liz3564 wrote:On the other hand, Mr. D CHOSE not to REACT by blaming, but to ACT charitably and to lovingly respect the difference of opinion and rightly trust that all parties had and have ACTED in good faith. And, in terms of whether the Church was supposedly lying about what it claims to be (there may be other challenges that he faced), he was able to easily move on in peace and contentment, free of hurt to himself and others, free of anger and grief within himself or engendered in others (please note, folks, that he wasn't repressing negative emotions. Rather, he didn't experience the negative emotions). This was functional. This WORKED.
And you know what, Wade? I
agree that Mr. D
reacted the right way in
choosing to act charitably. (Don't faint at your computer screen. Yes, I'm agreeing with you.)
There is a point, however, that you seem to be missing. Many of us have stated that the proper course of action is to, indeed, act charitably toward others and "agree to disagree" on issues of faith. As Harmony pointed out in an earlier post, however, (not sure whether it was this thread or a different one), if Mr. D
feels pain, anger, and grief, then in order to move past those feelings, he needs to
acknowledge that they exist. After he
acknowledges their existance, then he has the
power to
choose to act in a charitable manner, take control of his life, and move beyond it.
What I have been frustrated with are your assertions that Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist. I agree that he needs to move past them, but the step of acknowledgement can't be ignored. Now, should Mr. D wallow in this state of anger and resentment? No. As long as he does, he won't be able to move forward in his life and be happy. Does that make sense to you?
I suppose I have every RIGHT (if you want to put it that way, though I personally wouldn't) to CHOOSE to REACT and to be frustrated, just like you have CHOSEN to be, and this based on your falsely accusing me of asserting that "Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist". However, I have CHOSEN not to. My CHOICE is not based on wishing to supressing my emotions, nor is it by way of denying myself the right to CHOOSE to be frustrated. Rather, it is a function of charitibly chalking it up to a simple, good faith, misunderstanding on your part. By CHOOSING to view it that way, I did not experience frustration. There is no frustration to suppress or acknowledge. There is no frustration to take back control of. There is no frustration to move beyond.
Do you see how that WORKS?
But, if I, like you and Mr. B, excercised my so-called right to be frustrated, and were I to vent that frustration in the form of accusations and insults (such as what I have done with you in the past, and you and others have done as well), then that would likely have made you all the more frustrated. Consequently, you and I would thus be locked (for a time) in the dynamic and cycle of frustration. To extricate ourselves, we could, as you wisely note, acknowledge the frustration and choose to act charitably and take control of our lives and move on. That would then resolve this particular situation. However, it wouldn't have prevented the UNNECESSARY frustration (as evinced by our movng on) that we each have experienced, nor would it necessarily prevent us from getting locked into the same dynamic of frustration with each other or with other relationships we may have in the future. We may have found a WORKABLE solution for getting out of the dynamic/cycle, but not a WORKABLE solution for preventing it from happening.
Do you see what I am saying?
In other words, Mr. D isn't being denied any right. He is excercising his right to CHOOSE what WORKS to begin with. He is not repressing hurt and anger and grief regarding the Church supposedly lying and deceiving about what it claims to be. He is not failing to acknowledge his hurt and anger and grief. He didn't even experience those emotions because he CHOSE innitially to view the Church charitably as having acted in good faith. He did so because he may hope that the Church would judge his actions similarly. He did so because that is the kind of charitable and understanding and kind person that he is (which he will likely, in well-deserving gratitude, credit to the Church). He did it because it was in his interest to do so, as well as in the interest of all parties concerned. Consequently, there was no dynamic of anger and hurt and grief on that specific issue. There was no need for him to take back control--he retained it all along. There was no need to move on--he did that with the WORKABLE choice that he made to begin with. And, he did not cause UNNECESSARY hurt to others and thereby foment the cycle of hurt and anger and grief.
Is that more clear?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-