healing/recovery through venting?

[_harmony]

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-

Actually, no. That is not true. The Church must disclose every piece of information related to its history, if it is to maintain the title of God's One True Church on the earth. If it's not going to maintain that title, then sure... hide whatever is non-faith-promoting. But if it wants to the True, it must disclose all its history. I cannot imagine why God's own church would try to hide anything. God has no reason to hide anything. Why would his church?

[Gadianton]

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:

So does postmodernism accepts, as I do, that perceptions can be false? Does it accept, like I do, that cognitions can be false and distorted? Does it think as I do that there are relatively objective truths?

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).

Again, I am entirely unaquainted with the "Juliann mantra", so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.

As for whether there is an objective and definitive way of determining "the truth". As explained in the posts that followed the one you just quoted, I indicated that there is no definitive way of determining the truth, nor is there an absolute objective way of determining the truth, but there are relatively objective ways of determining the truth, as well as subjective ways to do the same.

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?

Gee, Mack. I don't don't see that at all. In fact, I see myself repeatedly correcting your misperceptions of what I say throughout this thread and others.

Granted, my unqualified use of the term "objective" in a previous post may have caused some confusion--for which I accept responsibility. But, I attempted relatively soon thereafter to clarify by distinguishing between "absolute objectivity" and "relative objectivity". Perhaps you missed it. Anyway, that qualification rescued me from that presumed explicit contradiction. What other explicit contradictions do you have in mind?

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

Someone who espouses postconstructionism. ;-)

THanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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-

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.

See my post above as well. I clarified what I meant, so there is no contradiction, obvious or otherwise. And, I am humored by how you think you are questioning the validity of my ideas, when the ideas you are questioning are unfamiliar to me.

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-

Actually, no. That is not true. The Church must disclose every piece of information related to its history, if it is to maintain the title of God's One True Church on the earth. If it's not going to maintain that title, then sure... hide whatever is non-faith-promoting. But if it wants to the True, it must disclose all its history. I cannot imagine why God's own church would try to hide anything. God has no reason to hide anything. Why would his church?

So, you have never had a veil of forgetfulness over your eyes, nor walked by faith, and you have not only seen God, but you know his entire history, and you have been informed of everything that God knows?

It wouldn't surprise me were you to answer "yes", and genuinely and sincerely believe it. In which case, unlike some of my friends here, I wouldn't accuse you of lying and deceit or false pretenses, though I certainly will disbelieve it. But, if you answer "no", then you undermine what you just inanely asserted. Either way, there is a huge credibility gap.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade, I thought about starting a separate thread, but since notions of how we arrive at truth and reality are central to this discussion, I'll post here.

You've repeatedly said that we can arrive at truth relatively objectively. I want to explore this a little. Let me ask a simple question to start the discussion.

How do we go about determining that the sky is blue? How do we know that it is indeed blue?

What I'm asking is for you to describe the relatively objective method you would use for determining this. I'm asking because this will give me a better idea of where your ideas of truth and reality are grounded. And no, this is not a trap. I'm genuinely interested because you seem to be occupying a middle ground between the postmoderns (from whom you've wisely distanced yourself) and the more traditional rationalists. I'm interested in seeing where that middle ground lies and what it looks like. We'll probably have a more fruitful discussion once we can understand our approach to truth, don't you think?

[_Who Knows]

Wade - let's all step back here for a minute. I think we're all talking past each other.

I understand what you're saying, and if angry exmo's do what you're claiming, then you'd be right. But they're not, so you're wrong. Here's how I understand your position:

If person A truly believes X, but then person B accuses person A of lying about believing X, then that's cognitive distortion.

Thus, if Hinckley truly believes in the church, but I accuse him of lying about believing in the church, then that would be cognitive distortion.

However, no one's doing that. No one is claiming that people are lying about the fact that they truly believe in the church.

What angry exmo's claim, is that leaders of the church lie about specific claims of the church. For example:

No one accuses Joseph Smith of lying about believing in what he was doing. BUT, we claim he was lying about possessing 1500 year old scripture written on gold plates. He was lying about claiming to see god and Jesus. Certain leaders of the church (while no one claims that they are lying about their beliefs in the church) have been deceitful about whitewashing certain parts of history.

Accusing someone of lying about specific claims is different than accusing them of lying about what they may truly believe.

Likewise, accusing someone of lying about believing in the flying spaghetti monster, is different than accusing them of lying about a claim of seeing the flying spaghetti monster.

Which leads back to my original point - that for you to be right, the church needs to be what it claims - Joseph Smith needs to have possessed ancient scripture written upon gold plates. He needs to have actually seen gold plates. Whether he believed he did those things is irrelevant - in terms of me (and any other exmo) claiming that he didn't really have them. And if he didn't really have those things, then he's either lying, or extremely schizophrenic/delusional. Take your pick.

