healing/recovery through venting?

[_Mister Scratch]

There are also two other cognitive distortions in his statement that are not on the Wiki list: 1) arguing from silence (he fallaciously assumes that since I haven't, to his knowledge, mentioned any fallibilities, and if I don't list at least one fallibility, he sees that as evidence that my statement about fallability is virtually meaningless). In truth, I could list some areas of fallibility, but I have informed Scratch that I do not wish to argue with him.

Ah. I see. Thank you for proving my point for me.

So, my not doing what he is now asking me to do, does not support his false judgement of me, but merely evinces what I said before about my choosing not to argue with him.

I don't know, Wade. I don't think it's so much a matter of you "choosing not to argue." I think the simple fact is that you are constitutionally incapable of arguing with me on this point. You can't do it, just as I predicted. Big surprise.

On second thought, and not by way of arguing, this could turn out to be a better object lesson than I thought.

Scratch, if I provide you with at least one example where I think the Church and/or its leaders have been, or are fallible, will you then rightly admit to being WRONG and having had COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS regarding each and every one of the following:

1. about me lying/equivocating
2. about there being evidence upon which to base your claim that I was lying/equivocating
3. about trusting your unauthoritative opinon over my authoritative word
4. about your argument from silence
5. about your non sequitur
6. about me proving your point
7. about me not wanting to argue with you.
8. about me not being "consitutionally able to argue this point"
9. and about about your prediction being right

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gee, that's a pretty tall order, Wade. How about a compromise: I agree to go through your nine points item by item after you respond to my one request. What say ye? (by the way: Isn't "cognitive distortion" the same thing as "honest difference of opinion"?)

[_marg]

Wade writes: The first non-admin thread on the board was titled: "Puh-leez....Glenn Beck", by an unregistered poster called "flyer". Here is what he or she said:

What a card. The guy is all jovial and laughing and even swearing on camera. Now since when is a Mo supposed to behave this way? I find it amusing that he thinks he's so amusing.

While he does tackle some good topics, he just doesn't have any depth to tackle them intelligently. I guess that explains why he fell for Mo-ism.

Wonder if he on some level is struggling with cog diss? Or is he just a little vacuous as most TBMs come?


Let me ask:

1. Does this appear to be a fair assessment of Glenn Beck, or perhaps a mentally filtered version?

It’s difficult for me to judge whether it’s a fair assessment, because I’ve never heard or seen Glenn Beck. It’s definitely negative against both Glenn Beck and TBM’s with regards to their intelligence. I'll address this later.

2. Does it disqualify Glenn as amusing (in spite of the fact that his is the third highest ranked talk show in the nation), and his depth in tackling good topics intelligently (as if that is something that can be determined from the format of a 3hr. call-in show)?

When you ask “ does ‘it’ disqualify Glenn as amusing” , what do you mean by “it” ? Mormonism? Flyer’s assessment is that Glenn Beck isn't amusing, but I don't read into her/his post that Beck isn't amusing because he's Mormon. Flyer also doesn’t present an argument as to why he/she considers G. Beck unintelligent. Flyer doesn’t say Mormonism is a cause of Beck’s alleged lack of in depth intelligence either due to upbringing within the Mormon religion or some sort of Mormon influence. Flyer does use the fact that Beck joined(fell for) Mormonism as a warrant to back up an opinion that Beck lacks indepth intelligence. You mention the show's popularity, but one can not conclude from that that the topics dealt with intelligently. They may or may not be, I don't know.


3. Does it imply that Glenn, as a Mormon, shouldn't behave the way he does.

Flyer is critical of Beck's jovial behavior, but I don't read into it that the reason is because Beck is Mormon, I read into it that Flyer finds the jovial behavior annoying. It is a reasonable conclusion for a former Mormon (I assume Flyer is) to be critical of a Mormon's swearing.


