for so long, and the frustration is a reaction to a feeling of helplessness or freefall, from trying to determine what course to pursue after the mental bonds have been broken. These are temporary emotions, and I believe they only happen to some people upon their awakening from the whitewashed version of Mormonism. Others simply understand, and move on, without losing sleep over it. Personally, I lost some sleep. But cognitive distortion does not describe the process at all, it really doesn't. Sorry.

Sorry, dv, you're just plain wrong. Here's what Wade had to say about the anger and pain you experienced:

Your assuming that calling something "venting" and "grieving" makes it so. Your assuming that there is a need for "recovery". The truth is, while these fine folks may believe they have good cause to "vent" and "grieve" and "recover", they really don't. That perception is born of cognitive distortions, and it is a delusional way of masking the real cause of their angst. You are unwittingly enabling their delusion by also assuming it is real and valid. They aren't going to address the real cause of their angst and dysfunction by "venting" and "grieving". In fact, they may simply become further deluded.

[Gadianton]

What I find untenable is the suggestion that any emotional response to leaving the church is a priori a result of cognitive distortion.

I agree. Such a sweeping suggestion would be untenable--as untenable as assuming that such a suggestion has been made.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me be more precise. You suggested that any anger or grief associated with leaving Mormonism was a result of cognitive distortion.

Your more precise assumption about what I supposedly suggested, while less sweeping, is still untenable.

I was very careful to qualify my statements with the important "may", and I had in mind specific forms of anger and grief (not just in terms of intensity and duration, but also in terms of causation). In fact, I intentionally isolated a specific causation in my thread on Cognitive Distortions--i.e. thinking the Church had lied, deceived, and not acted in good faith about what it claims to be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

If not all reasoning is "akin to brainwashing", then please explain specifically how you think the reasoning in CBT is "akin to brainwashing".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think "reasoning in CBT" is "akin to brainwashing." I think you are taking up CBT in a manner similar to juliann's use of Bromley & et. al., and basically twisting it in order to help in your quest to defend "the most precious and dear" thing in your life.

[_Runtu]

Your more precise assumption about what I supposedly suggested, while less sweeping, is still untenable.

I was very careful to qualify my statements with the important "may", and I had in mind specific forms of anger and grief (not just in terms of intensity and duration, but also in terms of causation). In fact, I intentionally isolated a specific causation in my thread on Cognitive Distortions--i.e. thinking the Church had lied, deceived, and not acting in good faith about what it claims to be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's what you said, Wade:

Your assuming that calling something "venting" and "grieving" makes it so. Your assuming that there is a need for "recovery". The truth is, while these fine folks may believe they have good cause to "vent" and "grieve" and "recover", they really don't. That perception is born of cognitive distortions, and it is a delusional way of masking the real cause of their angst. You are unwittingly enabling their delusion by also assuming it is real and valid. They aren't going to address the real cause of their angst and dysfunction by "venting" and "grieving". In fact, they may simply become further deluded.

You never specified the "bad" forms of anger and grief (other than to say those kinds that are offensive to believers), and you never explained to anyone's satisfaction why it was a cognitive distortion to think the church was not a good-faith actor.

So, in essence, if we feel or express anything that might be offensive to a Mormon, we are guilty of cognitive distortion. And if we find ample evidence suggesting that the church is not in fact honest about what it claims to be, we are also guilty of cognitive distortion. Do you not see how one-sided this approach is? How can you be an honest broker in helping people resolve their feelings when you are predisposed to see their feelings as irrational and distorted?

[_wenglund]

I don't think "reasoning in CBT" is "akin to brainwashing." I think you are taking up CBT in a manner similar to juliann's use of Bromley & et. al., and basically twisting it in order to help in your quest to defend "the most precious and dear" thing in your life.

Please demonstrate where I have supposedly "basically twisted" CBT, and also demonstrate how that alleged "twisting" is "akin to brainwashing".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-