Where's Mr. D?

[_Runtu]

I think the most helpful thing would be for TBMs and the Church itself to admit that deception had gone on. It's much easier to forgive someone who has confessed (and apologized, rather than made excuses).

For what it's worth, I forgive them for the deception. What I am not prepared to do is believe that I cannot be made whole again until I stop believing that there was deception. It would be like telling Enron's victims that they must not only forgive but pretend it never happened.

[_wenglund]

I understand, though, that not everyone will see it that way. Certainly, Scratch doesn't. And, so, to the extent that others do not see it the same way as me, the less the chances of success in discussing issues involving "lies".

I'm not all that hopeful, Wade, as I believe the Pinnock example I gave is a pretty clear example of definition #1, but you don't. I gave that example because I wanted to see how you dealt with an easily demonstrated lie, in the sense that here is a case that even the most compassionate observer would agree involved someone deliberately gave false information to the police. If you don't see that as a clear lie, then I doubt we'll get very far either. Again, that's why I used that example.

I am unhopeful as well. You seem unwilling, in your statement above, to even compromise in accepting my acknowledgement that the Pinnock case could "reasonably" be viewed as a "lie" according to connotation #2.

And, my point about compassion seems still, for the most part, lost on you. I would have thought that your not appreciating me using you as an object lesson may have brought you closer to understanding at least part of the point of my previous post (having the shoe put on your foot, and thereby thinking that if you don't appreciate such things, you will be disinclined to do the same to others, like Pinnock or the Church in particular), but I am not certain that it has.

The bottom line, as I see it, and the real cause for the impasse, is that your intents in discussing this issue are seemingly quite different from mine. I suspect that you are intent on justifying, as "reasonable", your belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, and thus your hurt and anger and venting and grieving was "reasonable" and justified. Whereas, my intent is to find a way of "reasonably" viewing and conceptualizing things to the benifit of all parties concerned, and to eliminate or diminish the hurt and anger and grief, and the cycle often caused thereby.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

and to eliminate or diminish the hurt and anger and grief, and the cycle often caused thereby.

Interesting, Wade....So you're actually admitting that the anger and grief can exist. Aren't you changing your tune a little here? Up until now, you've been saying that anger and grief should hold no place in this cycle at all. In order to eliminate or diminish something, it has to exist to begin with.

;)

[_Runtu]

I am unhopeful as well. You seem unwilling, in your statement above, to even compromise in accepting my acknowledgement that the Pinnock case could "reasonably" be viewed as a "lie" according to connotation #2.

I agreed with you that it could be viewed as such. You then went on to suggest that connotation #2 was too broad for our discussion. So, no, I'm not hopeful here.

And, my point about compassion seems still, for the most part, lost on you. I would have thought that your not appreciating me using you as an object lesson may have brought you closer to understanding at least part of the point of my previous post (having the shoe put on your foot, and thereby thinking that if you don't appreciate such things, you will be disinclined to do the same to others, like Pinnock or the Church in particular), but I am not certain that it has.

I understand why you did what you did. I don't find it helpful. My use of Pinnock's statement was not lacking in compassion. It was and still is a simple illustration of a rather clear-cut falsehood. If I've been guilty of doing the same thing he has, I am quite willing to take criticism for it. But "putting the shoe on the other foot" seems unhelpful here. If we can't even discuss the possibility of someone's having lied without this kind of "oh, yeah, see how you like it" response, then, no, there's no hope of common ground. If you think it's uncompassionate to view him as having deliberately told falsehoods to the police, then we simply disagree.

The bottom line, as I see it, and the real cause for the impasse, is that your intents in discussing this issue are seemingly quite different from mine. I suspect that you are intent on justifying, as "reasonable", your belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, and thus your hurt and anger and venting and grieving was "reasonable" and justified. Whereas, my intent is to find a way of "reasonably" viewing and conceptualizing things to the benifit of all parties concerned, and to eliminate or diminish the hurt and anger and grief, and the cycle often caused thereby.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've said before that I am convinced that I reacted badly in many ways to the loss of my faith, and I would be happy to learn how to avoid that again. I see no need to justify what I believe to you, Wade. You've seen the same evidence I have, and we disagree. There's no malice on my part toward any church leader or member. It just is what it is.

