Calling on LDS to repent of bigotry

[_Runtu]

Can I have a show of hands of those who Kevin was preaching at above, who read through the entirety of Kevin's post, and/or who were even the least bit pursuaded by anything he said?

For may part, I bearly made it past the first paragraph. Why? Because it struck me as the same-old dogmatic voice of hypocrisy howling at the moon. Who would want to listen to that?

Just maybe this kind of preaching doesn't work so well. Just maybe leading by positive example works a whole lot better--at least that is what I have found to be true for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I read it, Wade. :-)

Behind the howling at the moon, I think Dart was asking what I've been asking from you. I am not sure you are listening.

[_dartagnan]

Who would want to listen to that?

Naturally those who are not guilty of the above, which explains why you didn't finish.

Wade, let's face it. Until you demonstrate an "all things are equal" premise there is no reason for anyone to take your solution seriously. You're a hypocrite because you on one hand claim both side are equally at fault yet you spend your time unevenly preaching to one side while ignoring the other. That proves you're a hypocrite.

I also know you frequently respond to common sense in a negative way, which further tells me the content of my post was dead on. You're not fooling anyone wade. You cannot expect people to set aside years of anecdotal experience and deny what they know to be true about the Church, for your "words of wisdom" you seem to be rehearsing from some pop-psychology manual. It would be easier to locate sincerity in your intentions if you would at least stick to your guns and criticize LDS who mistreat former members. As it is, you come across as a studdering apologist whose only intention is to divert focus away from the problems that have been identified in the Church.

Not a single thing you have said on this thread has mitigated the significance of the points raised by myself and others.

[_Runtu]

Who would want to listen to that?

Naturally those who are not guilty of the above, which explains why you didn't finish.

Wade, let's face it. Until you demonstrate an "all things are equal" premise there is no reason for anyone to take your solution seriously. You're a hypocrite because you on one hand claim both side are equally at fault yet you spend your time unevenly preaching to one side while ignoring the other. That proves you're a hypocrite.

I also know you frequently respond to common sense in a negative way, which further tells me the content of my post was dead on. You're not fooling anyone wade. You cannot expect people to set aside years of anecdotal experience and deny what they know to be true about the Church, for your "words of wisdom" you seem to be rehearsing from some pop-psychology manual. It would be easier to locate sincerity in your intentions if you would at least stick to your guns and criticize LDS who mistreat former members. As it is, you come across as a studdering apologist whose only intention is to divert focus away from the problems that have been identified in the Church.

Not a single thing you have said on this thread has mitigated the significance of the points raised by myself and others.

That's been my problem from day one. I used to think that Wade's blaming the exmo was malicious, but I don't think so anymore. The one thing I've really taken to heart from Wade, however, is that I cannot expect to heal anyone but myself. But then I really already knew that.

[_dartagnan]

But for me, and I suspect most ex-Mormons, this issue is not about "personal healing." To insist it is strictly a healing issue is to presume all ex-Mormons are in some state of emotional suffering. Again, this proves what I have said all along and wade is demonstrating it: Mormons always assume the problem is with the apostate. They have no other way to look at it because, "the Church is perfect."

Sure, wade will make quick and superficial comments about how "both sides" need to look inwards for a solution, but he is only telling that to one party, so he doesn't really mean it or believe it. He is not at Church or on the internet advising LDS members to change their ways towards former members. He is too busy on this forum pointing his hypocritical fingers at ex-Mormons.

[_Runtu]

But for me, and I suspect most ex-Mormons, this issue is not about "personal healing." To insist it is strictly a healing issue is to presume all ex-Mormons are in some state of emotional suffering. Again, this proves what I have said all along and wade is demonstrating it: Mormons always assume the problem is with the apostate. They have no other way to look at it because, "the Church is perfect."

Well, for me, it's partly about personal healing. The main issue for me, though, is simply acknowledging the truth, which has nothing to do with personal healing.

Sure, wade will make quick and superficial comments about how "both sides" need to look inwards for a solution, but he is only telling that to one party, so he doesn't really mean it or believe it. He is not at Church or on the internet advising LDS members to change their ways towards former members. He is too busy on this forum pointing his hypocritical fingers at ex-Mormons.

Yep, that's pretty much it, sadly.

[_wenglund]

But, what I am suggesting is that rather than foucusing your attention on the somewhat complicated and tricky task of accurately determining the cause of those negative effects (whether it be your own misperception or due to certain teachings or practices within the Church--I am not even sure how this may be efficaciously done. How will you know if you are misperceiving something if you were misperceiving to begin with?), the pragmatic thing to me would be for you to seek first to correct the affects, and then if you have a need or desire thereafter, you can go on to explore the possible causations (from my own experience, once the negative effects have been corrected, there is little or no need to bother with the causations). At least I have found this strategy to work best for me.

Wade, I think is the crux of the matter. Let me see if I can explain the difference between the approach you're espousing and what I'm actually hearing from you.

Let's say that a man enters into a business deal with a friend and subsequently loses all the money he invested. He feels angry and betrayed by his friend.

The correct approach, according to what you said, would be something like this: "You need to get past the anger and the hurt . Whether or not your friend really did cheat you is irrelevant to the healing process; you need to deal with the reasons you have responded so negatively and angrily."

What I've heard you saying is something quite different: "You need to get past the anger and the hurt. Believing that your friend cheated you is a cognitive distortion and is uncharitble and judgmental. You will never heal properly until you recognize that your friend acted in good faith."

