For Wade: My dinner with Mr. D.

[_Mister Scratch]

To me, not all cognitive distortions are problematic. Nor, as previously explained, are all cognitive distortions a "prime candidate" of concern to me--even including certain cognitive distortions regarding the good-faith of the Church in what it claims to be. In other words, it is not so much the cognitive distortion that draws my attention, but the manner in which the cognitive distortions may manifests themselves in relation to me and my faith. Once my attention and concern has been drawn on that basis, I view correcting the cognitive distortion (where possible) as a means of alieviating my concern and helping those unnecessarily suffering from the cognitive distortion.

I would have thought that obvious and commonsensical. So, why you and liz and Scratch may think your friend would be a "prime candidate" for me, is as mysterious to me as the impressions and conclusions you keep falsely jumping to about what I say.

There is a cognitive reasons why your friend was not angered and you were--and this in spite of certain possible cognitive distortions you may have in common. But, given the mutually admitted lack of collaboration and trust between us, there would be little or no value in pursuing or arguing it with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For the record, Wade, I'm not trying to argue with you. I genuinely don't understand what it is you're trying to do (and I gather I'm not the only one). You veer between saying that anger and grief over losing faith in Mormonism are a result of cognitive distortion to saying that they "may" be the result of distortion to saying that it's the manifestation of the cognitive distortion that attracts your attention. How do you determine where a cognitive distortion has taken place? I've asked you before what an unhealthy expression of anger or grief looks like, and so far you haven't really explained that. I've asked you to explain to me why believing the church isn't a good-faith actor is a cognitive distortion, and you've responded by saying I was rigid and unwilling to reconsider my beliefs.

For the life of me, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.

Actually, I am not trying to go anywhere with you on this. I have already conceeded that I lack the capacity to productively engage you and others here on this issue. Consequently, I have stopped trying to collaborate and dialogue with you and others about your presumed cognitive distortions, and have chosen instead to simply and periodically post my relatied opinions where I deem appropriate, and leave it at that. What little collaborating and dialoging I intend to do here regarding CBT, will be with those few with whom there is a chance of productively collaborating and dialoging.

I hope that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In other words, you are admitting defeat and waving the argumentative white flag. Well, I have to say, it was a well-fought battle, Wade, or at least an entertainingly-fought one. I enjoyed it a great deal. In either case, I will go ahead and pat myself on the back for the part I played in kicking your butt. ; ) Love ya, Wade!

[_Runtu]

Actually, I am not trying to go anywhere with you on this. I have already conceeded that I lack the capacity to productively engage you and others here on this issue. Consequently, I have stopped trying to collaborate and dialogue with you and others about your presumed cognitive distortions, and have chosen instead to simply and periodically post my relatied opinions where I deem appropriate, and leave it at that. What little collaborating and dialoging I intend to do here regarding CBT, will be with those few with whom there is a chance of productively collaborating and dialoging.

I hope that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In other words, you are admitting defeat and waving the argumentative white flag. Well, I have to say, it was a well-fought battle, Wade, or at least an entertainingly-fought one. I enjoyed it a great deal. In either case, I will go ahead and pat myself on the back for the part I played in kicking your butt. ; ) Love ya, Wade!

It would have been nice if Wade had just said, "I'm interested in talking to everyone but Runtu about CBT." I would have known not to bother responding to him.

[_wenglund]

In other words, you are admitting defeat and waving the argumentative white flag. Well, I have to say, it was a well-fought battle, Wade, or at least an entertainingly-fought one. I enjoyed it a great deal. In either case, I will go ahead and pat myself on the back for the part I played in kicking your butt. ; ) Love ya, Wade!

Viewing as a "battle" a charitable and reasonable attempt to intervene on behalf of the dysfunctional (moderately or otherwise), may be a cognitive distortion.

Viewing as "kicking butt" the inane and self-destructive resistence to such charitable interventions, may also be a cognitive distortion.

Luv ya too. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MormonMendacity]

In other words, you are admitting defeat and waving the argumentative white flag. Well, I have to say, it was a well-fought battle, Wade, or at least an entertainingly-fought one. I enjoyed it a great deal. In either case, I will go ahead and pat myself on the back for the part I played in kicking your butt. ; ) Love ya, Wade!

Viewing as a "battle" a charitable and reasonable attempt to intervene on behalf of the dysfunctional (moderately or otherwise), may be a cognitive distortion.

Viewing as "kicking butt" the inane and self-destructive resistence to such charitable interventions, may also be a cognitive distortion.

Luv ya too. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is there any way I can get a refund for wasting my time reading Wade's posts?

(Why do I feel that I've just engaged in some sort of "cognitive distortion"?)

[_Mister Scratch]

In other words, you are admitting defeat and waving the argumentative white flag. Well, I have to say, it was a well-fought battle, Wade, or at least an entertainingly-fought one. I enjoyed it a great deal. In either case, I will go ahead and pat myself on the back for the part I played in kicking your butt. ; ) Love ya, Wade!

