Kudos, Shades!

[_Sam Harris]

WhoKnows, wade is getting his streaked garments in a wad because he knows that he cannot use me as a scapegoat for why he got banned from his precious FAIR. He got banned because he was just that bad.

Also, he is getting his streaked garments in a wad because he knows that he hasn't made any doctrinal points with me that can pass muster, hell he never made any period. All he did was psychoanalyze me on FAIR. For a minute I fell for it and thought he cared. No, all he wants to do is brainwash like his old leaders.

And lastly, he's getting his streaked garments in a wad because the consensus here is not with him.

He's not going to chill.

[_Sam Harris]

Likewise you have no right to tell me that I can't defend my faith against your false accusations. You have no right to tell me that your false accusations against my faith aren't a function of cognitive distortions. You have no right to prevent me from standing up for my faith.

Wade, you can stand up for your faith all you want. The problem is that you seem to believe that the way to "stand up" for your faith is to pretend that critics of that faith are psychologically damaged. This is just one more tired reformulation of a very old plot in the LDS church: attack the critics. As I said elsewhere, I guess it's "progress" of some sort that the attacks aren't quite as blatant as they used to be (poor Martha, determined to be a whore from her mother's breast for revealing that BY asked her to be his plural wife), but I suspect it's more a reflection of an awareness of current PCness.

Now, there are two types of accusations against the church. One is a statement of one's personal experiences as a member of the church. There is no way another person can declare those "false", unless you were living in very close quarters with the accuser during the period of which the accuser speaks. The other is a statement of fact about the church's history or teachings. If they are "false", then the way to demonstrate they are false is with research.

So it is pointless to talk about "false" accusations if you are discussing another person's personal experiences within the LDS church. And it is pointless to focus on a critic's supposed psychological flaws INSTEAD of providing the refuting factual information if the supposed "falsehood" has to do with church history or teachings. It just makes you look like the pathetic weakling you are to do so.

THANK YOU!!

[_Sam Harris]

Hey Shades,

That is a loooong story. Which I will definitely tell before the end of the night. However, I'm technically supposed to be "at school" (I'm studying online), and as much fun as it is to tell Wade what an ass I think he is, I'm behind. I buried someone close to me this week, and went to bed instead of studying a few nights more than I should have. Thursdays and saturdays are my deadlines, and I have a discussion board post (that I actually get graded on, eek!) and two quizzes I have to take. Not to mention, an exam saturday, and two projects due over the next two weeks.

But I WILL be back. I think my story should be told. Because it's played out many a time (if it weren't Juliann's testimony website blacklds.org would never have been erected, nor would Hinckley have spoken about racism in the spring conference), but many people are too afraid to speak. I've spent my life having to speak when folks don't want to listen, and that was family no less. The church don't get my sympathy on this one.

Oh, and I'll start another thread as well. Gimme about an hour.

[_wenglund]

The problem wasn't with me, you ass! It was with the church's racist past, racist doctrine, and unrepudiated racist teachings! Which I was told nothing about, even as I told those little boys who knocked on my door that I had a problem with black people being racist against whites, even in churches today.

My family knew more about blacks and the church than I did. The church never told me anything, I had to find out by hearing members talk out their necks, and through the internet.

But I'm sure, Wade, that you would agree with your contemporaries on FAIR that I should just go back to Africa. And don't ask for a reference post, S Gordon removed it, as he well should have.

Go pick up the book "I Have An Answer" by "Dr." David Pressley Bowman, turn to the section on Blacks and the Priesthood, and tell me what you read. How about the Journal of Discourses?

Explain Moses 7:22.

Explain the cursed skins of blackness in Book of Mormon.

Explain to me why the church went to such legnths to defend a "policy" if that was what the ban was, only further perpetuating the stereotypes of those earlier times, especially if this is God's true church, and supposedly more enlightened?

And tell me how the hell I was supposed to raise black children in this church without instilling a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance in them FROM BIRTH?! Actually, how was I supposed to find a spouse? Not including the men from Ghana who hunted me down every time I walked past (see, the white women wouldn't date them any more than the white men would date me), but anyone who was single and therefore game in the church?