Do you see the difference? Now, before you accuse me of uncharitably misrepresenting you, I'm honestly telling you what I have seen from you and why I initially reacted so negatively to you.

Hi Runtu,

No...I am not offended by what you said, nor do I think you are being uncharitable or misrepresenting me. I just think you not only failed to include the other side of the equation, but you also lost sight of the objective at issue on this thread. If the object here is to improve relations between the man and his business friend (to carry forward your analogy), and given the entire equation, which includes both points of view (on the one hand the man--let's call him "Runtu"--feels that he has lost his investment because he was cheated by his friend--let's call the friend LD, and on the other hand LD feels that Runtu's investment has actually grown, and thinks that Runtu is falsely accusing LD of cheating, and that Runtu is illegitimately using the false accusation as an excuse for going back on his word, and LD may see Runtu as now going off to invest his money in foolish and evil enterprises that LD may believe will truely leave Runtu bankrupt in most every way); and given that anger and feelings of betrayal may be felt by both sides; and given that both side may be reletively convinced of their respective perceptions; I am suggesting that if Runtu wishes to improve relations with LD, and improve things for himself, rather than finger-pointing and disputing over who is right or wrong in their opposing perceptions (because such things will tend to degrade relationships in these kinds of circumstances), Runtu would do well to chose, instead, to behave lovingly and respectful towards LD (which includes respecting LD's view of his/her current business dealing), and request the same in return. In other words, rather than the respective parties dysfunctionally seeking redress for their percieved grievences as a way of restoring the loss of love, value, and respect (which is what this all should really be about), simply begin to behave in functional ways that are loving, valued, and respectful, and the loss of these things will more likely be restored, thus eliminating the need for redress and grievances.

Does that make sense now?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Can I have a show of hands of those who Kevin was preaching at above, who read through the entirety of Kevin's post, and/or who were even the least bit pursuaded by anything he said?

For may part, I bearly made it past the first paragraph. Why? Because it struck me as the same-old dogmatic voice of hypocrisy howling at the moon. Who would want to listen to that?

Just maybe this kind of preaching doesn't work so well. Just maybe leading by positive example works a whole lot better--at least that is what I have found to be true for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I read it, Wade. :-)

But, then, you weren't the one he was preaching at.

Behind the howling at the moon, I think Dart was asking what I've been asking from you. I am not sure you are listening.

I am clearly not listening to Dart/Kevin, and for the reasons that I have expressed. So, I am not sure any of us are listening--again, for the reasons that I expressed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu,

No...I am not offended by what you said, nor do I think you are being uncharitable or misrepresenting me. I just think you not only failed to include the other side of the equation, but you also lost sight of the objective at issue on this thread. If the object here is to improve relations between the man and his business friend (to carry forward your analogy), and given the entire equation, which includes both points of view (on the one hand the man--let's call him "Runtu"--feels that he has lost his investment because he was cheated by his friend--let's call the friend LD, and on the other hand LD feels that Runtu's investment has actually grown, and thinks that Runtu is falsely accusing LD of cheating, and that Runtu is illegitimately using the false accusation as an excuse for going back on his word, and LD may see Runtu as now going off to invest his money in foolish and evil enterprises that LD may believe will truely leave Runtu bankrupt in most every way); and given that anger and feelings of betrayal may be felt by both sides; and given that both side may be reletively convinced of their respective perceptions; I am suggesting that if Runtu wishes to improve relations with LD, and improve things for himself, rather than finger-pointing and disputing over who is right or wrong in their opposing perceptions (because such things will tend to degrade relationships in these kinds of circumstances), Runtu would do well to chose, instead, to behave lovingly and respectful towards LD (which includes respecting LD's view of his/her current business dealing), and request the same in return. In other words, rather than the respective parties dysfunctionally seeking redress for their percieved grievences as a way of restoring the loss of love, value, and respect (which is what this all should really be about), simply begin to behave in functional ways that are loving, valued, and respectful, and the loss of these things will more likely be restored, thus eliminating the need for redress and grievances.

Does that make sense now?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have always tried to behave lovingly and have never asked for redress. I've told you before that I do feel that the church has misrepresented itself. But that doesn't mean I think the church is some evil, horrible organization whose members deserve my disrespect and hatred. I can behave with love and kindness and charity without compromising my beliefs.

I guess what I would say, as I said in my earllier post, that it really doesn't matter who believes who is at fault. What matters is civil and kind behavior and forgiveness.

[Gadianton]

Who would want to listen to that?

Naturally those who are not guilty of the above, which explains why you didn't finish.

Wade, let's face it. Until you demonstrate an "all things are equal" premise there is no reason for anyone to take your solution seriously. You're a hypocrite because you on one hand claim both side are equally at fault yet you spend your time unevenly preaching to one side while ignoring the other. That proves you're a hypocrite.

I also know you frequently respond to common sense in a negative way, which further tells me the content of my post was dead on. You're not fooling anyone wade. You cannot expect people to set aside years of anecdotal experience and deny what they know to be true about the Church, for your "words of wisdom" you seem to be rehearsing from some pop-psychology manual. It would be easier to locate sincerity in your intentions if you would at least stick to your guns and criticize LDS who mistreat former members. As it is, you come across as a studdering apologist whose only intention is to divert focus away from the problems that have been identified in the Church.

Not a single thing you have said on this thread has mitigated the significance of the points raised by myself and others.

In other words: "Woof....woof...hooowwooooeelllll!!!! ;-)



Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

In other words: "Woof....woof...hooowwooooeelllll!!!! ;-)



Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What was the charitable and kind point of that, Wade?