Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Even as you claim you are trying to change, you shift the responsibility of your past and current bad behavior onto others. "Textual mirrors", instead of just admitting you behaved badly.

Human beings operate under the Tit for Tat moral theory, even if they claim otherwise. We tend to initially offer cooperation to a newcomer in good faith. If that cooperation is returned with bad faith, then we alter our behavior accordingly, and return bad faith for bad faith. If a long history of bad faith has been established, it may take a very long time to overcome.

This point is important in regards to two things - your own behavior and the bad faith of the church in regards to apostates. You have long history of bad faith with exmormons. I was just looking at some of the old archives on Z, and you have consistently been nasty, snide, etc. Of course, at the same time, you refuse to accept responsibility for your own behavior by claiming you are simply mirroring the behavior of others, or that people consistently misunderstand you. You must be the most misunderstood person on the net, given not only your interactions with exmormons, but Mormons (witness their frequent banning of you from boards they control) and homosexuals. There is one consistent factor in all these failed interactions. That is you.

You encourage other people to take responsibility for the one person they can change. You need to do the same. Not with stating your intentions to do so over and over, but to analyze why, if you sincerely are acting in good faith, you are so consistently misunderstood. Begin to establish a pattern of good faith behavior and maybe people will respond to you in kind. It may take a while, you have a long history. And you also have a history of claiming the high road while behaving poorly. I have not yet seen this changed behavior in you, on threads on this board. Go reread some of your comments to Tal in his interview, for example. He commented:

You write that you have "great confidence in the verity of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS". You further write that "if it turns out that my confidence was misplaced, then how that will affect me will depend upon what the truth turns out to be", before going to describe a few possible outcomes.

I believe many of those familiar with Moroni 10:3-5 would find your language here surprising. You even go so far as to contemplate the possibility that there might not be any God at all. Indeed, your entire answer here appears to reveal the bedrock of your testimony, if it can be called that, to be optimistic but pragmatic, belief-based calculation as opposed to the knowledge promised in Mormonism's foundational epistemic claim. Your answer reminds me of Pascal's Wager - but obviously, this type of reasoning could have no place if Moroni's promise was really true, could it?

And you responded:

I suppose if people in and out of the Church were relatively ignorant of the nature of faith and knowledge, and thus were unaware of the overlap, on several levels, between these two notions (consisting of varying degrees of confidence); or if they were fundamentalistic in their thinking, and were thus overly narrow and rigid in how they conceptualize these notions; then I can see how they might think that.

Tal had been nothing but polite to you by that point. Yet you were already calling him "fundamentalistic" "overly narrow and rigid" in his thinking.

Up to that point, you had both been cooperating. At that moment, you returned bad faith for his good faith.

and in the same post you said:

I suppose, too, if these same people inanely confused a positive expression of belief with a philosophical response to a hypothetical question (that I explicitly said I tend not to think that way about or see value in exploring), then I can also see how they might think that as well. I certainly didn't confuse the two.

You do understand what "inanely" means, right? Again, example of bad faith being returned for good faith.

Tal, however, continued in good faith. In your response, you launch back into your "fundamentalistic" bit. Tal still doesn't take offense and continues on in good faith. When you refused to ask a question Tal viewed as important to continuing, you said:

That is not the real reason you are folding up the interview tent, is it? Reasonable and secure people don't suddenly break off interviews genuinely intended to learn about others, if the people they are interviewing don't see the value (not to be confused with "refusal") in responding to a few "what if" kinds of questions, and have suggested much more reasonable and effective approaches to learning about them. Certainly, they would not need to frame a lame excuse that stands insipidly against AUTHORITATIVE evidence to the contrary. Nor, for that matter, would they think they have learned something about the person's beliefs other than that the person does not value answering "what if" kinds of questions.

Look at those bolded words, Wade. In terms of human interactions, there is no way comments peppered with those sort of words are viewed as being offered in good faith and in cooperation. No, they are clearly offered to attack, belittle, and in bad faith. By this time, most people who begin to return like with like. Instead, Tal continues to offer good faith. Of course, he does remind you that he has heard you clearly:

You might have people who don't even know you making fun of you, casting aspersions on your character, labelling you a "fundamentalist" or a man who could no longer control his basest urges and just wanted to "rebel against what he deep down knows is true", and all kinds of things. And you would have no way to refute them. They wouldn't even really want to listen to you, and even if they ever did, they would never fully believe you. Etc. etc.

And the pattern continues.

I could present many other examples of your bad behavior. In fact, I'm guessing I could provide evidence of your bad behavior on nearly every thread you've posted on.