4. Does it mind read why Glenn may have joined the Church and whether he is struggling with "cog diss"?

Flyer doesn’t think that anyone who thinks with depth critically and intelligently would join the church. So Flyer suggests that Beck's lack of intelligence as the reason he joined "fell" for Mormonism. From your point of view this is bigotry, hate, distorted thinking. And I can appreciate your point of view. I really don’t want to rub salt in the wound but a good argument can be made that Mormonism discourages “critical indepth thinking” via encouragement of relying of feelings/Holy Ghost to reach accepted truths. So while Flyer may have said some hurtful things to anyone who is Mormon, Flyer does not exhibit a cognitive distortion with regards to this or a cog distortion which is impacting her/him negatively.


5. Does it overgeneralize about the depth or alleged "vacuousness" of Mormon intellectuality?

It does generalize but not overgeneralize. A good argument can be made that reaching best truths via ‘feelings’ is the antithesis of in depth intelligent thinking or using H.G. is vacuous critical thinking.

6. Is it emotional reasoning or an argument based on objective reality?

I know little about Glenn Beck but I went to his web site and he has a section on hate mail that he gets. It appears he probably is provocative on purpose. Hence it is likely people will have strong feelings pro or con of him. Are these people sending him hate mail because he’s a Mormon? I doubt it. And I don’t think his show is about religion, in particular Mormonism. So his views must not appeal to all viewers, but they may still interest them.

Are you suggesting that the only reason Flyer criticizes Glenn Beck is because he’s Mormon?

Are you suggesting that Flyer should seek counseling because he/she has anger which is exhibited in his/her critical comments of Mr. Beck and TBM’s critical thinking skills with regards to their religious beliefs?

Does Flyer seem out of control emotionally, so angry at Mormons or Mormonism that she/he irrationally criticizes G. Beck & TBM's.

Wade, I believe I do appreciate your perspective. But the RFM board is not meant for Mormons to read. It is for exmormons, so of course it is likely that many of the posts will be critical of Mormonism and Mormons and hence offensive to Mormons.

Now to add a bit of perspective. Flyer made that comment. He/she is unlikely to be obsessing about G. Beck. From that one comment he/she has not indicated ‘hate” for Mormons or even that all Mormons are unintelligent. He/she didn’t say all TBM’s are highly “vacuous.” Flyer’s sentence was “Or is he(Beck) just a little vacuous as most TBMs come?”

Now Wade, I know you are going to blow off what I say as being prejudiced against Mormons, and in this case you but I do not see Flyer as having “cognitive distortions”.

Just because Flyer makes a critical comment against G. Beck does not indicate that Flyer maintains in her/his waking moments negative emotions. Nor does it indicate Flyer has a distorted perception of Beck or Mormons.

[_Ray A]

4. Does it mind read why Glenn may have joined the Church and whether he is struggling with "cog diss"?

Flyer doesn’t think that anyone who thinks with depth critically and intelligently would join the church. So Flyer suggests that Beck's lack of intelligence as the reason he joined "fell" for Mormonism. From your point of view this is bigotry, hate, distorted thinking. And I can appreciate your point of view. I really don’t want to rub salt in the wound but a good argument can be made that Mormonism discourages “critical indepth thinking” via encouragement of relying of feelings/Holy Ghost to reach accepted truths. So while Flyer may have said some hurtful things to anyone who is Mormon, Flyer does not exhibit a cognitive distortion with regards to this or a cog distortion which is impacting her/him negatively.

Sometimes I wonder if marg is on the same track. You do realise there is a difference between cognitive distortion and cognitive dissonance?

[_marg]

4. Does it mind read why Glenn may have joined the Church and whether he is struggling with "cog diss"?

Flyer doesn’t think that anyone who thinks with depth critically and intelligently would join the church. So Flyer suggests that Beck's lack of intelligence as the reason he joined "fell" for Mormonism. From your point of view this is bigotry, hate, distorted thinking. And I can appreciate your point of view. I really don’t want to rub salt in the wound but a good argument can be made that Mormonism discourages “critical indepth thinking” via encouragement of relying of feelings/Holy Ghost to reach accepted truths. So while Flyer may have said some hurtful things to anyone who is Mormon, Flyer does not exhibit a cognitive distortion with regards to this or a cog distortion which is impacting her/him negatively.

Sometimes I wonder if marg is on the same track. You do realise there is a difference between cognitive distortion and cognitive dissonance?

