healing/recovery through venting?

[_wenglund]

For example, lets say you told a romantic interest that you loved him/her, and you truely believed that you did and still do love that person. Were that person to once believe you, and then later stop believing that you love him/her, does that mean you were lying, disingenuine, insincere, acting in bad faith, and deceptive, even thought you still believe you truthfully, genuinely, sincerely, in good faith, and honestly loved and still love that person? Wouldn't you consider it a cognitive distortion for your former romantic interest to conclude that about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I haven't read Juliann's "stuff" (except brief snippets from the discussion I had with Scratch and Beastie regarding her definition of "apostate"). Nor, for that matter, have I read much of anything on poststructuralism. In other words, neither has informed my current view. What little I have read of poststructuralism, it doesn't resonate with me. Unlike poststructuralists, I don't reject the claim to have discovered truths or facts about the worlds. I strenuously disagree with Barth, a leading poststructuralist, when he assertied, in "Death of the Author", that the author is not the prime source for meaning in a text.

Actually, his name is "Barthes," Wade. And you have, ironically enough, only reaffirmed his argument from "The Death of the Author." He says, towards the end of that essay, that the "birth of the reader" only comes about at the expense of the author. In other words, he is making a case for reciprocity. It is naïve to assume that the author is the final arbiter of any text's meaning. You can go back to well before the poststructuralists for that.

And, I accept the "self" as a singular and coherent entity.

Nonsense. Your "self" can be viewed as a construction, too. Or do you want to claim that you are somehow magically "yourself" without the structure and undergirding provided by Mormonism?

[_Mister Scratch]

For example, lets say you told a romantic interest that you loved him/her, and you truely believed that you did and still do love that person. Were that person to once believe you, and then later stop believing that you love him/her, does that mean you were lying, disingenuine, insincere, acting in bad faith, and deceptive, even thought you still believe you truthfully, genuinely, sincerely, in good faith, and honestly loved and still love that person? Wouldn't you consider it a cognitive distortion for your former romantic interest to conclude that about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nevertheless, there is evidence of "deception" Particularly with the polygamy bit. I.e., does it seem okay to you for someone to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," and then to engage in other romantic relationships without saying anything?

[_marg]

Wade(in reply to Runtu)

I can understand if you say there is a lack of evidence for you to believe, or sufficient evidence to raise doubts about the verity of Church. But, I think you significantly overstate your case, or you have jumped to false conclusions, to say that there is overwhellming evidence that it is NOT what it claims to be. Do you understand the important distinction? For example, I may say that the evidence for space aliens visiting the earth and abducting people is insufficient to cause me to believe, and some of the evidence has raised doubts whether space aliens have visted earth and abducted people, and I may believe there is a more viable explanation. But, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to disprove the claims that space aliens visited the earth. It would be a cognitive distortion to suggest that there was sufficient evidence to disprove the claim.

Wade, the burden of proof is on the church, as it should be on anyone or any group of people who make claims which are unusual, that is not something typically known or observed, such as alien visitation which you mentioned.

Unless that burden of proof has been met, there is no logical reason the claim should be accepted. The more unusual the claim, the greater the justification to reach a conclusion that in all probability the claim is false, or a lie, or based on delusions..dependant upon the facts available. I'm sure you've heard all this before..blah blah blah..right?

You are misusing and overusing this "cognitive distortion" concept.

Runtu is not exhibiting any cognitive distortion, when he says quote "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." He is basing his conclusion on evidence and evidence is not just what exists but can also be in the form of an "absence" of evidence. Considering "aliens" your example, if someone makes a claim of a spaceship with aliens landed in a field, that there is a lack of evidence to support this claim...is evidence. This absence of evidence is data to consider in order to reach a conclusion on the probability of the spaceship landing. It isn't up to the skeptic to search for the evidence but they might still do so, if the claim is taken seriously. The circumstances should be considered and evidence which should be there but isn't becomes an relevant part of the evidentiary data.

So I'm fairly certain in Runtu's case he has examined the evidence (what the church has provided), plus considered the absence of evidence which should be there but isn't, and looked at other theories (besides what the church claims) which might fit the data better. As a result, he's reached a conclusion which is not absolute but a probability. Nowhere does he claim any absolute proof conclusion. What's probability conclusion is known as critical thinking Wade. It is not a matter of requiring absolute proofs to come to well reasoned, justifiable conclusions. There is no responsbility on Runtu's his part to disprove the church's claims in order to reached his justified conclusion. There is plenty of evidence to reach a justified extremely high probability to the point of virtual certainty that the church is NOT what it claims to be.