So perhaps you can begin to understand why exmormons are a bit skeptical of your claims to only want to "help" them, and claiming the high road. You will have to demonstrate the high road instead of just claiming, over and over, that you take it, and you will have to do it for quite a while to overcome your history.

The second point has to do with the interactions between Mormons and exmormons. You never really dealt with my statement about how the well is poisoned even before one becomes an exmormon due to the pejorative statements and teachings the church makes about apostates. There has already been established a long history of bad faith extended by the church. It will take a long time to overcome that, and the first step will be to stop teaching these ideas about people who lose faith. Decent, sincere people lose faith in the LDS church not due to psychological problems, not due to wanting to sin, not due to laziness, having their feelings hurt, etc etc, but due to real issues that can easily cause reasonable people to lose faith. When they leave, knowing that their LDS friends and family now view them with fear and suspicion due to the church's teachings creates a "bad faith" moment, and they will return that bad faith Tit For Tat. Each person is responsible for his/her behavior, but it makes no sense to talk about stopping a "cycle" of anger without talking about where the cycle begins.

An additional problem is this - you have a tendency to read emotions and ideas in other people that are not present. You read anger in people, you read bigotry in people, when none exits. I have seen you do it many times. Given your propensity to flawed readings of other people, I suspect you over-exaggerate whatever problem may actually exist.

Here is the rub. Both sides (Mr. A and B) are opposed in their views. Both side believe they are RIGHT. Both sides believe the other party is where the cycle begins and they are ready and willing to BLAME the other party for "bad faith". Both sides see the other party as overreacting. Both sides have long memories and are slow to forgive. Both sides can list a variety of examples that support their respective positions. That is the dynamic. That is what causes the cycle.

So, by asserting that you are RIGHT, and assuming that the cycle began with me, and blame me and the Church for "bad faith", and suggest that I am overreacting, and listing my past sins, and suggesting that we determine where the cycle begins (as if that can be done to the satisfaction of both parties), doesn't that epitomizes the very dynamic and cycle that your suggestion is intended to solve. In other words, does it WORK?

Granted, this kind of strategy may WORK to some degree for either side. They may just get so fed up and frustrated and riled with anger and thnking it is all a waste of time (which it invariably is) amd stop speaking to each other and content themselves with the more certain belief that they are RIGHT and the other party is WRONG, and tht they are the one's being hurt and angered and grieved. But, that unnecessarily ends a relationship between two relatively decent people and well-intending people. It squanders huge amounts of time and energy. It leaves a wake of ill-feelings and an empty sort of victory over one's foe. Nobody really wins in any sort of way--least of all in the things which are at the heart of the dynamic and cycle. Most importantly, it fails to satisfy our basic and critical need to love and be loved, and to value and be valued. And, in that respect, it is the highth of dysfunction.

Then, there is Mr. D. His is quite a different outcome. I sure like Mr. D, and think he gets it. I am trying to learn from him and emulate him, though I believe and remain faithful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Here is the rub. Both sides (Mr. A and B) are opposed in their views. Both side believe they are RIGHT. Both sides believe the other party is where the cycle begins and they are ready and willing to BLAME the other party for "bad faith". Both sides see the other party as overreacting. Both sides have long memories and are slow to forgive. Both sides can list a variety of examples that support their respective positions. That is the dynamic. That is what causes the cycle.

So, by asserting that you are RIGHT, and assuming that the cycle began with me, and blame me and the Church for "bad faith", and suggest that I am overreacting, and listing my past sins, and suggesting that we determine where the cycle begins (as if that can be done to the satisfaction of both parties), doesn't that epitomizes the very dynamic and cycle that your suggestion is intended to solve. In other words, does it WORK?

Granted, this kind of strategy may WORK to some degree for either side. They may just get so fed up and frustrated and riled with anger and thnking it is all a waste of time (which it invariably is) amd stop speaking to each other and content themselves with the more certain belief that they are RIGHT and the other party is WRONG, and tht they are the one's being hurt and angered and grieved. But, that unnecessarily ends a relationship between two relatively decent people and well-intending people. It squanders huge amounts of time and energy. It leaves a wake of ill-feelings and an empty sort of victory over one's foe. Nobody really wins in any sort of way--least of all in the things which are at the heart of the dynamic and cycle. Most importantly, it fails to satisfy our basic and critical need to love and be loved, and to value and be valued. And, in that respect, it is the highth of dysfunction.