Yes Ray I do appreciate the difference but the main focus was for Wade to find a post which illustrated cog distortion.

I didn't address the mindreading aspect, because frankly I thought it was too much of a a stretch on Wade's part in an attempt to make Flyer's opinion fit in with something on the list for cog distortion. For the mindreading to be relevant to an argument that an RFM poster exhibits cog distortion and it be a problem impacting him/her negatively..the mindreading would have to be a distortion which did just that, impact negatively. All Flyer did was express a one liner which was a speculation but that speculation had no affect on Flyer, emotionally or otherwise.

[_Runtu]

Why were you trying to convince yourself of that?

Do you really not understand why a member of the church wants to believe?

There is a reason you felt a sense of loss and anger and grief, rather than, like many people who experience a paradigm shift (religious or otherwise), a sense of relief, liberation, hope, freedom, and an excitement for future prospects. Why do you suppose that is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It doesn't have to be an either/or, Wade. I feel liberation and hope now, but that wasn't the initial response. Looking back, I think most of the anger came from the realization that I wasn't going to be allowed to just walk away and live my life according to that new, liberating paradigm. I got guilt trips, threats of divorce, accusations that my unbelief was just an excuse because I had some hidden sin, such as pornography or an adulterous affair. Even my marginally LDS father told me that I should just suck it up and stick with the program.

Leaving the church is not just a simple paradigm shift (have you read Kuhn, or are you just borrowing the terminology?). The key in Kuhn's position is that the original paradigm must be flexible to accommodate a shift. Mormonism is not. And it's nigh unto impossible to get out of Mormonism cleanly and easily. Not to be offensive, but Mormonism is designed so that you can't leave easily.

[_Yoda]

I think that marg hit the nail on the head when she expressed that Wade, himself, is massively suffering from cognitive distortion, particularly based on the definitions she posted.

Here is a snippet from another thread entitled "Kudos, Shades", on this Terrestrial board:

Ok Shades,

You have now officially won a spot in my heart, for your blogs on the FAIR exiles and just your attention to detail over how UTTERLY STUPID the goings on are over there.

I know that some TBMs on here will say that you're just causing trouble, but I'm sorry, FAIR's attempts at fascim are just too much not to be laughed at publicly. And the fact that you are willing to tell the stories of LDS and non alike is laudable. The "other" site wouldn't have ever done such a thing. Good job, man!

What I find terribly ironic about your contempt for FAIR is that I was booted from FAIR specifically because of my posts to you. They were protecting you from me. And, now you call their actions UTTERLY STUPID.

At that time many of the FAIRites gave you the benefit of the doubt, and attempted to befriend and consol and understand you. And, now you call their actions UTTERLY STUPID.

I am sure they may now be wondering about you: "with friends like that, who needs enemies".

Whereas, I quickly saw through your fiegned re-fellowship, right to your race-baiting, manipulative, back-stabbing, and self-centered heart. But, I don't consider FAIR as UTTERLY STUPID. I just consider them good-hearted and perhaps a bit foolish to have trusted the likes of you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So....the truth comes out. You were, self admittedly, banned from FAIR for harrassing another poster. And you're PROUD of this? And continuing to do it over here?

Talk about cognitive distortion! You need to go into your own therapy, Wade.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

You are pathetic!

As you can see, Wade, who is now apparently trying to "help" people, freely admits in another thread that he was banned from FAIR for making sniping comments at another poster.

When this poster makes an appearance on this board, and, in no way, I might add, attempts to make contact with him, or threaten him in any way, he AGAIN goes into attack mode.

I'll reiterate my earlier comments, Wade. You need to do some serious self-evaluation on your own before you attempt to "help" anyone here.

The sad thing is, I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and participate with an open mind in your threads. What a mistake that was!

[_wenglund]

Why were you trying to convince yourself of that?

Do you really not understand why a member of the church wants to believe?

For the most part, I do understand why members want to believe--because it makes sense to them to want to believe. But not in cases, like yours, where the one constant was "the church finally made sense to me when I admitted it was false". Why would you want to believe something that make sense to you to understand as false?