But of course Wade, anyone brought up in an environment from an early age to accept the church's claims uncritically would likely have cognitive distortions regarding the church.

[_wenglund]

I haven't read Juliann's "stuff" (except brief snippets from the discussion I had with Scratch and Beastie regarding her definition of "apostate"). Nor, for that matter, have I read much of anything on poststructuralism. In other words, neither has informed my current view. What little I have read of poststructuralism, it doesn't resonate with me. Unlike poststructuralists, I don't reject the claim to have discovered truths or facts about the worlds. I strenuously disagree with Barth, a leading poststructuralist, when he assertied, in "Death of the Author", that the author is not the prime source for meaning in a text.

Actually, his name is "Barthes," Wade. And you have, ironically enough, only reaffirmed his argument from "The Death of the Author." He says, towards the end of that essay, that the "birth of the reader" only comes about at the expense of the author. In other words, he is making a case for reciprocity. It is naïve to assume that the author is the final arbiter of any text's meaning. You can go back to well before the poststructuralists for that.

Given my repeated comment: "as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of what I say and mean", I can't imagine how would reasonably assume I have reafirm Barthes' essay. However, given how you have assumed that you, as the reader, may be the final arbiter of what I say and mean, you are thus free to read my statement however you wish, and thereby, as you tyupically do, deem it exactly opposite in meaning from what I as the author intended, and in that way I can understand how you might conclude that I was reafirming Barthes argument. And, using that same "reasoning", you endow me, the reader, with final arbitership of what you, the author meant when you said I reaffirmed Barthes' argument, and I will take the same liberty you have taken and will interpret it exactly opposite to what you mean, and then in that way it does make sense. Then again, since I, as a reader of Barthes, am according to you, as much of a final arbiter of his essay as you are, then I am free to interpret it as suggesting the opposite of you. As such, then your statement about my statement may make sense. But, to me, neither of these three strategies make as much sense as to take the author at his/her word.

Anyway, I think you haven't so much demonstrated my "postconstructionism" as you have your own.

And, I accept the "self" as a singular and coherent entity.

Nonsense. Your "self" can be viewed as a construction, too. Or do you want to claim that you are somehow magically "yourself" without the structure and undergirding provided by Mormonism?

Aren't you here trying to convince me of a postconstructionist idea? If so, then isn't that evidence that I am not a postconstructionist (How can you convince me of something I am supposedly already concinced of and have ascribed to)?

I view the "self" as like a singular and coherent spunge which may be shaped and colored by what I absorb from Mormonism and a host of other fountains of epistemic water.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I haven't read Juliann's "stuff" (except brief snippets from the discussion I had with Scratch and Beastie regarding her definition of "apostate"). Nor, for that matter, have I read much of anything on poststructuralism. In other words, neither has informed my current view. What little I have read of poststructuralism, it doesn't resonate with me. Unlike poststructuralists, I don't reject the claim to have discovered truths or facts about the worlds. I strenuously disagree with Barth, a leading poststructuralist, when he assertied, in "Death of the Author", that the author is not the prime source for meaning in a text.

Actually, his name is "Barthes," Wade. And you have, ironically enough, only reaffirmed his argument from "The Death of the Author." He says, towards the end of that essay, that the "birth of the reader" only comes about at the expense of the author. In other words, he is making a case for reciprocity. It is naïve to assume that the author is the final arbiter of any text's meaning. You can go back to well before the poststructuralists for that.

Given my repeated comment: "as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of what I say and mean", I can't imagine how would reasonably assume I have reafirm Barthes' essay.

Because the essay argues (convincingly) that the author as "the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" is a demonstrable falsehood. And this isn't just from Barthes. It has been reaffirmed, starting with the New Critics, again and again and again. Interpretation of any text is *always* a function of multiple things, including both the author and the reader---in other words, interpretation and meaning involve reciprocity. Your claim to "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" is really just a reiteration of the Intentional Fallacy.

However, given how you have assumed that you, as the reader, may be the final arbiter of what I say and mean, you are thus free to read my statement however you wish, and thereby, as you tyupically do, deem it exactly opposite in meaning from what I as the author intended, and in that way I can understand how you might conclude that I was reafirming Barthes argument.