Then, there is Mr. D. His is quite a different outcome. I sure like Mr. D, and think he gets it. I am trying to learn from him and emulate him, though I believe and remain faithful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, Wade, I think in general, when someone has behaved badly, the proper response is to say, "I'm sorry for behaving badly." That act alone would do a lot to end the "cycle" you decry.

[_beastie]

Wade,

I gave you a chance. Human beings do that. We engage in Tit for Tat, but we will forgive and give people chances. I gave you a chance to respond sincerely and with introspection, just in case you were sincere about your attempt to change.

You failed.

by the way, I'm not stuck in any cycle of anger. I'm not, nor do I ever remember being, angry at you. I'm not angry at the church. As long as you do not recognize that people sometimes, and often, criticize the church out of a motivation other than being stuck in some negative cycle, you are caught in your own make-believe Wade's World, creating your own story line therein, and behaving in ways that others view bizarre.

Yes, I am mean to you and belittle you. But that is because of how you behave, and has nothing to do with Mormonism. You are not Mormonism. When people criticize the claims Mormonism makes, they are not attacking you. Remembering that could get you a long way out of the cycle in which you are caught, and seem to have projected on others.

I really do hope you can get the help you need, from whatever source. That is a sincere statement, and not meant as a dig. And that is probably the last statement I will make to you of that kind. If you were the normal type of person who was obviously troubled and needed help, I wouldn't respond unkindly to you the way I have in the past. But you are one of those people who need help but then, in your determination to avoid the introspection that would be necessary to get help, and face the horrific dragon within, you insist that the problem is in everyone else and act aggressively and obnoxiously. So, instead of feeling empathy for a troubled human being, Tit for Tat is more appropriate. Tit for Tat is the predominant human moral system for a reason.

(now here I will predict your response: I know you are but what am I?)

[_Yoda]

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-

Hi Wade! I actually think that we agree more than disagree, but are talking past each other.

I agree that it is VERY important for "Mr. D" to CHOOSE to act charitably and move on with his life. Our difference of opinion seems to stem from the fact that you feel that if Mr. D makes that choice, that it will be impossible for him to feel any hurt, anger, or resentment.

My feeling is that Mr. D could, in fact, FEEL these things, even though they may not be jusitifed. Still, he may feel them nonetheless. Now, what action he takes, and how he DEALS with those feelings is the important thing here, in my opinion.

And, we both agree that the most positive outcome for Mr. D is to act charitably and move on with his life.

All I'm saying is that it is important to at least acknowledge that these feelings exist, if they, in fact, do. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that they truly MAY NOT exist in all cases.

However, whether they do or don't exist, then the actions you laid out are the right ones.

[_Mister Scratch]

Were my questions to have been an attempt to shift the burden for my so-called claim, then what you just said might have some relevance and your avoiding answering my question may have made some sense. But they weren't, and so, as expected, it doesn't. I had provided evidence for my so-called claim, and my questions to you were intended to shift the burden, or even to invest you with a burden, but simply by way of querying for information. I simply wanted to know if you have evidence that Mr. D's don't exit?

Do you? Or, are you simply speculating?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Look, Wade---all I asked was if you had any evidence as to whether or not Mr. D's exist. You claim that the Mr. D role is the best model to follow, and so, can we look at this model in more detail? You know, so that we can present it to others so that it's easier to emulate? All I'm asking for is more evidence regarding Mr. D and his exit strategy: i.e., what did he learn about the Church that led to him leave? and so forth. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Anyways, I was thinking about your OP, and I had some thoughts. You initially framed your scenario in the form of a product being sold. I wondered if it would be useful to re-think this in an analogical way:

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been making pornographic films that he firmly believes are entertaining and educational, and the best product of their kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

(alterations to the original text indicated in bold)

Does the "dynamic and cycle" change at all if you alter the product being "sold"? What if we substituted in "cigarettes"? Or "alcoholic beverages"? Or "foie gras"? Or "Paul H. Dunn tapes"? Doesn't the nature of the product affect things somewhat? I appreciate your use of these "anonymous" sorts of schematics in order to keep the discussions rolling, Wade, but I wonder if that anonymity is sometimes a detriment, too.

I guess a further question would be: is there a way to evaluate whether or not the product itself is harmful? Is that relevant to the cycle? If the product itself is irrelevant, then my above substitution of "pornography"---or any other product, for that matter---will not affect the logic of the schematic one iota. Just curious what you thought.
[/quote]

[_Runtu]

Does the "dynamic and cycle" change at all if you alter the product being "sold"? What if we substituted in "cigarettes"? Or "alcoholic beverages"? Or "foie gras"? Or "Paul H. Dunn tapes"? Doesn't the nature of the product affect things somewhat? I appreciate your use of these "anonymous" sorts of schematics in order to keep the discussions rolling, Wade, but I wonder if that anonymity is sometimes a detriment, too.

