Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_Runtu]

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been selling a product that he firmly believes is true, and the best product of its kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, 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".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the way, this is a fascinating glimpse into your perception both of Mormonism and of its critics. To you, the issue is one of "not full disclosure," and you point to details and full research. I'd say that's a cognitive distortion, but that would be snotty.

For me and most exmos I know, we aren't so much concerned with the lack of disclosure of details as we are with the patent falseness of the foundational claims. It's as if you bought a car that you were told was a Mercedes Benz, and you paid a lot of money over several years for the privilege. Then one day you discover that the engine is actually a lawnmower engine, the transmission came from a go-cart, and the body is of a 1987 Hyundai. These aren't minor details to be disclosed in fine print. Likewise, when you discover that the foundational claims of Mormonism are patently false, you tend not to be happy about that discovery. What makes it worse is when other dismiss these things as merely trivial nondisclosures.

I just find it interesting that you consider such things minor details. Is it cognitive distortion to believe that foundational claims are important?

[_beastie]

However, I do have to add another thought to my earlier comments. It doesn't appear likely to me that a person who genuinely believes his/her own hallucinations and delusions would actively construct props to help other people believe in those same delusions. I haven't studied that phenomenon in particular, however, so may be wrong.

[_wenglund]

Wade is correct that it doesn't make sense to be angry at someone who believes their own delusions and hallucinations. Now whether or not Joseph Smith did or did not believe in his own assertions is a matter of great debate, and beyond proof.

But the question of anger is not limited to anger at Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was a conman engaged in a knowing fraud, then anger would be appropriate towards him, although without resolution.

Is anger appropriate towards other believers in the hierarchy who cherry-pick history to present to believers to convert them? It's human nature to massage and manipulate evidence to make one feel better about one's beliefs. I think it is beyond debate that the church hierarchy deliberately manipulated and massaged historical evidences to present to believers or potential believers, but if they are sincere believers, it is likely they did not do this with ill intent, but rather with the belief that the ends justified the means. Like Packer says, not all truth is useful. (paraphrasing by memory, but clearly he believed there exists historically accurate information that can lead to loss of belief, so he believes people should not be exposed to that information)

I never did feel anger towards individuals within church history or the church hierarchy, other than in isolated moments when learning some new, particularly egregious event. But that is because I viewed their behavior within the larger view of how human beings act in general, particularly in connection to religion.

But at the same time, I concede that whether or not Joseph Smith or any other believer in the hierarchy actually believed in their own teachings is information we do not have. People who believe otherwise can present persuasive evidence as well. So for Wade to pretend that we can close the case, in some authoritative fashion, on whether or not the participants were deliberately lying to take advantage of others, is unsupported by the actual historical information we have.

For example, Joseph Smith did, at times, admit to knowingly misleading people. He stated in a letter to the seller of the swamp land in Nauvoo, that he was presenting the land in the best possible light, while knowing it was a sickly hole. (I will post the letter later today if I have time to locate my file)

And there is evidence he planted "evidence" that would help people believe his claims (like the feather he planted to verify his treasure digging claims). To pretend that he didn't plant that feather would mean that one believes that Joseph Smith really could see underground treasure in a rock, and most LDS can't quite go there.

So this is an open question, in my opinion. Anger towards Joseph Smith and other hierarchical leaders is justified if the angry person believes the evidence that they deliberately lied is persuasive. Anger is not justified if one believes, as I do, that it is more likely all these actors actually believed their own claims, and simply adding "evidence" or manipulated information to help people believe what the individuals thought was for their own good. I suppose, even under that scenario, anger is justified regarding the patronizing decision to decide what others need to know or do not need to know.

Inspite of her own delusions and hallucinations, Beastie has raised some interesting points--none of which, however, specifically or clearly or directly answers my OP question. Instead, they seem to fall into irrelevant lock-step with others who wish to make this a matter of "who is RIGHT", rather than finding what WORKS.

I wonder how many times I will need to repeat what the objective of this thread really is before she and others get it. Hopefully, it won't take 10 to 20 pages of the thread before it finally gets on track.

If it is of any help, for those who wish to discuss whose right and whose wrong, please take that over to the "Venting" thread where those kinds of discussion have been underway, and are relevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been selling a product that he firmly believes is true, and the best product of its kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, 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".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the way, this is a fascinating glimpse into your perception both of Mormonism and of its critics. To you, the issue is one of "not full disclosure," and you point to details and full research. I'd say that's a cognitive distortion, but that would be snotty.

