healing/recovery through venting?

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me see if I can paraphrase your view: If a prophet is a prophet, everything else is irrelevant. It does not matter if that prophet lies about his sexual escapades, or if he is a criminal, because none of this changes his status as a prophet, which he did not lie about. Granted, he lied about other things, and was quite a deceptive person more generally, but anyone who is angry about the lies he told is experiencing a cognitive distortion due to the fact that he never lied about being a prophet?

Did I get that right?

No, as expected, you didn't. Since you seem incapable of understanding this from the point of view of a prophet. Let me come at this from the point of view on a disbeliever. Let's say that Mr. S claims to be credetialed academic.

I'm not sure what "credetialed" means, Wade. Also, I assume that by "Mr. S.," you're referring to me. If you can point me to a place were I came right out and said, "Hey, folks, I'm not actually "Mr." Scratch---I'm actually Dr. Scratch!", then cool. I never claimed anything about my credentials.

If Mr. S has decieved people about who he really is--let say he has claimed that his real name is the screen name he uses when posting on internet message boards. And, suppose that when he is challenged to verify who he really is and give some evidence that he is a credetialed academic, but declines the requests and says that people should judge him on the merits of what he says.

I hardly see how this is the same. And let me note, en passant, that you still haven't answered my original question.

And suppose that people have judged him on those merits, and found his claim to being a credentialed academic to be seriously wanting,

Sorry, Wade, but I am going to challenge you on this. I say you are a liar. Point me to the place where I ever asserted that I was a "credentialed academic." You are a liar, and you are going to need to repent for this one, my friend. An apology is in order, too.

and they don't believe him. Then, would it be congnitively accurate to, on the basis of the percieved deception about his name, and their belief that Mr. S is not true, consider Mr. S to be a lier and a deceiver in terms of his academic credentials?

Did you get it that time?

Yes, provided that Mr. S. ever claimed to be an "academic," and that Mr. S. was serious about his name.

If that doesn't compute (or in other word if your "reciprocity" got in the way), then lets try this: If you are sincere in your belief that the claims about the Church are false, would the members be cognitively correct to say you are lying and deceiving since they view your beliefs about the Church to be false?

No... And I'm not sure that I follow you here. Are you saying that hatred and bigotry on the part of the members of the Church is justified, do to their "cognitive distortions"?

If not, and were you to have ever lied or decieved in your life about things other than your genuine and sincere belief in the Church, whether once, or several times, or quite often, would members of the Church be cognitively correct to claim you are lying and deceiving about you belief that the Church is false?

Has it finally reached cognition?

Where did I ever claim anything about my "belief that the Church is false"?

And anyways, you still haven't answered my question, my dear Wade.

[_wenglund]

Try as I do, I think I am getting more confused with each page of this thread.

:-) Let me try this...

Wade, if ten people all believe the church is not true, they all believe there were deceived, they all believe they wasted a lot of time and money for the church, yet they react differently (some vent, some cry, some repress, some shout for joy, some scream, some get depressed, others get angry, some let it all go), what (to your way of thinking) are the cognitive distortions that create the behavior of those who yell or vent or post on RFM?~dancer~

I bolded in your statement above what I believe to be a cognitive distortion that may or may not lead to what I consider dysfunctional "venting" and "grief" at places like RFM and elsewhere.

There are other cognitive distortions that may also cause the dysfunctional "venting" and "grieving" as well, but this is the one I am focusing on for the moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You believe that it's a cognitive distortion if they all ten believe they were deceived? You are now in charge of what is healthy to believe and what is not (assuming that you believe it's unhealthy to have cognitive distortions)? You feel qualified to state that these 10 people, all of whom you do not know and never have spoken with face to face, are all suffering from the same unhealthy cognitive distortion, simply because they vent and grieve at a place like RfM?

I got that impression too, that Wade believes that if we think the church is deceptive, we are guilty of cognitive distortion. Is that what you meant, Wade?

If by "deceptive" you are referring to "what the Church claims to be" or "It's true that the church lied to me [I am assuming this is in reference to key truth claims] and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses", then yes, I believe those who think this are guilty of cognitive distortions. In fact, I said as much specifically to you on page 16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

If by "deceptive" you are referring to "what the Church claims to be" or "It's true that the church lied to me [I am assuming this is in reference to key truth claims] and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses", then yes, I believe those who think this are guilty of cognitive distortions. In fact, I said as much specifically to you on page 16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But this position is fundamentally (no pun intended) incompatible with your stated ideas about the nature of truth.

[Physics Guy]

I got that impression too, that Wade believes that if we think the church is deceptive, we are guilty of cognitive distortion. Is that what you meant, Wade?

If by "deceptive" you are referring to "what the Church claims to be" or "It's true that the church lied to me [I am assuming this is in reference to key truth claims] and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses", then yes, I believe those who think this are guilty of cognitive distortions. In fact, I said as much specifically to you on page 16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, so you think that the Church is totally, 100% perfect then, and that it has always told the absolute truth. Nothing infallible about any of the leaders. What a heretical joke, Wade.

You ready to offer up one measly example that the contemporary Church isn't infallible?

[_Runtu]

Ah, so you think that the Church is totally, 100% perfect then, and that it has always told the absolute truth. Nothing infallible about any of the leaders. What a heretical joke, Wade.

You ready to offer up one measly example that the contemporary Church isn't infallible?

If the church withholds information from people, covers up information, or denies its history, then yes, it can be said to be deceptive or even to be lying. I'm not sure why this is a controversial thing to say.