Wade, this here woman is beautiful. Inside and out. Your disagreement with my disagreement has no bearing on that. I look in the mirror sometimes and wonder how any uncultured white boy from SLC could have stood this up. But hey, their loss. I have a man, and we're very happy together.

If you want to open up this issue from your past, I am fine with doing that. But, understand that my concern wasn't with rightly thinking that certain policies of the past may have been racially inequitable, but rather with your reading some sinister motives into those policies, and using that as a basis for your racist paranoia against anything white that moved in the Church.

You tell me if you want to go down that road of the past or not, or whether you are really ready to move forward.

And, it wasn't your beauty inside and out that was off-putting to me, but some of your internal ugliness you unwittingly were exposing to the world. In other words, I was viewing you through the same kind of negatively focused lense through which you viewed the Church. I am sure if you were cultured enough to have restricted your comments to the internal external beauty of the Church, then I would have been pleased to do likewise with you.

See how that works? If you want to be viewed exlusively as internally and externally as beautiful, then treat others that same way--i.e use the Golden Rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You are not GIMR, and you are not the Church or FAIR, and you were not mentioned in that statement either, and most importantly you are not ME. But look who talking? Look who is trying to tell me what my struggles shouyld or shouldn't be? Look who is trying to tell me what business is or isn't mine?

Of course I am not the Church or FAIR. So what? I don't have to be either to have a vested interest, as a commited and faithful member (at least of the Church), in discussions involving those two organization--and much more of an investment in them than you have in GIMR and me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, chill out. I'm just trying to help you understand why you aren't getting any sympathy - that was your question right?

No, that wasn't my question. I knew perfectly well why I wasn't getting any sympathy. My question was whether I was the one being hypocritical or not? Sorry you missed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_truth dancer]

Wade, just out of curiosity, do you treat others as you would like to be treated?

Also, to help me understand your perspective here...

To your way of thinking, is name calling and labeling (bigot for example) only a cognitive distortion if the name is not objectively appropriate, but if the label "fits" then it is not labeling but just an observation? If so, how does one determine if the label is appropraite or not? Who is the one to determine the truth of the label/observation?

I'm not sure how you see this so please clarify for me.

Thanks,

~dancer~

[_Who Knows]

No, that wasn't my question. I knew perfectly well why I wasn't getting any sympathy. My question was whether I was the one being hypocritical or not? Sorry you missed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, now that I re-read what you wrote - I don't see any question at all, just a lot of whining and crying, about this, and that, and you not getting sympathy, blah blah blah...

[_wenglund]

Likewise you have no right to tell me that I can't defend my faith against your false accusations. You have no right to tell me that your false accusations against my faith aren't a function of cognitive distortions. You have no right to prevent me from standing up for my faith.

Wade, you can stand up for your faith all you want. The problem is that you seem to believe that the way to "stand up" for your faith is to pretend that critics of that faith are psychologically damaged. This is just one more tired reformulation of a very old plot in the LDS church: attack the critics. As I said elsewhere, I guess it's "progress" of some sort that the attacks aren't quite as blatant as they used to be (poor Martha, determined to be a whore from her mother's breast for revealing that BY asked her to be his plural wife), but I suspect it's more a reflection of an awareness of current PCness.

Now, there are two types of accusations against the church. One is a statement of one's personal experiences as a member of the church. There is no way another person can declare those "false", unless you were living in very close quarters with the accuser during the period of which the accuser speaks. The other is a statement of fact about the church's history or teachings. If they are "false", then the way to demonstrate they are false is with research.

So it is pointless to talk about "false" accusations if you are discussing another person's personal experiences within the LDS church. And it is pointless to focus on a critic's supposed psychological flaws INSTEAD of providing the refuting factual information if the supposed "falsehood" has to do with church history or teachings. It just makes you look like the pathetic weakling you are to do so.

I realize that to your mnoumentally ego-centric mind that when you have come to a conclusion then the discussion is settled for all parties concerned, and the thinking stops.

