Yet more evidence of Mr. "D"

[_Mister Scratch]

not everyone who leaves the Church believes they have been "spiritually screwed".

How about financially screwed? Socially screwed?

I believe the same is true for these as well. Suprised?

You see, not everyone who leaves the Church forgets the true meaning and purpose of charitable contributions, nor do they all view their relationships as inexstricably limited to and extensively limited by the Church. For example, I don't see anywhere in Richard D's two exit letters where there was even the least hint that he begrudged paying tithes and offerings, and he seems to still have a good and solid relationship with his family and friends--which relationships he, of course, made concerted efforts not to damage in the manner in which he determined to leave his faith (perhaps there is a lesson in this for some?).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade---

Do you honestly think that it is correct to view tithing as a "charitable contribution"? After all, tithing is essentially "demanded" by the Church... It cannot be said to be "freely given," per se... Know what I mean?

Moreover, it is far too early to tell whether or not Dutcher's exit is as "painless" as you seem to think it is/will be.

[_guy sajer]

This means that both parties have a CHOICE. They each can play the victim, embrace the void, wallow in self-pity, focus on the past, seek revenge and exact supposed justice, all of which, while at times bringing a small measure of momentary satisfaction, corrodes and degrades relationships and diminishes all parties concerned. Or, they each can seek to become their very best selves, fully embrace the abundant richness and blessing that life has to offer, wallow in genuine gratitude, focus on the future and worthwhile goals to be attained, seek to uplift and extend mercy, all of which, over the long run, will tend to repair and enhance relationships, edify all parties concerned, and bring lasting sastisfaction and joy.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Either one is a bitter, victim wallowing in self-pity, or one is "their very best selves . . . ." In practice, ex-Mos come in all types; clearly some bitter; others nonchalantly going on their way, but many, many others dealing with it in different ways.

It's not a false dichotomy. I was merely describing polar ends of a spectrum. I had assumed that would be self-evident. But, apparently in your case I way over estimated. My apolologies.

It was not self evident, not because I'm thick, but because you did not communicate yourself clearly. Don't assume your readers can always infer what you want them to. Many intelligent people will read the same thing and infer different messages. If you want to communicate, it's your job to make yourself clear, it's not our job to make your musings intelligible.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree in principle that the best course is to find peace, move on, and get on with one's life. But that is often easier said than done, particularly for those of us who are unwillingly dragged into the Mormon vortex on a daily basis. Sometimes one must simply cope, "moving on" is hard to do or not an option. And how one moves on differs person by person. There is no "recipe" for this. There are no 7 easy steps. There is life, and it can be messy and stubbornly refuse to accomodate itself to feel good, simplistic bromides that you peddle.

I realize that each person's circumstances may be different, and that some people may have a more difficult row to hoe than others. Nothing I have said suggests otherwise.

However, I think you are wrong to believe that there aren't strategies that better enable each person, regardless of circumstances, to find peace and "move on" and have a great life. There are such strategies (as attested to by Richard D)--just as there are strategies that will do just the opposite and points inbetween (as may have been the case with you and many here and at RFM).

Would you like to hear some of those strategies? Or, do you have such an affinity for your "mess" that you are content with sticking your head in the sand and stubbornly muddling your way through things?

I agree there are "strategies" as you refer to them. I don't have an affinity for any "mess," I am simply describing live as I've experienced it and witnessed it. Devising and successfully implementing strategies are two very different things. It is extremely difficult and involves lots of trial, error, and typically beset by failure; some large, many small. We typically don't make huge strides; but incrementally move toward some life objective.

Peddling simplistic bromides about "strategies" is a billion dollar industry (a la Tony Roberts, Stephen Covey, and the like). If it were really that simple, I doubt these guys would be in business long. (My guess is that a significant share of the money going to these snake oil salesmen is coming from the same people who repeatedly try but fail to implement the simplified, feel-good strategies that these snake oil salesmen peddle.)

But it is not simple to change; it is damned hard; and all the 7 secrets, or whatever brand you attach to them, do not change this fact. So, yes, one can strategize, and one can change, and one can move on, but it is a messy process.

And you've hit the nail on the head; most of us do in fact muddle through. The whole of humanity is muddling through life doing the best they can with what they have. Life does not unfold as part of some strategy, by and large, but it is messy, unpredictable, and difficult. We do our best to keep our heads above water and tread, let alone swim toward some far off, planned destination.

]So, while I understand and sympathize with what I think you're trying to say; how you are saying it reflects a combination of ignorance and naivte (just where is this La La Land you live in?) that seriously detract from your credibility.

Fine! Don't take my word for it. Take a page from one of your own, and follow the excellent example of Richard D (is he La La-ish to you?). See if it doesn't improve things for you--particular while you are daily in the "Mormon Vortex" (ohh...the drama!!)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would not choose Richard D (alias Coggins7) as a poster boy for your arguments. There is copious evidence to conclude that this guy seriously mentally unbalanced and irrational. Coggins appears to be very much a work in progress as opposed to someone who's reached a particular destination. He, like all of the rest of us, is in the middle, not the end, of the journey.