Viewing as a "battle" a charitable and reasonable attempt to intervene on behalf of the dysfunctional (moderately or otherwise), may be a cognitive distortion.

Who is it that you think is "dysfuctional"? Over a week ago, you said it was many of us here. Now you seem to be saying that it's you. That fact that you keep flip-flopping and changing your position tells me that you're basically just interested in picking fights. At least up until now, anyways.

Viewing as "kicking butt" the inane and self-destructive resistence to such charitable interventions, may also be a cognitive distortion.

Luv ya too. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who's "resisting"? I know that I asked many times for you to clarify certain points, only to watch you behave in an evasive and even combative manner. Besides, you just admitted that your "charitable interventions" were misdirected. Perhaps an apology is in order, my dear friend?

[_Sam Harris]

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Wade can correct me if I am.

You're not wrong, but Wade will, no doubt, "correct" you anyway....because he's Wade. ;)

Glad you caught onto that. Wade and other TBMs like him cannot seem to see that LDS just like any other group act and are spurred on by their beliefs. I've seen plenty a TBM use scripture to justify their behavior when it is questioned (and quesitonable), words from their GAs, etc.

[_Sam Harris]

Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.

Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then it was odd to bring it up in a discussion of a specific person, particularly when the focus of your post was a suggestion that it was unfair to make any judgments about the wife and bishop in the absence of evidence.

So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion it was a result of your unclear comments.

Feeling the need to blame, when blaming is not necessary or useful, may be a function of cognitive distortions.

Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Criminy, Wade. I'm not blaming you. I'm saying we misunderstood each other. Your post wasn't clear, and I misread it.

Why do you keep engaging him? He's running you in circles, and having fun, I might add.

[_wenglund]

Who is it that you think is "dysfuctional"? Over a week ago, you said it was many of us here. Now you seem to be saying that it's you.

That's news to me. Perhaps you are mistakenly confusing dysfunction with cognitive distortions.

That fact that you keep flip-flopping and changing your position tells me that you're basically just interested in picking fights. At least up until now, anyways.

I wasn't aware that I had changed positions. Perhaps you are mistakenly confusing what I actually say with your frequent misunderstandings of what I say. In other words, the errantly supposed flip-flopping is you going back and forth between what I actually say and the straw man you have constructed of me.

Viewing as "kicking butt" the inane and self-destructive resistence to such charitable interventions, may also be a cognitive distortion. Luv ya too. ;-) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who's "resisting"? I know that I asked many times for you to clarify certain points, only to watch you behave in an evasive and even combative manner.

Mistaken projections such as this may be a function of cognitive distortions.

Besides, you just admitted that your "charitable interventions" were misdirected.

Again, that is news to me. Perhaps you have mistakenly confused my conceeding the futility of my charitably intervening on your behalf (because of your dysfunction) with "misdirected".

Perhaps an apology is in order, my dear friend?

I apologize for having grossly understimated the extent of your dysfunction, and for acting on the false hope that you might be open to reasonably and rationally examining your cognitive distortions, let alone being open to correcting them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cacheman]

I wasn't aware that I had changed positions. Perhaps you are mistakenly confusing what I actually say with your frequent misunderstandings of what I say. In other words, the errantly supposed flip-flopping is you going back and forth between what I actually say and the straw man you have constructed of me.

What was that you were saying about shifting blame to others, Wade?

Mistaken projections such as this may be a function of cognitive distortions.

Again, pot, meet kettle. Every conversation I've had with you here involves your projecting motivations on others and then insisting that it's someone else's fault for misunderstanding you.

Again, that is news to me. Perhaps you have mistakenly confused my conceeding the futility of my charitably intervening on your behalf (because of your dysfunction) with "misdirected".

Or perhaps you have mistaken your posts for "charitable intervention."

I apologize for having grossly understimated the extent of your dysfunction, and for acting on the false hope that you might be open to reasonably and rationally examining your cognitive distortions, let alone being open to correcting them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, shifting the blame is not exactly evidence of a healthy outlook on life.

Perhaps GIMR is right. I wouldn't be surprised if you were having a grand old time here. I apologize for having taken you seriously.

[_desert_vulture]

He said his bishop has since repeated to him that he believes that religious differences are a reasonable grounds for divorce.

I wonder if his bishop believes that religious differences are reasonable grounds for divorce when one of the partners is recently baptized into Mormonism? Wouldn't that make it hard to proclaim that families can be together forever, if you also equally claim that the marriage should be dissolved? Or, does the bishop look at the issue from within the framework of Mormonism only, where a spouse must protect his/her belief in Mormonism at all costs, but not extend the same courtesy to members of other denominations. Sounds like he needs a refresher course on AoF 11.