healing/recovery through venting?

[_Runtu]

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.

So, you're with Juliann that there is no such thing as objective truth, and even if there were, there's no way to determine it. I wouldn't have taken you for a poststructuralist.

[_wenglund]

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.

I accept what you are saying--after all, you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY for what you say and believe.

The reason for my confusing is because, as explained earlier, I see emotional reactions (particularly those that require venting and grief) as function of cognitions. If you honestly believed that the Church was deceptive and was at fault for the deception, then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be angry and to vent and grieve. In other words, it would be perfectly reasonable, in that way, to fault the Church for your anger and grief--even though the CHOICE is your's to react however you feel.

That is what I thought you were saying. If it is not, then I stand corrected.

My point isn't so much that you responded inappropriately or "badly" given to your cognitions. But that your cognitions are distorted. The Church didn't deceive you. It has acted, and does now act, in good faith, with genuine and sincere belief in what it claims. All that has happened is that you no longer believe what the Church genuinely and sincerely offers in good faith. That is your choice and I respect that. But your lose of faith does not mysteriously turn the genuine and sincere offer of good faith into a lie or false pretenses or deception. For you to believe that it does, is a cognitive distortion. Understood?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I accept what you are saying--after all, you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY for what you say and believe.

The reason for my confusing is because, as explained earlier, I see emotional reactions (particularly those that require venting and grief) as function of cognitions. If you honestly believed that the Church was deceptive and was at fault for the deception, then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be angry and to vent and grieve. In other words, it would be perfectly reasonable, in that way, to fault the Church for your anger and grief--even though the CHOICE is your's to react however you feel.

That is what I thought you were saying. If it is not, then I stand corrected.

My point isn't so much that you responded inappropriately or "badly" given to your cognitions. But that your cognitions are distorted. The Church didn't deceive you. It has acted, and does now act, in good faith, with genuine and sincere belief in what it claims. All that has happened is that you no longer believe what the Church genuinely and sincerely offers in good faith. That is your choice and I respect that. But your lose of faith does not mysteriously turn the genuine and sincere offer of good faith into a lie or false pretenses or deception. For you to believe that it does, is a cognitive distortion. Understood?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

How do you know that what the church offers is done genuinely and sincerely in good faith?

[_wenglund]

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.

So, you're with Juliann that there is no such thing as objective truth, and even if there were, there's no way to determine it. I wouldn't have taken you for a poststructuralist.

I do believe there is objective truth as well a relative truth. As for whether objective truths can be determined as such with abosolute certainty, particularly in terms of matters of religious faith, I don't think that is possible with our finite and fallible human minds. At best, we can, as Kant and other enlightenment philosophers have pointed out, but approximate objective truths by growing in confidence via our respective epistemologies/paradigms. Whether that makes me a poststructuralist or not, or a Kantian, or even a Paulian (i.e. "we see as if through a glass darkly"), I don't know, nor do I much care.

How about you? Do you think there is an objecive and definitive way of determining if the Church is what it claims to be?

And, if so, would making that objective determination also answer the question whether the Church was lying and presenting false pretenses and deceptive?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I do believe there is objective truth as well a relative truth. As for whether objective truths can be determined as such with abosolute certainty, particularly in terms of matters of religious faith, I don't think that is possible with our finite and fallible human minds. At best, we can, as Kant and other enlightenment philosophers have pointed out, but approximate objective truths by growing in confidence via our respective epistemologies/paradigms. Whether that makes me a poststructuralist or not, or a Kantian, or even a Paulian (i.e. "we see as if through a glass darkly"), I don't know, nor do I much care.

How about you? Do you think there is an objecive and definitive way of determining if the Church is what it claims to be?

And, if so, would making that objective determination also answer the question whether the Church was lying and presenting false pretenses and deceptive?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe in probabilities, which can be gauged objectively. And yes, it can be answered objectively that there is a high probability that the church is founded on false pretenses.

[_Who Knows]

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.

If you agree with that, then the prophet, apostles, on down to everyone in my ward, is lying when they say they 'know' the church is true.

We have as much right to 'know' the church isn't true, as they have to 'know' it is true.