And also, back to your point about the majority of non-believers not accusing the church of lying. You're wrong - well, at the minimum, you cannot claim that without specific evidence to back it up. Because my 'anecdotal' evidence is different than yours.

I agree, that most inactives are probably not accusing the church of lying. But just because they're inactive does not mean that they don't believe it any more (wouldn't accusing them of that be cognitive distortion?).

However, most people that I know that discover that the church is a fraud, accuse the church of lying at some point.

INACTIVES does not equal UNBELIEVER. (Unless you have some data, of course).

[_wenglund]

Wade, I thought about starting a separate thread, but since notions of how we arrive at truth and reality are central to this discussion, I'll post here.

You've repeatedly said that we can arrive at truth relatively objectively. I want to explore this a little. Let me ask a simple question to start the discussion.

How do we go about determining that the sky is blue? How do we know that it is indeed blue?

What I'm asking is for you to describe the relatively objective method you would use for determining this. I'm asking because this will give me a better idea of where your ideas of truth and reality are grounded. And no, this is not a trap. I'm genuinely interested because you seem to be occupying a middle ground between the postmoderns (from whom you've wisely distanced yourself) and the more traditional rationalists. I'm interested in seeing where that middle ground lies and what it looks like. We'll probably have a more fruitful discussion once we can understand our approach to truth, don't you think?

Hi Runtu,

Here is an abbreviated version of how I "know" that the sky is blue:

1. Through the sensory mechanism of my eye, and by way of the filtering and organizing mechanism of my brain, I sense and perceive certain wavelengths of light.
2. As a child, my parents and others ostensibly taught me that a certain perceived wavelength of light is a color called "blue". For example, my Mom would point to various objects and tell me that they are blue. Some of the objects were darker in color than the others and some lighter, and from that I learned that there is a range of colors that are called "blue". My Mom would also point at objects that were not called "blue", so as to help me discriminate between the range of colors called "blue" and those that were not blue.
3. When I ventured outside, I noticed that the thing I had ostensibly been taught to call "sky", had various colors that I recognized as falling in the range of what I had ostensibly learned as "blue". And, when I would point to the sky and say "blue", my Mom would say, "yes, Wade, that is blue."
4. Through extensive experience with others, where we each were looking at the same thing we all called "sky" and considered it "blue", I was able to take my perception and congitively form them into conceptulizations, then utilize those to comprehend, apply in varied circumstance, analyize, synthisize, and evaluate. As a result I grew in confidence that there is a sky and that sky is blue.
5. While attending school, I learned about science (physics) and how instruments have been developed to measure wavelengths of light, and how those instruments could be used to determine if various objects reflect the wavelength of light we called "blue". I learned that by using these instruments, they measure the sky as "blue". Also, I was taught how various elements in the upper atmosphere we called "sky", worked together to reflect light in the color we called "blue". So, through scientific means I was better equiped, epistemically, to percieve, conceptualiz, comprehend, apply, analize, synthesize, and evaluate, and thereby grow in greater confidence that the sky was blue, to the point where I felt it appropriate to say "I know the sky is blue".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

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-

Actually, no. That is not true. The Church must disclose every piece of information related to its history, if it is to maintain the title of God's One True Church on the earth. If it's not going to maintain that title, then sure... hide whatever is non-faith-promoting. But if it wants to the True, it must disclose all its history. I cannot imagine why God's own church would try to hide anything. God has no reason to hide anything. Why would his church?

So, you have never had a veil of forgetfulness over your eyes, nor walked by faith, and you have not only seen God, but you know his entire history, and you have been informed of everything that God knows?

It wouldn't surprise me were you to answer "yes", and genuinely and sincerely believe it. In which case, unlike some of my friends here, I wouldn't accuse you of lying and deceit or false pretenses, though I certainly will disbelieve it. But, if you answer "no", then you undermine what you just inanely asserted. Either way, there is a huge credibility gap.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We aren't talking about God, Wade. We're talking about the LDS church. No matter how try to conflate the two, they are separate. Try to keep straight what the subject is. The Church hides its history; not God, the church. You may claim that God runs the church, but I've never seen him in General Conference, and I've been watching for 36 years. In all those years, I've only seen men, so as far as the church is concerned, men run it. You can't even blame the women; we aren't in charge; men are. So... the church = men. The church does not equal God.

[_wenglund]

Wade - let's all step back here for a minute. I think we're all talking past each other.

I understand what you're saying, and if angry exmo's do what you're claiming, then you'd be right. But they're not, so you're wrong. Here's how I understand your position:

If person A truly believes X, but then person B accuses person A of lying about believing X, then that's cognitive distortion.