[_wenglund]

It is not a matter of being in charge (any more so than you, as a disbeliever, may think you are in charge of what is true or false for millions of believing members of the Church). It is a matter of reasoning and understanding the difference between healthy and functional cognitions and unhealthy and dysfunctional cognitions.

Here's one problem I see, Wade. Earlier you espoused a postmodern approach to "truth" (and in Tal's interview, you suggested that truth ought to have quotation marks around it), positing a truth that is subjective. Thus, in a postmodern world, perception is reality; cognition is "true," so you cannot say that any cognition is distorted or unhealthy because all are equally true.

Actually, I explicitly denied espousing a postmodern approach to "truth" much like I implicitly denied a "postconstructionist" view, though I did suggest that it may be appropriate, though not necessary, to put quote marks around "the truth". By saying that, I am not suggesting that "perception is reality", and that "cognition is 'true'" and that "truth is subjective". Those are word you have, not surprisingly, put into my mouth. I am simply saying that, in our finite and fallible human state, one cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, though one can, through relatively objective and subjective means, grow epistemically in confidence that what one believes is true and real, is in fact true and real. Do I think it possible for perceptions to be false? Yes. Do I think all cognitions are true? Absolutely not. Do I think all truths are subjective? No. Do I believe that we have epistemic tools for reasonably and rationally distinguishing between false perceptions and "reality", or distorted and correct cognitions, or relatively objective truths/falsehoods and subjective truths/falsehoods? Absolutely. In fact, I am attempting to interject just such an epistemic tool into this very discussion.

Now, that interjection would be better facilitated and more obvious were I not to have to spend the vast majority of my time on this thread repeatedly correcting misperception of what I have said and chasing down and stabalizing a variety of other deflective maneuvers (whether intended or not). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Ah, so you think that the Church is totally, 100% perfect then, and that it has always told the absolute truth. Nothing infallible about any of the leaders. What a heretical joke, Wade.

You ready to offer up one measly example that the contemporary Church isn't infallible?

If the church withholds information from people, covers up information, or denies its history, then yes, it can be said to be deceptive or even to be lying. I'm not sure why this is a controversial thing to say.

The Church can, for practical and privacy reason, not disclose every piece of information related to it history, then yes, it can reasonably be said that it is not lying. Why is that controversial to say?

If the Church doesn't think it necessary to disclose information it views as unrelated to its verity as the restored gospel of Christ, then, no, the Church is not lying about what it claims to be. Why is that controversial to say?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Actually, I explicitly denied espousing a postmodern approach to "truth" much like I implicitly denied a "postconstructionist" view, though I did suggest that it may be appropriate, though not necessary, to put quote marks around "the truth". By saying that, I am not suggesting that "perception is reality", and that "cognition is 'true'" and that "truth is subjective". Those are word you have, not surprisingly, put into my mouth. I am simply saying that, in our finite and fallible human state, one cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, though one can, through relatively objective and subjective means, grow epistemically in confidence that what one believes is true and real, is in fact true and real. Do I think it possible for perceptions to be false? Yes. Do I think all cognitions are true? Absolutely not. Do I think all truths are subjective? No. Do I believe that we have epistemic tools for reasonably and rationally distinguishing between false perceptions and "reality", or distorted and correct cognitions, or relatively objective truths/falsehoods and subjective truths/falsehoods? Absolutely. In fact, I am attempting to interject just such an epistemic tool into this very discussion.

Actually, your words here are very much in keeping with postmodernism:

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.

WRONG. You are fallaciously imposing your fundamentalist view of "knowledge" onto me. See Tal's interview with me where I explain this in more indepth. I believe we can "know" things in non-definitive and non-absolute objective ways. I don't believe we have the capacity as finite and fallible humans to "know" things in a definitive and absolute objective way. Do you understand the important distiction? If so, then you will understand that you are WRONG.

Which is it, Wade? Is there an objective way to determine truth, or not? If there's no objective way to get at truth, then truth is indeed subjective, which of course makes "cognitive distortion" impossible. I think you got in over your head repeating the Juliann mantra (and I'm still puzzled why you brought it up).

Now, that interjection would be better facilitated and more obvious were I not to have to spend the vast majority of my time on this thread repeatedly correcting misperception of what I have said and chasing down and stabalizing a variety of other deflective maneuvers (whether intended or not). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, the problem is not that I've misperceived anything; it's that you explicitly contradicted yourself. Do you seriously not see that?

And what the hell does "postconstructionist" mean? ;-)

[_wenglund]

If by "deceptive" you are referring to "what the Church claims to be" or "It's true that the church lied to me [I am assuming this is in reference to key truth claims] and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses", then yes, I believe those who think this are guilty of cognitive distortions. In fact, I said as much specifically to you on page 16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But this position is fundamentally (no pun intended) incompatible with your stated ideas about the nature of truth.

You are confusing my stated ideas about truth with the ideas you have put into my mouth. (see my previous post)

My ideas about truth are entirely compatible with the statement above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

If by "deceptive" you are referring to "what the Church claims to be" or "It's true that the church lied to me [I am assuming this is in reference to key truth claims] and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses", then yes, I believe those who think this are guilty of cognitive distortions. In fact, I said as much specifically to you on page 16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But this position is fundamentally (no pun intended) incompatible with your stated ideas about the nature of truth.

You are confusing my stated ideas about truth with the ideas you have put into my mouth. (see my previous post)

My ideas about truth are entirely compatible with the statement above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See my post above. I'm not really sure you have thought through a coherent definition of truth or coherent ideas about how such truth is known. Otherwise, you would not have contradicted yourself so obviously. I love the way you deflect any questions about the validity of your ideas with the accusation that I'm putting words in your mouth.