Vortex is an apt metaphor made for dramatic purposes. I’m glad you liked it.

I do not have my head in the sand, my friend, rather it appears to be you who has his head in the sand. I do not live in some abstract world full of theoretical constructs about simplistic strategies for change. I believe change is possible; but difficult. I observe that people fail far more frequently than they succeed. I observe that people are doing the best they can. Life is predominantly about coping; not conceiving and executing well-planned out strategies for change.

And I believe that peddling simplistic bromides, on balance, set people up for disappointment once the messy reality of life comes crashing down on beautifully conceived theoretical abstractions about strategies and change.

[_wenglund]

Hi Guy,

I'll take that as a "no", you do not wish to discuss the strategies, and so I will leave you to your muddling. Best of luck surviving the strenuously difficult "Mormon Vortex". ;-)

By the way, where did you get the impression that Richard D (short for Dutcher) is Coggins7? Richard Dutcher is a movie maker, whereas Coggins7 (or Loran) is a Venture Capitalist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

Hi Guy,

I'll take that as a "no", you do not wish to discuss the strategies, and so I will leave you to your muddling. Best of luck surviving the strenuously difficult "Mormon Vortex". ;-)

By the way, where did you get the impression that Richard D (short for Dutcher) is Coggins7? Richard Dutcher is a movie maker, whereas Coggins7 (or Loran) is a Venture Capitalist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct in concluding that I do not wish to discuss strategies.

Please leave me to my muddling, and I'll leave you to yours.

Sorry, I was assuming that Richard D referred to Coggins sock puppet Richard Dawkins.

As for the Mormon vortex, thanks for the good wishes. That loud noise you here is the vortex working to suck me back in yet again. I am sure that those like me whose loved ones all belong to the collective well understand the metaphor.

[_wenglund]

Hi Guy,

I'll take that as a "no", you do not wish to discuss the strategies, and so I will leave you to your muddling. Best of luck surviving the strenuously difficult "Mormon Vortex". ;-)

By the way, where did you get the impression that Richard D (short for Dutcher) is Coggins7? Richard Dutcher is a movie maker, whereas Coggins7 (or Loran) is a Venture Capitalist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct in concluding that I do not wish to discuss strategies.

Please leave me to my muddling, and I'll leave you to yours.

Sorry, I was assuming that Richard D referred to Coggins sock puppet Richard Dawkins.

As for the Mormon vortex, thanks for the good wishes. That loud noise you here is the vortex working to suck me back in yet again. I am sure that those like me whose loved ones all belong to the collective well understand the metaphor.

Without intending to discuss strategies, do you seriously equate the Church with the Borg collective? Or, is that "metaphor" yet another of your melodramatic flares?

If the former, do your loved-ones know you consider them and their faith in that way?

I ask because this kind of perception (particularly when made public) may be, or become, a huge impediment to your having healthy and close relationships with them--not that you may care at this point.

That perception, if genuine, may also undermine your credibility (showing that you lack a sense of proportion and fairness, and that you have thus somewhat loss touch with reality in this respect), except perhaps in the minds of some here and at RFM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade,

What exactly is constructive about ridiculing Guy's (and other participants') experiences here? I don't get it. On the one hand, you tell us we need to be positive in our approach, but then you slam people for "melodramatic flare" [sic].

Really, everytime I think I understand you, you do something that throws me off. Which is the real Wade? The exponent for positive life change, or the one who makes fun of exmormons?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade,

What exactly is constructive about ridiculing Guy's (and other participants') experiences here? I don't get it. On the one hand, you tell us we need to be positive in our approach, but then you slam people for "melodramatic flare" [sic].

Really, everytime I think I understand you, you do something that throws me off. Which is the real Wade? The exponent for positive life change, or the one who makes fun of exmormons?

The "real" Wade is the Wade who was victimized by a Church Court, and who, in a case of massive psychological displacement, seeks to "cure" ex-Mormons of some "disease" he thinks they have. Of course, this is never going to happen. Instead, he will continue to cling to the "binki" which is his precious, non-existent "Mr. D."

[_wenglund]

Wade,

What exactly is constructive about ridiculing Guy's (and other participants') experiences here? I don't get it. On the one hand, you tell us we need to be positive in our approach, but then you slam people for "melodramatic flare" [sic].

What's not positive and constructive about informing Guy of certain attitudes he manifests that may well impede his ability to have healthy and functional relations with those he ridicules and slams (presuming that at some point that is they type of relationship he may wish to have with them)?

How is it a "slam" for me to make that rather benign observation (not to be confused with "ridicule" and "slam")--particularly in comparison to his "collective" caricature?

Seems to me that you are selectively waxing a bit melodramatic here, yourself. ;-)

Really, everytime I think I understand you, you do something that throws me off. Which is the real Wade? The exponent for positive life change, or the one who makes fun of exmormons?

I would think it obvious that different circumstances lend themsleves to different approaches.