From my perspective, though, your thinking never really was much of a factor. Your emotions rule what you have concluded, and you mistakenly assume your emotions rule everyone else.

Here's a news flash. THEY DON'T. In fact, they matter very little in the whole scheme of things, and even less to reasoned-based minds.

In other words, your belief that on personal issues, critics are above and beyond criticism, while certainly self-serving, is logically incorrect (i.e. your feelings are based, ironically, on a cognitive distortion, and it is reasonable of me to correct that cognitive distortion, and thus I will do so below).

Granted, people's personal problems are not necessarily false in terms of whether they feel a certain way or not. Nor, for that matter, are they necessarily false in terms of whether they actually reacted a certain way or not based on their feelings. Those are, as you noted, historical facts. However, the cognitive basis for those feelings and reations may well be false, and it is perfectly reasonable to point out the falseness. For example, please recall my experience with the presumed schizophrenic who yelled at me and tried to stop me from running peaceably on the sidewalk in SLC. Reasonable people would rightly assume that while one could not conlude it was false that he yelled and tried to stop me (historically, it is a fact that he did), nor could one conclude it was false that he felt it appropriate to yell and stop me (they may even rightly concluded that his actions made sense given his cognitions); though, it is reasonable for them to presume that his cognitions were false--I wasn't going to cause other people to die merely by running peaceably down the street. And, it would be perfectly reasonable of me and others to point out his false cognition. In fact, all parties concerned would benefit by his false cognitions being corrected.

I believe the same is true for much, if not all, of the negative, publicly manifest emotional reactions directed towards my faith. You may emotionally dislike that I confront these things, but I actually do have a rational and sensible basis for doing so--not that you would care since your thinking isn't much of a factor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

If you want to open up this issue from your past, I am fine with doing that. But, understand that my concern wasn't with rightly thinking that certain policies of the past may have been racially inequitable, but rather with your reading some sinister motives into those policies, and using that as a basis for your racist paranoia against anything white that moved in the Church.

"May have been recially inequitable"? Are you kidding, Wade? And what "beauty" do you honestly see in the old priesthood ban and the ban on interracial marriage?

You tell me if you want to go down that road of the past or not, or whether you are really ready to move forward.

And, it wasn't your beauty inside and out that was off-putting to me, but some of your internal ugliness you unwittingly were exposing to the world. In other words, I was viewing you through the same kind of negatively focused lense through which you viewed the Church. I am sure if you were cultured enough to have restricted your comments to the internal external beauty of the Church, then I would have been pleased to do likewise with you.

More bull from you. All you're capable of seeing is honky-dory stuff about the Church. My challenge to you about offering up one, single criticism of the Church still stands.

See how that works? If you want to be viewed exlusively as internally and externally as beautiful, then treat others that same way--i.e use the Golden Rule.

I think everyone here sees how that works except for you, my friend.

Edited to add: In any case, I can hardly wait for GIMR's thread.

[_wenglund]

Wade, just out of curiosity, do you treat others as you would like to be treated?

Also, to help me understand your perspective here...

To your way of thinking, is name calling and labeling (bigot for example) only a cognitive distortion if the name is not objectively appropriate, but if the label "fits" then it is not labeling but just an observation? If so, how does one determine if the label is appropraite or not? Who is the one to determine the truth of the label/observation?

I'm not sure how you see this so please clarify for me. Thanks,~dancer~

In answer to your first question, I make a concerted effort to do so.

In answer to your second question, to me it isn't so much about objectivity as it is reasonableness. The appropriateness of labelling (like "bigot") is a function of reasonableness (i.e. whether the reasonable definition of the label reasonably applies in a given situation). The way one determines if the label is appropriate or not, is to test its reasonableness both in terms of the definition as well as the application of the definition. We, as a society, determine the reasonableness of the definition and application of the definition through public discourse and reasoning together--which is what I have been attempting to do on the various related threads.

Furthermore, to me, the label isn't so much important as the thoughts and behaviors intended to be described or identified by the label. Call it whatever people want, as long as appropriate action is taken to eradicate or minimize the "toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group".

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-