Especially for Wade - Cognitive Distortion #1

[_Who Knows]

I thought the issue was whether the Church has been acting in good faith regarding what it claims to be, rather than simply whether the Church is what it claims to be

Maybe this is for a different thread, but I'd definitely differentiate between Joseph Smith and the early church leaders, and the modern day leaders.

I think Joseph Smith was lying out of his ass. In other words, i think it's impossible for Joseph Smith to have been decieved, and just have been 'acting in good faith'. Either he actually had ancient gold plates, or he didn't. If he didn't, then he couldn't have been acting in good faith.

However, I honestly don't think Hinckley knows one way or the other whether there were actually gold plates, whether God and Jesus visited Joseph Smith, etc.

Consequently, modern day leaders could be acting in good faith for the most part - if they're just merely buying into the whole Joseph Smith story.

However, on other things, I don't think they're acting in good faith, ie. saying 'i know without a shadow of a doubt that the church is god's one true church' etc.

[_Sam Harris]

Is Mr. D involved in the dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief? If not, then the answer to your question is the same that I am vetting on the other thread.

If he is, then it may be wise to isolate this dynamic as its own dynamic. So, instead of the dynamic being a function of perceived lying, it is caused by perceived harrassment. In which case, the cycle will start with Mr. D (as you and others have characterized him, and then go next to Mr. E (who may voice the perspective that Moksha astutely raised).

Please advise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ahhh, close, but no cigar. I didn't see any WORKABLE solution Wade.

ROFL!!! Wonderful!

Wade's workable solution is everyone go away and let me do what I do...and let my church do what they want to to you, your life, etc.

I wasn't aware of that. It was good of you to let me know what I think--even though from where I sit, it is not only unfamiliar to me, but somewhat ascue from what I actually think I think.

Do you find it a WORKABLE strategy to tell others what they think, even though they are certain they don't think that?

Would it WORK in reverse were I and others to do that with you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I don't find anything workable in engaging with asenine TBMs...who try to tell others what they think or feel.

I do not engage you, because I feel you are not worth it. Your countless self-help peddling posts prove this.
Waiting for that cog dis with regards to the racism of your church. :-)

[_Sam Harris]

By the way, isn't a closed mind the epitomy of thinking one is RIGHT?

Is it any wonder that the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief is so unavoidable for some?

(I will await the onslought of mote-like accusation against the Church and its members from those looking past the beams in their own eyes on this score)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You claiming that you have a freaking WORKABLE SOLUTION is a claim of being right.

Wade, hypocrisy such as yours is kind of creepy...

[_wenglund]

By the way, isn't a closed mind the epitomy of thinking one is RIGHT?

Is it any wonder that the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief is so unavoidable for some?

(I will await the onslought of mote-like accusation against the Church and its members from those looking past the beams in their own eyes on this score)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All I'm asking for is some clarification. Does it matter or not whether both sides or either believe they're right? At one point, you said that it mattered not; now you're saying that I'm too closedminded about the church's rightness or wrongness to participate here.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "does it matter"? I never used that phrase (at least I don't recall using it), nor have I suggested it (at least not intentionally) Those, such as Mr. A and B, whose primary and overwhelmingly predominate interest was in not only believing they are right, but also in being right, particularly on issues that are disputable (at least to some people's minds), this then became one of the key components to the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief--which explains why they got sucked into it, and found it hard to get out. Whereas, being right was not a controlling factor for Mr. D, who workably avoided the dynamic and cycle. This does not mean that right and wrong "didn't matter" to Mr. D. It may or may not have had some level of import to him. It is just that he didn't have a vested interest in being right about the Church allegedly not ever acting in good faith.

I understand, though, that you do have that vested interest (to the point of indisputability in your mind)--which explains, to some degree your unavoidable involvement in the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief, and your lack of openness to my solution in the interest of all parties. And, I can accept and even respect that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

...to my solution...

I wasn't aware that you had given a solution. Did I miss it?

[_Sam Harris]

...to my solution...

I wasn't aware that you had given a solution. Did I miss it?

[sarcasm]Of course he did...but your obvious mental deficiency caused you to miss it several times. [/sarcasm]

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I am tired of Wade..and I want you to see my new avatar....tell me if you like it or not???

[_wenglund]

By the way, isn't a closed mind the epitomy of thinking one is RIGHT?

Is it any wonder that the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief is so unavoidable for some?

(I will await the onslought of mote-like accusation against the Church and its members from those looking past the beams in their own eyes on this score)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You claiming that you have a freaking WORKABLE SOLUTION is a claim of being right.

So? As long as it is not a controlling factor in my interactions here (it isn't now...finding what mutually WORKS is), then I won't get sucked into the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief, to the benefit of all parties concerned.

Wade, hypocrisy such as yours is kind of creepy...

I don't personally see the hypocrisy you are seeing--though it may apply to your straw man of me, but in terms of it being "creepy", haven't you inadvertantly surrendered some of the control over your emotional disposition to me? Haven't you CHOSEN to let me supposedly "creep" you out? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I want you to see my new avatar....tell me if you like it or not???

I was expecting a female dog.

[_wenglund]

...to my solution...

I wasn't aware that you had given a solution. Did I miss it?

I haven't explicitly stated it, though I have strongly hinted at it within virtually every one of my posts on the two related threads. The explication will come in the next day or so--assuming there is anyone who is still open-minded enough to be interested in thoughtfully considering it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-