wenglund wrote:Subset D: Includes Every unbelieving member or former member who DOES NOT view the Church as lying about what it claims to be, and thus was not angry or hurt for that specific reason.
So, again, can you give us an example of a someone who left the church out of unbelief but who nevertheless does not believe the church lied? So far, you haven't. Again, the crucial question is belief. By definition, those who left for "other reasons" excludes those who left out of unbelief. This isn't all that hard, Wade. Please give us examples.
Therefore, the set of Mr./Mrs. D's excludes ONLY those who are both unbelieving former members AND who believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and includes every unbelieving member or former member who disbelieves or left the Church for reasons OTHER than the belief that the Church has lied about what it claims to be. It is the set that includes, along with unbelieving members, those you described as "the vast majority of those who leave the Church".
Again, unbelief is crucial. The vast majority, as I mentioned, leave for reasons other than belief or unbelief. So, Mr. D is the group that no longer believes.
The Mr. B's, such as yourself, in the specified scenerio, are, on the other hand, in the underwhelming minority.
I'm betting that there are far more Mr. Bs than there are Mr. Ds. Your failure so far to produce even one Mr. D tends to support my bet.
No, they are not specifically excluded (see above). In fact, they are INCLUDED if they: 1) no longer believe in and/or have left the Church; AND 2) they no longer believe in and/or left the Church for reasons OTHER than believing the Church lied about what it claims to be; AND/OR 3) they were not angered and grief-stricken due to the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be. This, includes, along with disbelieving members, what you referred to as "the vast majority of those who have left the Church".
Wow, Wade: According to you, anyone who has left the church for whatever reason and is not hurt or angry is Mr. D. That's a far cry from the "Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: 'to each their own'." So, in a matter of days, you went from saying that Mr. D no longer believes in the product to saying that belief has nothing to do with it. It's not particularly helpful to keep switching definitions, Wade. Do you agree with the following definition of Mr. D?
1. He once believed in the church.
2. He no longer believes in the church.
3. He was never hurt or angry about his loss of belief.
Or are you going back to saying that belief doesn't matter?
Here are some historical examples of Mr./Mrs. D's that I could think of: Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, William Smith, Edward Boyton.
Every one of your examples expressed belief in Mormonism but disagreed with its practice, which is not what we are talking about. None of these people ever expressed a belief that the church was not what it claimed to be. Again, these would be those who fit the "vast majority" scenario I outlined above.
Actually, as clarified above, they fit perfectly the subset D (i.e. they qualified by having left the Church).
Wade, the discussion was about feelings of hurt and anger upon discovering one had been lied to. As desert_vulture has shown, one can feel that way without leaving the church (in fact, I'm still in the church, as well). I think we can all agree that leaving the church for reasons other than feeling deceived would not necessarily lead to feelings of anger or hurt. As I quoted you above, "Mr. D no longer believes in the product." Every one of your examples still believed in the product.
Both fit the category "D" by virtue of their having left the Church.
Interesting that you equate excommunication with "having left the church." I don't think the church sees it that way.
Whether they believe the Church is true or not, has only indirect relevance to the specified scenerio (it was a secondary qualifier in determining weather they were either an A/C or a B/D--those who disbelieve and/or who left the Church are either a B or D). The issue of the thread, and the primary qualifier that distinguished between B's and D's was whether a person believed or not that the Church lied about what it claims to be, and was angered and grief-stricken as a result thereof. Those who didn't believe the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, are D's. That would include anyone who either disbelieves in the Church and/OR left the Church for reasons other than the belief that the Chruch lied about what it claimed to be. The acquaintences, former members, current unbelieving members, friends and relations that I refer to above are just such people. Some believe in the Church but have left the Church for a variety of reasons other than because of a belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, while still others disbelieve in the Church and either remain or have left, and their disbelief and reasons for leaving the Church are not because of the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be.
You yourself set up as the primary qualifier that "Mr. D no longer believes in the church." Now you're saying that belief is irrelevant. What the ...?
No. As clarified and reiterated above, they would not be excluded. However, they may be considered as Mr./Mrs. B's in their own specified scenerio were it deemed productive to have introduced those scenerios.
Hmmm. I'd say your clarification and reiteration sound more like backpedaling, but that would be a cognitive distortion. ;-)
I found it counterproductive in that it failed miserably in meeting the stated objective for the thread, and actually exacerbated, in some ways, the very thing it was intended to eliminate or diminish. It became bogged down deflections and in fruitless bantering over relatively insignificant matters and side issue, and even aggitated, to some degree, the cycle of hurt and anger and grief that it was designed to extricate people on both side (the A's and B's) therefrom.
I don't hold out much hope for this thread either given how it has already (after our first exchange) become entangled in a marass of misunderstanding.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I would hope you can forgive the "marass" (sic), but I would like some clarification.