healing/recovery through venting?

[_Who Knows]

The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses.

Your statement would only be true if the church were what it claims. If it's not what it claims, then you're wrong.

[_Runtu]

The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses.

Your statement would only be true if the church were what it claims. If it's not what it claims, then you're wrong.

I would have thought that was self-evident.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, let's do hold on "partner". The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses. That is YOUR self-serving cognitive distortion of things. And, while your venting at RFM may have subsided your anger, it mearly masked the real issue--i.e. your propensity to falsely accuse others as a cover for your own personal inadequacies. That is the way YOU dysfunctionally work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, really you don't so much take exception to venting in general, as you think that any view of the church as being less than truthful is a self-serving cognitive distortion.

Interesting.

I agree wholeheartedly, and think it is absurd for Wade to claim that the Church isn't secretive. Secrecy is an integral part of Mormonism (as it is in many other religions), such as with the temple. One can argue about the truth claims of the Church, but there can be no argument about the plain and obvious fact that the Church does not engage in full disclosure. That people would feel deceived is a natural consequence of this, in my opinion.

[_moksha]

Scratch, you must remember things are sacred, not secret - such as the financial records. That is why they may not be seen or discussed.

[_wenglund]

Like you said, thanks for spelling out how you think of me.

I used to view the false accusers and blamers of my faith, such as yourself, in much the same way you now view me (as bludgeoning and beating people). But, I came to realize that my perception was, in certain important ways, a cognitive distortion. Like you and Bob with the Church, I came to view the false accuser in a more compassionate and understanding way. However, rather than self-servingly chalking you all up stereotypically to "predictable conditioning", I came to view your actions as quite reasonable given your cognitions. But, rather than well-intendingly slipping into denial through forgiveness (though I do believe that forgivess is a wonderful healing strategy when applied properly), I chose not to ignore the cycle of hurt and anger and lose, and I have determined to extricate myself and my faith from the cycle, and hopefully extricate the false accusers as well.

Granted, from the point of view of the false accusers it may appear as though my methods are actually contributing to the cycle of hurt, rather than helping to extricate people. But, like iodine or hydrogen paroxide in an open wound, the disinfecting and cleansing forces of cognitive behavioral therapy can often sting--particularly the more resistent the recipient, but it is a proven strategy for to real healing.

I can respect, though, if you chose not to take my "medicine". That is your right. But please understand that as long as you and others publically and dysfunctionally fault YOUR emotional problems on my faith, I will continue to point out where the real fault lies (with YOU), and offer my services.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I had said what I thought of you at least two or three times earlier in the thread. Kindly point out where I have blamed my emotional problems (i.e., anger) on the church.

See your second post on page 8, where you agree with DV about feeling betrayed and violated by the Church and choosing to vent the anger resulting therefrom at RFM rather than "blowing of steam" at home.

See your 4th post on the same page where you, in response to Ray's query about why you and others are angry and he and others were not, spoke of your experiences in the Church, and your perplexity that your friend who had similiar experiences didn't feel anger.

See your post on that same page where you mention that anger was a part of the grieving process--which grief later mentioned as due to a loss of

See your post on page nine where you said: "it's not our fault the church turned out to be fake."

Should I go on? Or, do you see a pattern.

Now, I could have misunderstood each of your posts as suggesting your grief and anger was because, for no fault of your own, the Church supposedly turned out to be a fake, and thus it was the Church's fault for your grief and anger. I am open to being corrected--after all, you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on what you believe and think.

In your mind, if it is not the Church, then who or what is at fault for your past anger and grief?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, you must remember things are sacred, not secret - such as the financial records. That is why they may not be seen or discussed.

Lol... Nevertheless, it is understandable that people might feel deceived, no?

[_wenglund]

Yes, let's do hold on "partner". The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses. That is YOUR self-serving cognitive distortion of things. And, while your venting at RFM may have subsided your anger, it mearly masked the real issue--i.e. your propensity to falsely accuse others as a cover for your own personal inadequacies. That is the way YOU dysfunctionally work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, really you don't so much take exception to venting in general, as you think that any view of the church as being less than truthful is a self-serving cognitive distortion.

Interesting.

Not exactly. I do take exception to certain forms of venting and certain kind of excuses for venting in general.

