"Addicted to Outrage" - Implications for the Church

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Parmesan Chicken:

1. Toast a slice (or multiple slices) of gluten free bread, then sit it/them out to dry out (15-20 minutes).  

2. Break the toasted bread into pieces and put them into a blender and blend them into crumbs.

3. Pour crumbs into a mixing bowl and add dry granted parmesan cheese (not shredded - the shelf-stable stuff available at Walmart works fine - as moist parmesan gives the coating a gummy/rubbery texture).  My wife does a 1:1 ratio with the crumbs, but I favor something close of a 2:1 cheese-to-crumbs ratio.  Whatever you like.

4. Add seasoning to the crumb/cheese mixture.  We usually use Italian seasoning, garlic salt, pepper and paprika.  To taste.

5. My wife coats the chicken breasts in butter, then coats them in the above mixture.  A coating of a fat-free nonstick spray works if you want to reduce calories.  

6. Place the coated chicken in a pan (preferably on aluminum foil sprayed with a nonstick spray) and bake at 400 degrees until done.

7. An added flourish: Pull out the complete chicken and cover each piece with slices of tomato and shredded Italian mix cheese (or mozzarella, or whatever you have), then put them back in the oven for 1-2 minutes until the cheese melts.

It's good stuff.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Just when I begin to wonder about the ROÍ for the time I spend here, a gem like this appears.  Thank you Smac. 😊

[nuclearfuels]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Recently the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece:

Mr. Morrow raises a number of salient points, including some which may some application to the Church.  Some excerpts:

Mr. Morrow proceeds with some commentary about political animosities from both ends of the political spectrum.  I'll skip over these in the hopes that we don't get sidetracked into arguing political ideologies.  However, above he says pretty much what I have been observing and thinking for some years now, including how things are being addressed in the Church.

I'm thinking here of Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin (and others, such as Dehlin and Runnells), and other "prominent" members of the Church who seem to be caught up in the "signature emotion" of outrage, who use Internet-based resources to spread their particular brands of it.

Outside-of-the-Church anti-mormons are doing the same thing (Fred Karger, for example).  But I have different expectations for people like him.

Yes, and smaller subsets of society, like the membership of the Church, should likewise reserve their outrage for special occasions.  

Mr. Morrow goes on to provide some salient examples, but I'll omit those (again, I'm trying to keep this thread focused on how some members of the Church are fomenting perpetual "outrage" against the Church).

Yep.  Consider, for example, Bill Reel's ongoing hissy fit about Elder Holland holding up a copy of The Book fo Mormon.  What an absurd thing to get upset about, and yet Bill has moved heaven and earth to generate "outrage" about it.

Yes.  Think of Sam Young and his histrionics.  They are shot through with intellectual laziness.

Think of Bill Reel and the deep-as-a-puddle screeds against Elder Holland, and the Church.  "Organizing a [figurative] lynch mob" against Elder Holland (who, I think, is a convenient proxy for the Church) sounds about right.

I agree with this.  But perpetual outrage is exhausting.  And sooner or later (usually sooner), the lack of good faith associated with such things becomes apparent.  Chicken Little redux.  Over and over and over again.

Sam Young and Bill Reel have, I think, been the worst at ratcheting up the "outrage" to 11.

Here Mr. Morrow gives voice to my concerns.  I've spent the past several years reading all sorts of disparaging remarks about my "category" (white male).  I've seen such category-based resentments and hostilities becoming voiced with increasing frequency in the Church.  It's not a good thing.

Well put.  And I think this has some application to the Church as well.  Sam Young's rhetoric is not, I think, "authentic."  His indignation is playacting (or even, as Morrow puts it, a "mania").  The same goes for Bill Reel and much of his hyperbolic stuff. 

The same also goes for a lot of the rhetoric about the Church's 2015 policy changes.

Quite so.  Fortunately, the Church has a mechanism for putting an end to the "endless indulgence of outrage" typified in the cases of people like Sam Young, Bill Reel, and others.  Membership in the Church is a bilaterally voluntary thing.  A person can choose to associate with the Church, or not.  The Church can choose to associate with a person, or not.  When that person's behavior becomes so noxious and disruptive and profane, that voluntary association may need to be limited for a time, or perhaps even ended.  If and when that person has a change of heart, they can be welcomed back with open arms.  And I hope that happens.  

But if not, they and their Perpetual Outrage antics need to be addressed.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem arises in situations where those in power, the elected rep's, side with the outraged and law enforcement officers are told by those politicians who to shut down and who to ignore.

If one thinks about this and the political climate present in the US and Europe among other regions, seems evident that a continued pendulum might lead to a separation or leading out of those who believe in God and those who don't...but perhaps that consequence is me seeing what I'd prefer to see

[Ouagadougou]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Consider, for example, Bill Reel's ongoing hissy fit about Elder Holland holding up a copy of The Book fo Mormon.  What an absurd thing to get upset about, and yet Bill has moved heaven and earth to generate "outrage" about it.

Yep.  Consider, for example, Elder Holland's hissy fit a few years back about members who leave the church.  It goes both ways, on both sides--sometimes people get passionate about their cause, IMO.  There can be a great deal of frustration/passion on both sides of the spectrum. 

An interesting article I found about this:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2016/04/venting-capping-and-sympathizing/index.html

 

[let’s roll]

21 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Like most things, I think it starts with the person staring back at us when we look in the mirror.

Stated in the context you describe, I choose not to be outraged by the allegations and statements made by the individuals you reference, and also choose not to be outraged by the fact they made those allegations and statements.

Based on the incredible number of posts on a recently started thread regarding one of those referenced individuals, it appears I may be in the minority.  I’m fine with that. 

[CV75]

I would love to see an intervention for an outrage addict.