All I've attempted to do here was to understand where we could agree on what constitutes a lie and how we could reasonably conclude that there was one. I've said before that being lied to does not necessarily have to make one angry or even hurt.

[Gadianton]

and to eliminate or diminish the hurt and anger and grief, and the cycle often caused thereby.

Interesting, Wade....So you're actually admitting that the anger and grief can exist. Aren't you changing your tune a little here? Up until now, you've been saying that anger and grief should hold no place in this cycle at all. In order to eliminate or diminish something, it has to exist to begin with. ;)

I can't imagine why you might "think" I haven't concidered all along that anger and grief existed. If I didn't think it existed, I would have had no reason to bring up the matter of cognitive distortions that, I believe, were unnecessarily causing the anger and grief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

John,

What intent do you, or would you, have in discussing the issue of whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be, if not to justify your belief that the Church had lied about what it claims to be?

I ask, because, as previously intimated, if we have different goals in mind for such a discussion, it is unlikely that either or both of us will be able to reach our divergent goals together. In other words, unless our goals are the same or similar, the discussion will have little chance of success.

And, since our respective intents will likely control how we approach the discussion (including what we view as relevant, reasonable, charitable, etc., and our willingness to compromise or grant as "reasonable" even though we may not agree), then if our intents are sufficiently different, our respective approaches and so forth wlll likely not lend themselves to having a successful discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

John,

What intent do you, or would you, have in discussing the issue of whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be, if not to justify your belief that the Church had lied about what it claims to be?

Here's how I see it. Originally, I had thought we were going to talk about how to avoid the cycle of anger and hurt caused by one's loss of faith. That is still my ultimate goal in this discussion. The way I understand you, you believe that I'm not going to be able to get past the "cycle" until I can admit that the church did not lie. To me, that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't see an understanding that the church has been deceptive as necessitating anger or hurt. I have consistently granted you that.

If I recall correctly, you suggested early on that to believe that the church had lied was irrational, and thus my basis for feeling anything towards the church was also irrational. You've suggested time and again that believing that the church lied was a major impediment to healing. I still don't see why. So off you went on this tangent about what constitutes a lie, and for whatever reason, I went along with you.

I ask, because, as previously intimated, if we have different goals in mind for such a discussion, it is unlikely that either or both of us will be able to reach our divergent goals together. In other words, unless our goals are the same or similar, the discussion will have little chance of success.

My goal, as always, has been to understand how to avoid making the same mistakes I made before. I'm not sure why it's so important to prove that the church was a good-faith actor, etc., in helping me do that.

And, since our respective intents will likely control how we approach the discussion (including what we view as relevant, reasonable, charitable, etc., and our willingness to compromise or grant as "reasonable" even though we may not agree), then if our intents are sufficiently different, our respective approaches and so forth wlll likely not lend themselves to having a successful discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was a long way of saying that we need to have the same goal in mind. I think I do, Wade.

[_wenglund]

Here's how I see it. Originally, I had thought we were going to talk about how to avoid the cycle of anger and hurt caused by one's loss of faith. That is still my ultimate goal in this discussion. The way I understand you, you believe that I'm not going to be able to get past the "cycle" until I can admit that the church did not lie. To me, that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't see an understanding that the church has been deceptive as necessitating anger or hurt. I have consistently granted you that. That was a long way of saying that we need to have the same goal in mind. I think I do, Wade.

That is just it, John, the cycle of hurt and anger isn't just about you, though you are important in relation thereto (you did experience hurt and anger as a result of your belief that the Church had lied about what it claims to be). The Mr./Mrs. A's in the Church (perhaps including your wife and some of your own children) can certainly, though not necessarily, be hurt and angered by your unnecessarily proclaiming the Church to be a lair in terms of what it claims to be--just as you may be hurt and angered yet again were they to unnecessarily turn back and consider you the liar.