We *both* have to work on the meaning, Wade. That is Barthes's point. You only reaffirm how right he is when you continue to deny reciprocity and insist on yourself as the "ULTIMATE" arbiter of meaning.

And, using that same "reasoning", you endow me, the reader, with final arbitership of what you,

No one is endowing either the reader nor the author with final "arbitership." It is a two-way street. That's Barthes's point. No one is ever really going to understand you until you let go of this "I AM THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" anal retentiveness.

the author meant when you said I reaffirmed Barthes' argument, and I will take the same liberty you have taken and will interpret it exactly opposite to what you mean, and then in that way it does make sense. Then again, since I, as a reader of Barthes, am according to you, as much of a final arbiter of his essay as you are, then I am free to interpret it as suggesting the opposite of you.

Which is what? That readers are totally irrelevant? Well, we already know that you think that, Wade.

As such, then your statement about my statement may make sense. But, to me, neither of these three strategies make as much sense as to take the author at his/her word.

In other words, everyone is a liar. Real nice. And oddly, I seem to remember you labeling me "paranoid."

Anyway, I think you haven't so much demonstrated my "postconstructionism" as you have your own.

I don't know what "postconstructionism" is. Nor was it ever my intention to prove that you were a "postconstructionist," whatever that is.

And, I accept the "self" as a singular and coherent entity.

Nonsense. Your "self" can be viewed as a construction, too. Or do you want to claim that you are somehow magically "yourself" without the structure and undergirding provided by Mormonism?

Aren't you here trying to convince me of a postconstructionist idea? If so, then isn't that evidence that I am not a postconstructionist (How can you convince me of something I am supposedly already concinced of and have ascribed to)?

Again, it's not my intention to convince you to be a "postconstructionist."

I view the "self" as like a singular and coherent spunge which may be shaped and colored by what I absorb from Mormonism and a host of other fountains of epistemic water.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So then you do agree that there is a certain degree of "social construction" going on. I.e., a dry "spunge" is very different from a "colored and absorbent" one, no?

[_wenglund]

For example, lets say you told a romantic interest that you loved him/her, and you truely believed that you did and still do love that person. Were that person to once believe you, and then later stop believing that you love him/her, does that mean you were lying, disingenuine, insincere, acting in bad faith, and deceptive, even thought you still believe you truthfully, genuinely, sincerely, in good faith, and honestly loved and still love that person? Wouldn't you consider it a cognitive distortion for your former romantic interest to conclude that about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nevertheless, there is evidence of "deception" Particularly with the polygamy bit. I.e., does it seem okay to you for someone to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," and then to engage in other romantic relationships without saying anything?

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to marry more than one woman? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon the number of wives one marries.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were one to marry other women without the knowledge and consent of one's first wife? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon disclosure or nondisclosure to one's first wife of marriages to other wives, or any other things that are not directly related to prophethood.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to be considered deceptive by others or even himself in not telling his first wife about the other wives. Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon a perceived deception not directly related to the prophets belief in himself as a prophet. One can genuinely and sincerely believe onesself to be a prophet, and lie and deceive about one or several or even everything else in one's life, and that would not render one's belief about oneself as a prophet the least bit deceptive, or disingenuous, or insincere, or in bad faith or dishonest.

Are you starting to correctly understand yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I haven't read Juliann's "stuff" (except brief snippets from the discussion I had with Scratch and Beastie regarding her definition of "apostate"). Nor, for that matter, have I read much of anything on poststructuralism. In other words, neither has informed my current view. What little I have read of poststructuralism, it doesn't resonate with me. Unlike poststructuralists, I don't reject the claim to have discovered truths or facts about the worlds. I strenuously disagree with Barth, a leading poststructuralist, when he assertied, in "Death of the Author", that the author is not the prime source for meaning in a text.

Actually, his name is "Barthes," Wade. And you have, ironically enough, only reaffirmed his argument from "The Death of the Author." He says, towards the end of that essay, that the "birth of the reader" only comes about at the expense of the author. In other words, he is making a case for reciprocity. It is naïve to assume that the author is the final arbiter of any text's meaning. You can go back to well before the poststructuralists for that.

Given my repeated comment: "as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of what I say and mean", I can't imagine how would reasonably assume I have reafirmed Barthes' essay.

Because the essay argues (convincingly) that the author as "the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" is a demonstrable falsehood.