I guess a further question would be: is there a way to evaluate whether or not the product itself is harmful? Is that relevant to the cycle? If the product itself is irrelevant, then my above substitution of "pornography"---or any other product, for that matter---will not affect the logic of the schematic one iota. Just curious what you thought.

[/quote]

One of the interesting things about Wade's scenario is that the belief that the seller acted in bad faith is a cognitive distortion. Might it also be said that believing him to be an honest actor would also be a cognitive distortion?

[_wenglund]

Here is the rub. Both sides (Mr. A and B) are opposed in their views. Both side believe they are RIGHT. Both sides believe the other party is where the cycle begins and they are ready and willing to BLAME the other party for "bad faith". Both sides see the other party as overreacting. Both sides have long memories and are slow to forgive. Both sides can list a variety of examples that support their respective positions. That is the dynamic. That is what causes the cycle.

So, by asserting that you are RIGHT, and assuming that the cycle began with me, and blame me and the Church for "bad faith", and suggest that I am overreacting, and listing my past sins, and suggesting that we determine where the cycle begins (as if that can be done to the satisfaction of both parties), doesn't that epitomizes the very dynamic and cycle that your suggestion is intended to solve. In other words, does it WORK?

Granted, this kind of strategy may WORK to some degree for either side. They may just get so fed up and frustrated and riled with anger and thnking it is all a waste of time (which it invariably is) amd stop speaking to each other and content themselves with the more certain belief that they are RIGHT and the other party is WRONG, and tht they are the one's being hurt and angered and grieved. But, that unnecessarily ends a relationship between two relatively decent people and well-intending people. It squanders huge amounts of time and energy. It leaves a wake of ill-feelings and an empty sort of victory over one's foe. Nobody really wins in any sort of way--least of all in the things which are at the heart of the dynamic and cycle. Most importantly, it fails to satisfy our basic and critical need to love and be loved, and to value and be valued. And, in that respect, it is the highth of dysfunction.

Then, there is Mr. D. His is quite a different outcome. I sure like Mr. D, and think he gets it. I am trying to learn from him and emulate him, though I believe and remain faithful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, Wade, I think in general, when someone has behaved badly, the proper response is to say, "I'm sorry for behaving badly." That act alone would do a lot to end the "cycle" you decry.

That is an excellent point that we all would do well to adhere to. For my part, even though I don't expect or even look for apologies, nor do I need them in order to extricate myself from the cylce and charitably and forgivingly move on, I am made a better man when I can recognize my errors, take responsibility for them, and apologize. And, while I think that actions will speak louder than words, the words are often beneficial.

As such, I wish to publically apologize to those with whom I have REACTIVELY and UNWORKABLY locked up with in the "who is RIGHT/WRONG" and "BLAME GAME" dynamic and cylce and unnecessarily and uncharitably hurt or angered or grieved them. I also apologize to myself for the hurt and anger and grief I caused myself in the process, but I am grateful that I did come to my senses. Life as Mr. D version of a faithful follower of Christ is far better than my life as a stage three and beyond Mr. A.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I gave you a chance. Human beings do that. We engage in Tit for Tat, but we will forgive and give people chances. I gave you a chance to respond sincerely and with introspection, just in case you were sincere about your attempt to change.

You failed.

by the way, I'm not stuck in any cycle of anger. I'm not, nor do I ever remember being, angry at you. I'm not angry at the church. As long as you do not recognize that people sometimes, and often, criticize the church out of a motivation other than being stuck in some negative cycle, you are caught in your own make-believe Wade's World, creating your own story line therein, and behaving in ways that others view bizarre.

Yes, I am mean to you and belittle you. But that is because of how you behave, and has nothing to do with Mormonism. You are not Mormonism. When people criticize the claims Mormonism makes, they are not attacking you. Remembering that could get you a long way out of the cycle in which you are caught, and seem to have projected on others.

I really do hope you can get the help you need, from whatever source. That is a sincere statement, and not meant as a dig. And that is probably the last statement I will make to you of that kind. If you were the normal type of person who was obviously troubled and needed help, I wouldn't respond unkindly to you the way I have in the past. But you are one of those people who need help but then, in your determination to avoid the introspection that would be necessary to get help, and face the horrific dragon within, you insist that the problem is in everyone else and act aggressively and obnoxiously. So, instead of feeling empathy for a troubled human being, Tit for Tat is more appropriate. Tit for Tat is the predominant human moral system for a reason.