There is a reason you felt a sense of loss and anger and grief, rather than, like many people who experience a paradigm shift (religious or otherwise), a sense of relief, liberation, hope, freedom, and an excitement for future prospects. Why do you suppose that is?

It doesn't have to be an either/or, Wade. I feel liberation and hope now, but that wasn't the initial response. Looking back, I think most of the anger came from the realization that I wasn't going to be allowed to just walk away and live my life according to that new, liberating paradigm. I got guilt trips, threats of divorce, accusations that my unbelief was just an excuse because I had some hidden sin, such as pornography or an adulterous affair. Even my marginally LDS father told me that I should just suck it up and stick with the program.

My intent wasn't to suggest that it was an either/or situation. My intent was to address your vocalized emotions--which presumably were the most pronounced and significant to you at the time, and that are not necessarily experienced (or at least not to a proponderance like you--initially or otherwise) by everyone undergoing a paradigm shift.

Not everyone gets angry because they aren't allowed to just walk away and live their life. People can CHOOSE, and have CHOSEN, to be perfectly understanding of the fact that their paradigm shift isn't just obout them, but may also significantly and negatively affect others, and have been a peace with working out ways to minimize the negative impact to others, while still honoring their own paradigm shift. Why do you suppose you were angry and others in similar situations to yours weren't?

Granted, I understand how frustrating it is to be accused of all sorts of things (my faith is under considerable assault from vile and diverse accusations and threats on moment-to-moment and daily basis in some quarters), but one need not react in anger. There are other, often far more mutually productive, ways of responding (such as humor, or calmly reasoning with those leveling the accusations and threats). Why did you choose to be angry, rather reacting in a more productive manner?

Leaving the church is not just a simple paradigm shift (have you read Kuhn, or are you just borrowing the terminology?). The key in Kuhn's position is that the original paradigm must be flexible to accommodate a shift. Mormonism is not. And it's nigh unto impossible to get out of Mormonism cleanly and easily. Not to be offensive, but Mormonism is designed so that you can't leave easily.

Given how many members have left the Church calmly, peaceably, and with great ease, I am not sure that your generalization is correct--though it appears to be at least in your specific situation. But, might that be, in part, a matter of your perception and how you CHOOSE to view things?

Besides, even if you are correct in general that it is a complex paradigm shift when leaving the Church, does that complexity necessitate anger? Are there not other ways that may be CHOSEN to more productively deal with the complexity?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

For the most part, I do understand why members want to believe--because it makes sense to them to want to believe. But not in cases, like yours, where the one constant was "the church finally made sense to me when I admitted it was false". Why would you want to believe something that make sense to you to understand as false?

Oh, I don't know, maybe I wanted my life back the way it was. I wanted my faith back, but I had to admit that I couldn't get it back, although I wanted it. It's kind of like realizing that I'll never be 6 feet tall. I can resignedly accept that reality, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice just the same.

My intent wasn't to suggest that it was an either/or situation. My intent was to address your vocalized emotions--which presumably were the most pronounced and significant to you at the time, and that are not necessarily experienced (or at least not to a proponderance like you--initially or otherwise) by everyone undergoing a paradigm shift.

Then why did you set it up as an either/or? You said I was angry, and others weren't as though I made a choice not to be content or liberated. That's a false dichotomy.

Not everyone gets angry because they aren't allowed to just walk away and live their life. People can CHOOSE, and have CHOSEN, to be perfectly understanding of the fact that their paradigm shift isn't just obout them, but may also significantly and negatively affect others, and have been a peace with working out ways to minimize the negative impact to others, while still honoring their own paradigm shift. Why do you suppose you were angry and others in similar situations to yours weren't?

Granted, I understand how frustrating it is to be accused of all sorts of things (my faith is under considerable assault from vile and diverse accusations and threats on moment-to-moment and daily basis in some quarters), but one need not react in anger. There are other, often far more mutually productive, ways of responding (such as humor, or calmly reasoning with those leveling the accusations and threats). Why did you choose to be angry, rather reacting in a more productive manner?