Okay. But, if you look very closely at what I say, you will see clearly that I actually believe that statement is demonstrably true. In other words Barthes believes it is false, and I believe it is true, and yet you believe my thinking it is true somehow reafirms Barthes arguement that it is false. In your typically backward attempt at "reciprocity", have you concluded that "true" means "false" in my case, but not in Barthes? Or, do you think "false" means "true" in Barthes case, but not mine? Enquiring minds want to know.

Gee...your notion of "reciprocity" sure explains why when I read what you think I said, it is often virtually backwards from what I meant, though you still hold tenaciously to your own interpretation presumably believing you have as much of a say in what I meant as I do. With an interpretive strategy like that, you have effectively eliminated (not in reality, but in your own mind) the possibility of a straw man argument. What, then, would be the point in your discussing with others, when you are supposedly in as good or better position than they to speak for them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

[q

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Nevertheless, there is evidence of "deception" Particularly with the polygamy bit. I.e., does it seem okay to you for someone to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," and then to engage in other romantic relationships without saying anything?[/quote]

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to marry more than one woman? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon the number of wives one marries.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were one to marry other women without the knowledge and consent of one's first wife? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon disclosure or nondisclosure to one's first wife of marriages to other wives, or any other things that are not directly related to prophethood.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to be considered deceptive by others or even himself in not telling his first wife about the other wives. Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon a perceived deception not directly related to the prophets belief in himself as a prophet. One can genuinely and sincerely believe onesself to be a prophet, and lie and deceive about one or several or even everything else in one's life, and that would not render one's belief about oneself as a prophet the least bit deceptive, or disingenuous, or insincere, or in bad faith or dishonest.

Are you starting to correctly understand yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Sure. You're trying to evade the question of whether or not any deception is involved.
Once again: Is it okay to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," while failing to mention polygamous relationships? What say ye, Wade: deceptive or not?

[_wenglund]

Let's extend the analogy a bit. If you told the romantic interest that you were a prophet, and a man of God, and then it later came to light that you had been hauled in to court for activities relating to your dabbling in the occult, and that you used a seer stone, and moreover, that your organization preaches against, among other things, the consumption of alcohol, despite the fact that you yourself are a drinker, and that despite your declaration of love, you have also declared your love for other, "plural" romantic interests, including teen-aged girls, does it mean you've been misrepresenting yourself?

If I genuinely and sincerely and in good faith believed that I was a prophet, then "no", I would not be misrepresenting myself as a prophet--particularly when the things you listed above may reasonably be considered as irrelevant to the verity of my being a prophet or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nevertheless, there is evidence of "deception" Particularly with the polygamy bit. I.e., does it seem okay to you for someone to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," and then to engage in other romantic relationships without saying anything?

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to marry more than one woman? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon the number of wives one marries.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were one to marry other women without the knowledge and consent of one's first wife? Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon disclosure or nondisclosure to one's first wife of marriages to other wives, or any other things that are not directly related to prophethood.

Would a prophet be deceptive about being a prophet were he to be considered deceptive by others or even himself in not telling his first wife about the other wives. Of course not. Belief in oneself as a prophet is not dependant upon a perceived deception not directly related to the prophets belief in himself as a prophet. One can genuinely and sincerely believe onesself to be a prophet, and lie and deceive about one or several or even everything else in one's life, and that would not render one's belief about oneself as a prophet the least bit deceptive, or disingenuous, or insincere, or in bad faith or dishonest.

Are you starting to correctly understand yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. You're trying to evade the question of whether or not any deception is involved.
Once again: Is it okay to say, "I'm romantically interested in you," while failing to mention polygamous relationships? What say ye, Wade: deceptive or not?

Evidently you haven't correctly understood yet. There was no evading whatsoever. Perhaps in your attempts at "reciprocity" you typically failed to see or comprehend where I specifically and explicitely dealt with the question of whether deception was involved. I spoke not only of it being perceived that way (perceived as deception was involved), but I also mentioned the significance to the question at hand (whether a prophet is deceptive about being a prophet when the prophet genuinely and sincerely believes he is a prophet?) of deception being involved once, or several times, or even in everything else about one's life that are irrelevant to the prophet being deceptive about being a prophet. (I took the liberty of bolding the section so you wouldn't mis it again--though I can't control for your correctly comprehending it this time around, especially given your so-called "reciprocity" and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-