beastie wrote:Also, Wade, your labeling angry exbelievers as suffering from "cognitive distortion" is another dead give-away. Of course you think it matters who is "right".
You may or may not be RIGHT about that. But, unlike you, it is not important enough to me to argue with you about it. I prefer instead to assist in each of us determining for ourselves what WORKS.
beastie wrote:Also, Wade, your labeling angry exbelievers as suffering from "cognitive distortion" is another dead give-away. Of course you think it matters who is "right".
You may or may not be RIGHT about that. But, unlike you, it is not important enough to me to argue with you about it. I prefer instead to assist in each of us determining for ourselves what WORKS.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Hubris, thy name is Wade. Why would you think you're qualified to assist anyone? I don't recall seeing anyone ask for your help. You're in a discussion, Wade. You're not assisting anyone. You're in no better shape than anyone else, and you certainly are not in a position to be assisting anyone in anything. Good grief.
Speaking only for myself, but in the unlikely event that I were to leave my faith in the restored gospel of Christ, I would think it more WORKABLE for me, and all parties concerned, to ACT as did Mr. D, rather than REACT like Mr. B.
Here is how I would CHOOSE to do that, and why I think it would be a more WORKABLE way:
I doubt that a loss of LDS faith would negate my belief in the Golden Rule (or moral imparative) and/or some of the other reasonable principles voiced by Christ. As such, I would CHOOSE to: 1) be primarily motivate by love and charity and kindness (love they neighbor as thyself), 2) judge not least I be judged (or in other words, judge with the same kind of judgement by which I would wish to be judged), 3) turn the other cheek (i.e. be merciful and forgiving); 4) Agree with thine adversary in the way (or in other words strive for peace and avoid contention and counterproductive debates that fixate on who is right or wrong--particularly when there is no mutually definitive way of determining right and wrong), 5) learn the truth and let it set me free from the bonds of intellectual and spiritual darkness, hate, envy, greed, self-centeredness, etc.
Also, I doubt that a loss of LDS faith would negate my belief in the conventions of critical thought (which encourage mutually respectful and compassionate understanding of other points of view and a rational approach to analysis and evaluation) or undermine the framework and methodologies of my epistemlogy. In other words, I would CHOOSE not to view it as a lose faith and world view, but rather as a change in faith and world view. I would CHOOSE to see it as supplanting one workable, valued, reasonable and confidence embuing paradigm for a more workable, valuable, reasonable, and confidence embuing paradigm. I would CHOOSE to view it as liberating and uplifting progress to be relished and joyied over, with hope and excitement for the prospects my new paradigm will afford (much like what converts to the Church experience).
Nor, do I suspect that my unlikely leaving would dissuade me from practicing certain pragmatic and functional life/social/relationship skills. I would CHOOSE to: 1) have an inner sense of security, peace, and healthy self-worth; 2) have a proper and balanced sense of proportion and perspective (pick my battles and don't sweat the small stuff); 3) learn from the past, but look to the future so that my past doesn't become my future, 4) set reasonable boundries and charitably enforce those boundries, Etc.
In other words, I would CHOOSE not to view the Church unnecessarily and unfairly as lying and deceiving and presenting false pretences about what it claims to be. Instead, I would view the Church as acting in good faith, and chalk up my past in GRATITUDE, to a hopefully mutually respectful difference of opinion. In short, I would CHOOSE to view the Church as I would wish the Church to view me. And, rather than return possible unkindness with unkindness on the part of overly zealous and disrespectful members, I would simply ask for respect and love with the promise of love and respect in return.
This, along with the CHOICES above, would WORK for me because I would be taking control of my own disposition, and I would by healthily avoiding the somewhat self-degrading, debilitating, depressing, insecurity-enducing attributes of irrational or unnecessary anger, grief, hatred, hyper-sensitivity, victimhood, closed-mindedness, etc. It would also help me avoid undue socially-repelling and relationship-corroding reactions like: harshness, false accusations, counter-productive debates, dis-respect, profanations, unkindness, gossip, ridicule, mockery, cruelty, prejudice, bigotry, etc.; and perhaps even position myself well to repair and bridge and construct relationships. Rather than tearing down myself and others, I would be lifting and building myself and others.
Putting it all more succinctly, I would CHOOSE to strive for, and satisfy to the best of my abilities, that which is a fundamental need for all of us--i.e. to love and be loved, and to value and be valued.
beastie wrote:Also, Wade, your labeling angry exbelievers as suffering from "cognitive distortion" is another dead give-away. Of course you think it matters who is "right".
You may or may not be RIGHT about that. But, unlike you, it is not important enough to me to argue with you about it. I prefer instead to assist in each of us determining for ourselves what WORKS.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Hubris, thy name is Wade. Why would you think you're qualified to assist anyone? I don't recall seeing anyone ask for your help. You're in a discussion, Wade. You're not assisting anyone. You're in no better shape than anyone else, and you certainly are not in a position to be assisting anyone in anything. Good grief.
To me, the word "assist" reasonably implies WORKING together with others. The fact that I included myself among those "determining for ourselves what WORKS", reasonably implies that we each will be assisting ourselves and others in the WORK. And, as long as we each have a descernable level of common sense, and are focused on finding a WORKABLE solution, I believe we are all qualified, and it will WORK.
But, if you wish to be RIGHT and fixate on that relatively insignificant word in a phrase of far greater import, then you are certainly free to do so. I, however, CHOOSE not to argue with you about it, but prefer to look for more WORKABLE and efficacious interactions.