So, as expected, you're WRONG.

[_Runtu]

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.

If you agree with that, then the prophet, apostles, on down to everyone in my ward, is lying when they say they 'know' the church is true.

We have as much right to 'know' the church isn't true, as they have to 'know' it is true.

So, as expected, you're WRONG.

It is rather odd to see this tactic, isn't it? The church posits truth with a capital T, and yet its defenders deny that such truth can be known. Trippy, indeed.

[_wenglund]

I accept what you are saying--after all, you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY for what you say and believe.

The reason for my confusing is because, as explained earlier, I see emotional reactions (particularly those that require venting and grief) as function of cognitions. If you honestly believed that the Church was deceptive and was at fault for the deception, then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be angry and to vent and grieve. In other words, it would be perfectly reasonable, in that way, to fault the Church for your anger and grief--even though the CHOICE is your's to react however you feel.

That is what I thought you were saying. If it is not, then I stand corrected.

My point isn't so much that you responded inappropriately or "badly" given to your cognitions. But that your cognitions are distorted. The Church didn't deceive you. It has acted, and does now act, in good faith, with genuine and sincere belief in what it claims. All that has happened is that you no longer believe what the Church genuinely and sincerely offers in good faith. That is your choice and I respect that. But your lose of faith does not mysteriously turn the genuine and sincere offer of good faith into a lie or false pretenses or deception. For you to believe that it does, is a cognitive distortion. Understood?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

How do you know that what the church offers is done genuinely and sincerely in good faith?

Beside the pragmatic socio-epistemic rule of thumb: "presumption of innocence" (which I extended initially to you and others here, and I still believe you are genuine and sincere in your expressed thoughts and actions--though I think you are mistaken in some ways) I have, through my several decades of extensive and indepth research into the Church, and my personal interactions with members at all ecclesiastical levels of my faith (including apostles), found no significant reason to doubt the genuiness and sincerity and good faith of the Church, and more than ample reasons sufficient to give me high confidence that the Church is genuine and sincere and acting in good faith. I have every reason to think that, overwhelmingly, the faithful members, like myself, and chosen leaders (particularly those at the General Authjority level), have faith in the verity of the restored gospel of Christ, and their words and actions, for the most part, are a convincing witness and a testiment to their genuiness, sincerity, and good faith therein.

How about you?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_Runtu]

Beside the pragmatic socio-epistemic rule of thumb: "presumption of innocence" (which I extended initially to you and others here, and I still believe you are genuine and sincere in your expressed thoughts and actions--though I think you are mistaken in some ways) I have, through my several decades of extensive and indepth research into the Church, and my personal interactions with members at all ecclesiastical levels of my faith (including apostles), found no significant reason to doubt the genuiness and sincerity and good faith of the Church, and more than ample reasons sufficient to give me high confidence that the Church is genuine and sincere and acting in good faith. I have every reason to think that, overwhelmingly, the faithful members, like myself, and chosen leaders (particularly those at the General Authjority level), have faith in the verity of the restored gospel of Christ, and their words and actions, for the most part, are a convincing witness and a testiment to their genuiness, sincerity, and good faith therein.

How about you?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

It's really depended on the situation. I saw my mission president gloss over or deny uncomfortable truths. I saw GAs that I worked with do the same, as well as beat up on anyone who questioned. I heard from eyewitnesses and family members of the victims about the church's appalling behavior during the Hofmann episode. But by and large, most people believed sincerely.

So, I'm left in a quandary. The evidence that the church is not what it claims to be is pretty overwhelming. The evidence that its leaders are intentionally misleading people is perhaps less overwhelming, but it's there nonetheless.

Wade, if the church were not what it claims to be, how would you go about figuring that out?

[_wenglund]

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.

If you agree with that, then the prophet, apostles, on down to everyone in my ward, is lying when they say they 'know' the church is true.

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.

We have as much right to 'know' the church isn't true, as they have to 'know' it is true.

True. And, nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest otherwise. If you believe I have suggested that, then you would be WRONG.

So, as expected, you're WRONG.

Ironically, no, you are again WRONG.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-