Again, if the intent is to stop the cycle, the point isn't to determine who may "reasonably" be considered as "liars" or not (as previously intimated, depending upon how broad one wishes to define the term, and how loose and uncharitable one may wish to apply the term, most any accusations of "lying" that could be bantied about may be deemed, at least in some ways, as "reasonable"), but rather the more reasonable thing to me would be to find a way for both the Mr. A's and B's not to unnecessarily consider each other as liars. By so doing, neither party may be unnecessarly caused to hurt and anger.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

That is just it, John, the cycle of hurt and anger isn't just about you, though you are important in relation thereto (you did experience hurt and anger as a result of your belief that the Church had lied about what it claims to be). The Mr./Mrs. A's in the Church (perhaps including your wife and some of your own children) can certainly, though not necessarily, be hurt and angered by your unnecessarily proclaiming the Church to be a lair in terms of what it claims to be--just as you may be hurt and angered yet again were they to unnecessarily turn back and consider you the liar.

Then why have we gone down this torturous route of discussing what it means to lie if it doesn't matter? I'm genuinely mystified as to why it matters that I think the church is not honest about itself. Regardless of whether it was a "lie," I reacted to the loss of the foundational beliefs that guided my life. I have admitted that I reacted badly in some ways.

Again, if the intent is to stop the cycle, the point isn't to determine who may "reasonably" be considered as "liars" or not (as previously intimated, depending upon how broad one wishes to define the term, and how loose and uncharitable one may wish to apply the term, most any accusations of "lying" that could be bantied about may be deemed, at least in some ways, as "reasonable"), but rather the more reasonable thing to me would be to find a way for both the Mr. A's and B's not to unnecessarily consider each other as liars. By so doing, neither party may be unnecessarly caused to hurt and anger.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think we genuinely don't understand each other, Wade. If I had believed last year that the church was a good faith actor in all of this, it would not have affected the grief and hurt I felt. The life I knew ended, and it hurt. I'm not sure why you don't understand that and feel the need to minimize it.

From the very beginning you suggested that grieving over a great loss is unnecessary, and you suggested once that it wasn't a loss at all. I'm not really sure how it morphed into a discusion of the intent behind the church's representation of itself.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's how I see it. Originally, I had thought we were going to talk about how to avoid the cycle of anger and hurt caused by one's loss of faith. That is still my ultimate goal in this discussion. The way I understand you, you believe that I'm not going to be able to get past the "cycle" until I can admit that the church did not lie. To me, that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't see an understanding that the church has been deceptive as necessitating anger or hurt. I have consistently granted you that. That was a long way of saying that we need to have the same goal in mind. I think I do, Wade.

That is just it, John, the cycle of hurt and anger isn't just about you, though you are important in relation thereto (you did experience hurt and anger as a result of your belief that the Church had lied about what it claims to be). The Mr./Mrs. A's in the Church (perhaps including your wife and some of your own children) can certainly, though not necessarily, be hurt and angered by your unnecessarily proclaiming the Church to be a lair in terms of what it claims to be--just as you may be hurt and angered yet again were they to unnecessarily turn back and consider you the liar.

Again, if the intent is to stop the cycle, the point isn't to determine who may "reasonably" be considered as "liars" or not (as previously intimated, depending upon how broad one wishes to define the term, and how loose and uncharitable one may wish to apply the term, most any accusations of "lying" that could be bantied about may be deemed, at least in some ways, as "reasonable"), but rather the more reasonable thing to me would be to find a way for both the Mr. A's and B's not to unnecessarily consider each other as liars. By so doing, neither party may be unnecessarly caused to hurt and anger.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade---

You claim that "the intent is to stop the cycle," but why do you think that the exmo ceasing to view the Church as lying is the only way to accomplish this? Couldn't we equally say that TBMs and the Church admitting that dishonesty has occurred would also break the cycle? Surely there are more ways to stop the cycle than the one you've proposed.