Thus, if Hinckley truly believes in the church, but I accuse him of lying about believing in the church, then that would be cognitive distortion.

However, no one's doing that. No one is claiming that people are lying about the fact that they truly believe in the church.

What angry exmo's claim, is that leaders of the church lie about specific claims of the church. For example:

No one accuses Joseph Smith of lying about believing in what he was doing. BUT, we claim he was lying about possessing 1500 year old scripture written on gold plates. He was lying about claiming to see god and Jesus. Certain leaders of the church (while no one claims that they are lying about their beliefs in the church) have been deceitful about whitewashing certain parts of history.

I am not sure you are correct about "angry exmos" not claiming the Church is lying in general. After all, you made the general assertion that "the Church isn't what it claims", and others have applied the general label of "fraud".

Anyway, while I can understand your distinguishing between the general and the specific, my point, nevertheless, still applies. For example, if Joseph Smith genuinely and sincerely believed he possessed 1500 year old scriptures written on gold plates, then can you and other "angry esmo's" claim he is lying about that? By definition, no you can't. Whether you personally believe him or not, it would be a congnitive distortion for you to say that he was lying about something he firmly believed to be true.

The same applies with Joseph's claim to have seen the Father and the Son. Joseph genuinely and sincerely believed that he had seen them, and he witnessed to that in good faith. As such, even if you don't believe him, it would be a cognitive distortion for you to claim that he was lying about something that he firmly believed to be true.

As for the alleged "whitewashing" of Church history, were those who compiled the Church history to have acted in good faith, and honestly picked out those aspects of history they believed were pertinent to a sufficient understanding and promotion of faith, then regardless whether you believe their actions to fairly represented things, it would be a cognitive distortion for you to accuse them of Lying. You may, if you wish, unauthoritatively accuse them of incompetence or poor historiography, etc., but you can't rightly accuse them of lyng and deceit.

Accusing someone of lying about specific claims is different than accusing them of lying about what they may truly believe.

Likewise, accusing someone of lying about believing in the flying spaghetti monster, is different than accusing them of lying about a claim of seeing the flying spaghetti monster.

Even so, my point still applies. If they firmly believe that they saw a flying spaghetti monster, by definition it would be a cognitive distortion to accuse them of lying about something they believe is true, whether you believe them or not.

Which leads back to my original point - that for you to be right, the church needs to be what it claims - Joseph Smith needs to have possessed ancient scripture written upon gold plates. He needs to have actually seen gold plates. Whether he believed he did those things is irrelevant - in terms of me (and any other exmo) claiming that he didn't really have them. And if he didn't really have those things, then he's either lying, or extremely schizophrenic/delusional. Take your pick.

Sorry, but you are again WRONG. The Church doesn't need to be what it claims. As long as Joseph Smith firmly believed that he had seen and possessed the plates, by definition it would be a cognitive distortion to accuse him of lying about something he firmly believes is true, regardless of whether you believe him or not. In other words, his beliefs are intimately relevant, whereas yours are not relevant at all. Ironic, isn't it? ;-)

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-

Actually, no. That is not true. The Church must disclose every piece of information related to its history, if it is to maintain the title of God's One True Church on the earth. If it's not going to maintain that title, then sure... hide whatever is non-faith-promoting. But if it wants to the True, it must disclose all its history. I cannot imagine why God's own church would try to hide anything. God has no reason to hide anything. Why would his church?

So, you have never had a veil of forgetfulness over your eyes, nor walked by faith, and you have not only seen God, but you know his entire history, and you have been informed of everything that God knows?

It wouldn't surprise me were you to answer "yes", and genuinely and sincerely believe it. In which case, unlike some of my friends here, I wouldn't accuse you of lying and deceit or false pretenses, though I certainly will disbelieve it. But, if you answer "no", then you undermine what you just inanely asserted. Either way, there is a huge credibility gap.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We aren't talking about God, Wade. We're talking about the LDS church. No matter how try to conflate the two, they are separate. Try to keep straight what the subject is. The Church hides its history; not God, the church. You may claim that God runs the church, but I've never seen him in General Conference, and I've been watching for 36 years. In all those years, I've only seen men, so as far as the church is concerned, men run it. You can't even blame the women; we aren't in charge; men are. So... the church = men. The church does not equal God.

I bolded where, in your statement above, you introduced "God" into the mix, and drew a relationship between him and the Church--a relationship that I logically carried forward with my questions to you.

Please, for the love of Pete, try and keep straight your own arguments. I have had enough trouble correcting misperception about my arguments on this thread, so it is a bit unfair to oblige me to keep you straight on your own argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-