For me and most exmos I know, we aren't so much concerned with the lack of disclosure of details as we are with the patent falseness of the foundational claims. It's as if you bought a car that you were told was a Mercedes Benz, and you paid a lot of money over several years for the privilege. Then one day you discover that the engine is actually a lawnmower engine, the transmission came from a go-cart, and the body is of a 1987 Hyundai. These aren't minor details to be disclosed in fine print. Likewise, when you discover that the foundational claims of Mormonism are patently false, you tend not to be happy about that discovery. What makes it worse is when other dismiss these things as merely trivial nondisclosures.

I just find it interesting that you consider such things minor details. Is it cognitive distortion to believe that foundational claims are important?

Your comments and question, while interesting, are beside the objective of this thread. If you wish to pick a nit with my supposed perception of Mormonism and its critics, please take that to the "Venting" thread.

I would, though, be interested in your direct answer to my OP question on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

One more comment in regards to the props point - I would guess that the delusion Joseph Smith really believed in wasn't that he actually had gold plates in his hand that an angel delivered (I think he likely had a dream that he later exaggerated to be a vision of some sort, so it is still possible he believed God had given him a revelation through a dream), but rather that he was called to restore the primitivist Christian church, and that it would benefit human beings to follow his vision, hence, the moral justification for props.

The end justifies the means.

Wade,

Your current claim in regards to your "what works" rather than what is "right" isn't coherent with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not exmormons' anger is simply a result of cognitive distortion. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that any anger, regardless of whether or not it may be a justified response, is a cognitive distortion that doesn't "work" and hence must be gotten rid of. That seems a very psychologically dangerous trend.

[_Runtu]

Your comments and question, while interesting, are beside the objective of this thread. If you wish to pick a nit with my supposed perception of Mormonism and its critics, please take that to the "Venting" thread.

I would, though, be interested in your direct answer to my OP question on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course they were off-topic. I believe I've already answered your question elsewhere, but I'll repeat myself. You can move past these things when you are able to forgive and understand that most of the time we aren't doing wrong intentionally.

I just found your example far more illuminating about what you're getting at than anything else you've written.

[_Who Knows]

..but to prevent, stop, and resolve the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grieving.

Now that you have been enlighted as to the real objective here, would you care to try your hand at suggesting something else--preferably something that WORKS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah - this would help prevent it - Mr. A could stop pedaling his b***s***. That would stop it.

Again, later.

[_wenglund]

If only there could be a Better Business Bureau to help mediate ill feelings and an independent testing laboratory to verify the efficacy of the product.

So Wade, are you saying the product is fine as long as your are a satisfied customer and the other unsatisfied customers should just take their business quietly to another vendor?

No, Moksha, I am not speaking to that issue at all. In fact, I have been earnestly attemption to avoid it, along with other "who is RIGHT?" types of OFF TOPIC issues.

What I am saying is that I want to know what suggestions you and others may have for what will WORK in preventing, stopping, and resolving the unnecessary dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grieving.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Your comments and question, while interesting, are beside the objective of this thread. If you wish to pick a nit with my supposed perception of Mormonism and its critics, please take that to the "Venting" thread.

I would, though, be interested in your direct answer to my OP question on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course they were off-topic. I believe I've already answered your question elsewhere, but I'll repeat myself. You can move past these things when you are able to forgive and understand that most of the time we aren't doing wrong intentionally.

Where in the dynamic/cycle do you suggest that the moving on and forgiveness and understanding take place? Would it be before step 2, or after, or somewhere within step 2? And, if the later, then where in that step? Before or after the venting and grief"?

I just found your example far more illuminating about what you're getting at than anything else you've written.

I have my illuminating discussion with you on the "Venting" thread to thank for that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

..but to prevent, stop, and resolve the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grieving.

Now that you have been enlighted as to the real objective here, would you care to try your hand at suggesting something else--preferably something that WORKS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah - this would help prevent it - Mr. A could stop pedaling his b***s***. That would stop it.

Again, later.

I am looking for REASONABLE solutions that WORK for all parties concerned, and which don't dysfunctionally presuppose one party is RIGHT (since that is a key component to the dynamic/cycle). Your suggestion doesn't WORK for Mr. A or C or D. It may only work for Mr. B, and then only after Mr. B disbelieves in the product. It also, unwittingly, puts control of Mr. B's dynamic in the hands of Mr. A. That wouldn't be developmentally healthy for Mr. B.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-