I'm glad you understand the frustration. I would assume that you also understand that you chose, for example, to react with anger toward GIMR. Frustration often leads to anger, and it's best to dispense with the anger as well as you can. For me, that was venting on RfM. For you, apparently, that's railing on GIMR.

Given how many members have left the Church calmly, peaceably, and with great ease, I am not sure that your generalization is correct--though it appears to be at least in your specific situation. But, might that be, in part, a matter of your perception and how you CHOOSE to view things?

It was and is nigh unto impossible for me to leave, as it is for many others. For some odd reason, people quietly go inactive, but when a previously active believer leaves, that's an entirely different story. Why do you suppose that is?

Besides, even if you are correct in general that it is a complex paradigm shift when leaving the Church, does that complexity necessitate anger? Are there not other ways that may be CHOSEN to more productively deal with the complexity?

No, Wade, the complexity doesn't necessitate anger. The frustration led to anger, just as it does in most people. As I said, you seem to have a problem with the way I worked out the anger. So be it. It worked for me.

[_Yoda]

Besides, even if you are correct in general that it is a complex paradigm shift when leaving the Church, does that complexity necessitate anger? Are there not other ways that may be CHOSEN to more productively deal with the complexity?

Just for fun, here, Wade....Let's assume your right. Let's assume that Runtu should not have been angry and vented on RfM.

OK....He has admitted that he may not have handled things correctly, and since then, moved on.

You keep beating a dead horse, Wade.

He's moved on. Now....What solutions do you have to offer that are going to help him move on?

You've been claiming you have solutions through this entire thread, but rather than addressing them, you have insisted on continuing to argue a strawman argument.

S*** or get off the pot, Wade.

How does Runtu...or someone who has been in his situation...move FORWARD?

[_wenglund]

I think that marg hit the nail on the head when she expressed that Wade, himself, is massively suffering from cognitive distortion, particularly based on the definitions she posted.

Here is a snippet from another thread entitled "Kudos, Shades", on this Terrestrial board:

Ok Shades,

You have now officially won a spot in my heart, for your blogs on the FAIR exiles and just your attention to detail over how UTTERLY STUPID the goings on are over there.

I know that some TBMs on here will say that you're just causing trouble, but I'm sorry, FAIR's attempts at fascim are just too much not to be laughed at publicly. And the fact that you are willing to tell the stories of LDS and non alike is laudable. The "other" site wouldn't have ever done such a thing. Good job, man!

What I find terribly ironic about your contempt for FAIR is that I was booted from FAIR specifically because of my posts to you. They were protecting you from me. And, now you call their actions UTTERLY STUPID.

At that time many of the FAIRites gave you the benefit of the doubt, and attempted to befriend and consol and understand you. And, now you call their actions UTTERLY STUPID.

I am sure they may now be wondering about you: "with friends like that, who needs enemies".

Whereas, I quickly saw through your fiegned re-fellowship, right to your race-baiting, manipulative, back-stabbing, and self-centered heart. But, I don't consider FAIR as UTTERLY STUPID. I just consider them good-hearted and perhaps a bit foolish to have trusted the likes of you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So....the truth comes out. You were, self admittedly, banned from FAIR for harrassing another poster. And you're PROUD of this? And continuing to do it over here?

Talk about cognitive distortion! You need to go into your own therapy, Wade.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

You are pathetic!

As you can see, Wade, who is now apparently trying to "help" people, freely admits in another thread that he was banned from FAIR for making sniping comments at another poster.

When this poster makes an appearance on this board, and, in no way, I might add, attempts to make contact with him, or threaten him in any way, he AGAIN goes into attack mode.

I'll reiterate my earlier comments, Wade. You need to do some serious self-evaluation on your own before you attempt to "help" anyone here.

The sad thing is, I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and participate with an open mind in your threads. What a mistake that was!

I really do appreciate your sharing these FEELINGS with us, liz. No doubt you gave a fair assessment of the PERSONALIZED situation, and didn't MENTALY FILTER and/or MAGNIFY the negatives in me while MINIMIZING the positives in me and the negatives in you and GIMR. I will give due consideration to your SHOULD statement about me going into therapy, and will seriously consider the LABEL you gave me of "pathetic".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-