For example, my participation on this board over the last 6 months or so has taught me that not everyone is open to the "positive life change" message I have been espousing. In fact, many here, like Guy, are astonishingly resistent to it. (Thankfully, though, there are people like Richard Dutcher--Mr. "D"--who actually get it, and will be blessed for having gotten it, particularly early on in his exit from the faith, and who make excellent examples for those similarly situated--not that everyone is disposed to follow good and functional examples.)

And, to the extent that some people are resistant to it, that "positive" approach won't work. So, a different approach may at times be preferred--be it ignoring certain persons all together, or bringing certain corrosive attitudes and behaviors to some people's attention in benignly humorous ways, etc.

Using different approaches in different circumstances does not a different person make. The same "real Wade" can consistently do each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

What's not positive and constructive about informing Guy of certain attitudes he manifests that may well impede his ability to have healthy and functional relations with those he ridicules and slams (presuming that at some point that is they type of relationship he may wish to have with them)?

How is it a "slam" for me to make that rather benign observation (not to be confused with "ridicule" and "slam")--particularly in comparison to his "collective" caricature?

Seems to me that you are selectively waxing a bit melodramatic here, yourself. ;-)

What you saw as "informing" I saw (and still see) as unnecessary ridicule. I understood what Guy meant by his metaphor and didn't find it offensive. But if you did, wouldn't it have been more constructive to say so than to return the caricature with mocking?

I would think it obvious that different circumstances lend themsleves to different approaches.

For example, my participation on this board over the last 6 months or so has taught me that not everyone is open to the "positive life change" message I have been espousing. In fact, many here, like Guy, are astonishingly resistent to it. (Thankfully, though, there are people like Richard Dutcher--Mr. "D"--who actually get it, and will be blessed for having gotten it, particularly early on in his exit from the faith, and who make excellent examples for those similarly situated--not that everyone is disposed to follow good and functional examples.)

And, to the extent that some people are resistant to it, that "positive" approach won't work. So, a different approach may at times be preferred--be it ignoring certain persons all together, or bringing certain corrosive attitudes and behaviors to some people's attention in benignly humorous ways, etc.

Using different approaches in different circumstances does not a different person make. The same "real Wade" can consistently do each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In other words, it's OK to make fun of people who aren't open to "positive life change"? That's the problem with using humor, Wade. What you find benign may not be benign at all to the butt of the joke. Isn't it best not to make people the butt of the joke? Believe it or not, Wade, you have really influenced me to reconsider my approach to the church, and that reconsideration has been very positive for me. I hope you reconsider your approach to exmormons and leave out the personal jabs. You probably wouldn't have met such resistance from me in the first place if you had refrained from them early in our conversation.

[Guest]

Hi Guy,

I'll take that as a "no", you do not wish to discuss the strategies, and so I will leave you to your muddling. Best of luck surviving the strenuously difficult "Mormon Vortex". ;-)

By the way, where did you get the impression that Richard D (short for Dutcher) is Coggins7? Richard Dutcher is a movie maker, whereas Coggins7 (or Loran) is a Venture Capitalist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct in concluding that I do not wish to discuss strategies.

Please leave me to my muddling, and I'll leave you to yours.

Sorry, I was assuming that Richard D referred to Coggins sock puppet Richard Dawkins.

As for the Mormon vortex, thanks for the good wishes. That loud noise you here is the vortex working to suck me back in yet again. I am sure that those like me whose loved ones all belong to the collective well understand the metaphor.

Without intending to discuss strategies, do you seriously equate the Church with the Borg collective? Or, is that "metaphor" yet another of your melodramatic flares?

If the former, do your loved-ones know you consider them and their faith in that way?

I ask because this kind of perception (particularly when made public) may be, or become, a huge impediment to your having healthy and close relationships with them--not that you may care at this point.

That perception, if genuine, may also undermine your credibility (showing that you lack a sense of proportion and fairness, and that you have thus somewhat loss touch with reality in this respect), except perhaps in the minds of some here and at RFM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, the use of the term "collective" is intentional exaggeration made for rhetorical purposes.

Yet, hyperbole is often an exagerration of some underlying condition. I do consider that there is an element of "collectiveism" (if you will) among the true believers. You have here a religion that has exalted obedience to authority and loyalty to the institution as prime directives (to use another metaphor).

Yes, I think my loved ones have, to varying extents, willingly surrendered their intellectual freedom to the "collective." It was no less true of me. I don't say anything about them that I don't say was also true of me.

Because one might get offended by claims that they have been indoctrinated into a quasi-cult doesn't make it any less true. The truth is sometimes offensive or painful. I too was once indoctrinated into the quasi-cult. I am embarrased about it, but I admit it. Rest assured, however, that I am as tolerant in person, if not more tolerant, of their beliefs as they are of mine.

Wade, you're probably a nice guy, but whether I have credibility with you is way down on my list of priorities. Particularly since I've made it plain that you lack credibility with me.

As for relationships with my family and friends; note that I am far more respectful and tolerant in person than I may appear on an anonymous discussion board. I think that you can ease you mind on that account.