And, I think that self-serving and dysfunctional cognitive distortions are a perfectly reasonable explanations for why a relative few people, like you and other RFMers, have needed to vent and grieve regarding the gospel of love when so many others don't--both those who have left the Church and those that haven't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, let's do hold on "partner". The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses. That is YOUR self-serving cognitive distortion of things. And, while your venting at RFM may have subsided your anger, it mearly masked the real issue--i.e. your propensity to falsely accuse others as a cover for your own personal inadequacies. That is the way YOU dysfunctionally work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, really you don't so much take exception to venting in general, as you think that any view of the church as being less than truthful is a self-serving cognitive distortion.

Interesting.

Not exactly. I do take exception to certain forms of venting and certain kind of excuses for venting in general.

And, I think that self-serving and dysfunctional cognitive distortions are a perfectly reasonable explanations for why a relative few people, like you and other RFMers, have needed to vent and grieve regarding the gospel of love when so many others don't--both those who have left the Church and those that haven't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just out of curiosity, who are these people, Wade? Can we read accounts written by them? Do they even exist? Who are these "so many others who don't vent," and where can we read about them? How do we know that they're not just inventions---or "cognitive distoritions"---which are purely a figment of your imagination?

[_Runtu]

See your second post on page 8, where you agree with DV about feeling betrayed and violated by the Church and choosing to vent the anger resulting therefrom at RFM rather than "blowing of steam" at home.

Of course I felt betrayed and violated. I've also said it was my choice to react the way I did. That's not blaming my problems on the church.

See your 4th post on the same page where you, in response to Ray's query about why you and others are angry and he and others were not, spoke of your experiences in the Church, and your perplexity that your friend who had similiar experiences didn't feel anger.

Unless I'm mistaken about my own post (and I'm not), this was an admission to you (which I have made repeatedly) that my anger was not a necessary outcome, as evidenced by my friend's experience. Again, how is that blaming things on the church? It's quite the contrary.

See your post on that same page where you mention that anger was a part of the grieving process--which grief later mentioned as due to a loss of

Anger is part of the grieving process, Wade, and a legitimate one. See, for example, what I wrote about Sylvia Plath. Was it her father's fault that he died?

See your post on page nine where you said: "it's not our fault the church turned out to be fake."

This one is priceless, Wade, because it was a response to your accusation that we had victimized the church. In this little snippet (I notice you cut off the next sentence) I was explaining that we hadn't done anything to the church, despite your accusation. Weird how denying that we victimized the church can be turned into my "blaming the church" for anything.

Should I go on? Or, do you see a pattern.

Yes, I see a pattern of distortion, Wade. To paraphrase someone, try responding to what I actually said.

Now, I could have misunderstood each of your posts as suggesting your grief and anger was because, for no fault of your own, the Church supposedly turned out to be a fake, and thus it was the Church's fault for your grief and anger. I am open to being corrected--after all, you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on what you believe and think.

You really haven't been listening, Wade. No, it's not my fault the church is a fraud. What is my fault is reacting the way I did.

In your mind, if it is not the Church, then who or what is at fault for your past anger and grief?

Dammit, Wade, for the hundredth time or so, I'm responsible for reacting the way I did. What is the church's fault is the deception, not the reaction to it.

[_wenglund]

The Church did not lie to you, nor did it take your time, talents, and energy under false pretenses.

Your statement would only be true if the church were what it claims. If it's not what it claims, then you're wrong.

What you say just MIGHT be true were there an objective and definitive way of determining whether or not the Church is what it claims to be. There isn't, so you are, as expected, WRONG.

I would have thought that was obvious.

I say "MIGHT" because even were there an objective and definitive means for determining if the Church weren't what it claims (again, there isn't), and were the improbable to occur, and there were to be determined through that means that the Church wasn't what it claimed, that would not necessarily mean that there was lying and false pretenses involved. The Church, in such a hypothetical case, may reasonably be perceived as genuinely and sincerely mistaken. In fact, given the wealth of evidence for the genuineness and sincerity within the Church, it would be unreasonable to assume that there was lying and false pretenses--particularly at fundamental and significant level of the faith tradition. Those who believe otherwise are are suffering from demonstrable cognitive distortions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-