[snip]Putting it all more succinctly, I would CHOOSE to strive for, and satisfy to the best of my abilities, that which is a fundamental need for all of us--i.e. to love and be loved, and to value and be valued.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Thank you for finally stating what works for you.
That said, it must be pointed out that your choice only impacts yourself. You are not married. You do not have children or in-laws. You do not have a woman by your side who married you in good faith, assuming you would pull her through the veil and go through eternity with her. Therefore, your experiences, both real and hypothetical, do not have the same foundation as someone who is married, who does have children, who does have in-laws, who did marry a spouse in the temple. Therefore, your hypothetical choices do not really bear the same weight on this question as someone who is in an entirely different situation. They have other things to consider besides themselves. Therefore their choice is more difficult and thus causes them more angst if their choice will negatively impact that which is most precious to them, ie, their spouse and family.
To me, the word "assist" reasonably implies WORKING together with others.
Slightly inaccurate, once again, Wade. You can't invent meanings for words. It muddies the communication, and it's difficult enough to communicate on a bulletin board as it is.
Assist does not imply working together, as equals, which is what we are here. Assist implies a weaker/stronger dichotomy that does not exist here.
Definition for assist: as·sist
–verb (used with object) 1. to give support or aid to; help.
2. to be associated with as an assistant or helper.
Assist means to give support or aid, to help. None one here asked you for help or assistance. You are not anyone's helper (which implies that a person needs help), nor is anyone weaker (thus making you stronger, since you're the helper, not the helped.)
We are all equals here, none stronger, none weaker, so until someone asks you for help, you are not assisting anyone to do anything. You are simply one person in a group that is having a discussion.
[snip]Putting it all more succinctly, I would CHOOSE to strive for, and satisfy to the best of my abilities, that which is a fundamental need for all of us--i.e. to love and be loved, and to value and be valued.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Thank you for finally stating what works for you.
That said, it must be pointed out that your choice only impacts yourself. You are not married. You do not have children or in-laws. You do not have a woman by your side who married you in good faith, assuming you would pull her through the veil and go through eternity with her. Therefore, your experiences, both real and hypothetical, do not have the same foundation as someone who is married, who does have children, who does have in-laws, who did marry a spouse in the temple. Therefore, your hypothetical choices do not really bear the same weight on this question as someone who is in an entirely different situation. They have other things to consider besides themselves. Therefore their choice is more difficult and thus causes them more angst if their choice will negatively impact that which is most precious to them, ie, their spouse and family.
Thank you, harmony, for that succinct statement. You get it.
As for Wade's comment, that is exactly what I have been trying to do: I chose to get over the hurt and the anger and simply love my family and my friends the best I can.
[snip]Putting it all more succinctly, I would CHOOSE to strive for, and satisfy to the best of my abilities, that which is a fundamental need for all of us--i.e. to love and be loved, and to value and be valued.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Thank you for finally stating what works for you.
That said, it must be pointed out that your choice only impacts yourself. You are not married. You do not have children or in-laws. You do not have a woman by your side who married you in good faith, assuming you would pull her through the veil and go through eternity with her. Therefore, your experiences, both real and hypothetical, do not have the same foundation as someone who is married, who does have children, who does have in-laws, who did marry a spouse in the temple. Therefore, your hypothetical choices do not really bear the same weight on this question as someone who is in an entirely different situation. They have other things to consider besides themselves. Therefore their choice is more difficult and thus causes them more angst if their choice will negatively impact that which is most precious to them, ie, their spouse and family.
While you are correct that I am not married nor have I had children. However, as explained earlier in the thread, the PRINCIPLES that I have CHOOSEN, and would CHOOSE in the unlikely event that I changed paradigms, are PRINCIPLES that I believe WORK in relationships in general, and not just in terms of one's relationship with the Church and/or relationships with those in the Church.
Granted, having a faithful spouse and children would increase the complexity of the challenge when walking away. But, even still I believe the most WORKABLE way to manage and perhaps surmount the more complex challenge is as explained. In fact, given the greater permutations of relationships and complexity, I believe the CHOICES I outline above are even more viable and critical to preserving and potentially enhancing those realtions. Certainly, from the extensive experiences that I have had in a various types of relationship (familial, friendship, business, community, governmental, etc.) I see it far more WORKABLE than becoming judgemental, accusatory, hyper-sensative, dis-respectful, unloving, non-charitable, closed-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry and grieving and venting in a way that may tend to precipitate a cycle of hurt and anger and grief. To me, the latter may well be, and has even been for me at times, a recipe for depression, anxiety, loneliness, discontent, bitterness, and so forth--things I would just as soon avoid like the plague.
However, that is how I see it.
I do understand that there are those who believe the later strategy WORKS--at least for them personally. No doubt it may win them at least some "support" and "empathy" and "association" with like-minded people on the net and elsewhere.
To me, the word "assist" reasonably implies WORKING together with others.
Slightly inaccurate, once again, Wade. You can't invent meanings for words. It muddies the communication, and it's difficult enough to communicate on a bulletin board as it is.
Assist does not imply working together, as equals, which is what we are here. Assist implies a weaker/stronger dichotomy that does not exist here.
Definition for assist: as·sist –verb (used with object) 1. to give support or aid to; help. 2. to be associated with as an assistant or helper.
Assist means to give support or aid, to help. None one here asked you for help or assistance. You are not anyone's helper (which implies that a person needs help), nor is anyone weaker (thus making you stronger, since you're the helper, not the helped.)
We are all equals here, none stronger, none weaker, so until someone asks you for help, you are not assisting anyone to do anything. You are simply one person in a group that is having a discussion.
Again, I care too much about you and what WORKS to argue this relatively trivial point.