(now here I will predict your response: I know you are but what am I?)

I appreciate you sharing that with me. I hope you have a great weekend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

That is an excellent point that we all would do well to adhere to. For my part, even though I don't expect or even look for apologies, nor do I need them in order to extricate myself from the cylce and charitably and forgivingly move on, I am made a better man when I can recognize my errors, take responsibility for them, and apologize. And, while I think that actions will speak louder than words, the words are often beneficial.

As such, I wish to publically apologize to those with whom I have REACTIVELY and UNWORKABLY locked up with in the "who is RIGHT/WRONG" and "BLAME GAME" dynamic and cylce and unnecessarily and uncharitably hurt or angered or grieved them. I also apologize to myself for the hurt and anger and grief I caused myself in the process, but I am grateful that I did come to my senses. Life as Mr. D version of a faithful follower of Christ is far better than my life as a stage three and beyond Mr. A.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've long since stopped hurting or angering or grieving me, Wade.

[_wenglund]

Were my questions to have been an attempt to shift the burden for my so-called claim, then what you just said might have some relevance and your avoiding answering my question may have made some sense. But they weren't, and so, as expected, it doesn't. I had provided evidence for my so-called claim, and my questions to you were intended to shift the burden, or even to invest you with a burden, but simply by way of querying for information. I simply wanted to know if you have evidence that Mr. D's don't exit?

Do you? Or, are you simply speculating? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Look, Wade---all I asked was if you had any evidence as to whether or not Mr. D's exist. You claim that the Mr. D role is the best model to follow, and so, can we look at this model in more detail? You know, so that we can present it to others so that it's easier to emulate? All I'm asking for is more evidence regarding Mr. D and his exit strategy: i.e., what did he learn about the Church that led to him leave? and so forth. That's not too much to ask, is it?

To be honest, I didn't anticipated your level of doubt. I had initially thought it would have been obvious that such people existed, or at the very least that it would be reason to assumed that they do. I had even thought that were there some doubt, the somewhat self-evident practicality and mutual WORKABILITY of Mr. D's scenerio would make sense to emulate even if it was just a hypothetical. However, apparently for some I way over estimated, and was too optimistic. As such, I am sorry, but my anecdotal evidence is all that I have to offer at this point. And, I will understand if that doesn't suffice for you.

I am, though, still interested, by way of better understanding you, in getting the answer to my questions that you have evaded twice now. Here they are yet again:

Do you have evidence that the Mr. or Mrs. D's don't exist? Or are you just speculating?

Anyways, I was thinking about your OP, and I had some thoughts. You initially framed your scenario in the form of a product being sold. I wondered if it would be useful to re-think this in an analogical way:

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been making pornographic films that he firmly believes are entertaining and educational, and the best product of their kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

(alterations to the original text indicated in bold)

Does the "dynamic and cycle" change at all if you alter the product being "sold"? What if we substituted in "cigarettes"? Or "alcoholic beverages"? Or "foie gras"? Or "Paul H. Dunn tapes"? Doesn't the nature of the product affect things somewhat? I appreciate your use of these "anonymous" sorts of schematics in order to keep the discussions rolling, Wade, but I wonder if that anonymity is sometimes a detriment, too.

I guess a further question would be: is there a way to evaluate whether or not the product itself is harmful? Is that relevant to the cycle? If the product itself is irrelevant, then my above substitution of "pornography"---or any other product, for that matter---will not affect the logic of the schematic one iota. Just curious what you thought.

[/quote]

There is a saying in jurisprudence that goes something like: "hard cases make bad laws".

What I understand that to mean is that the viability and efficacy of laws are undermined when drafted and/or evaluated based on the exceptions rather than the rule.

I believe the same principle applies to the WORKABLE solution that I have prosited. It is intended to cover the more gray to white areas, rather than the relatively black or exceptional areas (like what you presented) in various aspects of our lives and across a broad range of relationships.

Granted, there will be those who see the Church as "black" and "extreme" in terms of lying about what it claims to be. For those people, they are the exception to my rule. For them, the dynamic is unavoidable, and the cycle somewhat inevitable.

As I see it, though, the Church is not the lone recipient of that kind of uncharitable and extreme of perception. Other faiths, organizations, races, and peoples are subjected to it as well. For example, anti-Semites view Jews in those kinds of uncharitable and extreme and binary terms, and we see how that dynamic plays itself out on a daily basis (as witnessed to by the Anti Defimation League).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-