[MustardSeed]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would love to see an intervention for an outrage addict.

I see them on the regular.  Denial, blame, one last drag, insults,  pretty predictable really. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yep.  Consider, for example, Elder Holland's hissy fit a few years back about members who leave the church.

 

Hit a little too close to home for ya? It is understandable you would lash out.

[Ouagadougou]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hit a little too close to home for ya? It is understandable you would lash out.

If you are going to address outrage, then I think it's important to make mention that it occurs both inside and outside the church.  Critics like Bill Reel have thrown "hissy fits," but so has Elder Holland, IMO; and it can be counter-productive on both sides.     

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:48 AM, smac97 said:

Except that . . . I am not outraged.  

Well, no.

Except that . . . I am not outraged.

Thanks,

-Smac

I like the line about outrage being addictive like heroin. I think that's true. I also agree that as a culture we are often quick to boil over instead of maintaining measured dialogue and/or seeking compromise.

I believe you when you say you're not outraged. But this illustrates part of the problem. While you do not feel the things you say and do indicate outrage, they may be perceived by others as outrage. Who determines whether or not something is outrage? In addition to that, who gets to decide when outrage is justified? People will be outraged by different things and just because my outrage doesn't seem to be on an issue that is important to you, doesn't mean it's not important.

I think of some of the recent cultural outrages of Me Too, Black Lives Matter, immigration policies etc. Some people believe the outrage is manufactured or being overstated. For some that may be true. For others, these issues are seen as cause for legitimate moral outrage. Who decides.

It seems to me that a primary reason that people jump so quickly to outrage is because they desire to be heard and they don't believe anyone is listening. I think this is true within the church, politics, and culture at large. If a member perceives a significant issue they believe needs to be addressed, yet they see no viable course to raise that issue with people with the authority to make a change, then they get louder, both in voice, tone, and in seeking numbers. I believe that is very natural and in many cases produces changes for good.

So IMO- the outrage problem often stems from a communication problem. It would be interesting to see how that might be addressed within the church.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I like the line about outrage being addictive like heroin. I think that's true. I also agree that as a culture we are often quick to boil over instead of maintaining measured dialogue and/or seeking compromise.

I believe you when you say you're not outraged. But this illustrates part of the problem. While you do not feel the things you say and do indicate outrage, they may be perceived by others as outrage. Who determines whether or not something is outrage? In addition to that, who gets to decide when outrage is justified? People will be outraged by different things and just because my outrage doesn't seem to be on an issue that is important to you, doesn't mean it's not important.

I think of some of the recent cultural outrages of Me Too, Black Lives Matter, immigration policies etc. Some people believe the outrage is manufactured or being overstated. For some that may be true. For others, these issues are seen as cause for legitimate moral outrage. Who decides.

It seems to me that a primary reason that people jump so quickly to outrage is because they desire to be heard and they don't believe anyone is listening. I think this is true within the church, politics, and culture at large. If a member perceives a significant issue they believe needs to be addressed, yet they see no viable course to raise that issue with people with the authority to make a change, then they get louder, both in voice, tone, and in seeking numbers. I believe that is very natural and in many cases produces changes for good.

So IMO- the outrage problem often stems from a communication problem. It would be interesting to see how that might be addressed within the church.

Out of points, but wanted to say I very much agree with your analysis, especially the last line of it being a communication problem.

One thing the internet, a President who is aware of tweets, viral videos, etc. have achieved is the 'little guy' no longer believes it is impossible to be heard.  Not only do people feel they have a right to be heard, many think they can make that happen.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So IMO- the outrage problem often stems from a communication problem

And a heart problem.

There are a lot of highly intelligent folks in the world who don’t know that they lack emotional intelligence. It’s getting in the way. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

If you are going to address outrage, then I think it's important to make mention that it occurs both inside and outside the church.  Critics like Bill Reel have thrown "hissy fits," but so has Elder Holland, IMO; and it can be counter-productive on both sides.     

 

 

One of the symptoms of endemic outrage, IMO, is drawing false equivalencies such as the above. 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of the symptoms of endemic outrage, IMO, is drawing false equivalencies such as the above. 

Yes - it’s very important to note that the “good guys” cannot be guilty of endemic outrage, but the “bad guys” can be,and likely are guilty of that pernicious sin.

[cinepro]

I must be missing the outrage gene, because I have been mercifully free from outrage these past 18 years.

Sadly, the effect of this is that I am constantly accused of being a shill, apologist, anti-Mormon, Fox News sycophant, Socialist, or whatever bogeyman the person I'm responding to can come up with as a knee-jerk reaction.  In short, if you dare question someone's outrage, you quickly become marginalized and part of the problem.

Instead of "outrage", I usually feel a kind of despairing depression (after events like 9/11 or other mass violence), or a cynical resignation (in politics and religion).  I don't know if it's better, but I can also see how outrage has become an addiction to so many people.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of points, but wanted to say I very much agree with your analysis, especially the last line of it being a communication problem.

One thing the internet, a President who is aware of tweets, viral videos, etc. have achieved is the 'little guy' no longer believes it is impossible to be heard.  Not only do people feel they have a right to be heard, many think they can make that happen.

And manage to prove in the process that no one should listen to them.

[Calm]

In many cases it seems to me what is more prevalent is seeing outrage in others where it is not rather than experiencing it. 

If people describe themselves as outraged or in similar terms, have no problem with labeling them that way. If they don’t, I don’t think one should assume it is. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Calm

[RevTestament]

On 12/2/2018 at 7:20 PM, smac97 said:

Recently the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece:

Mr. Morrow raises a number of salient points, including some which may some application to the Church.  Some excerpts:

Mr. Morrow proceeds with some commentary about political animosities from both ends of the political spectrum.  I'll skip over these in the hopes that we don't get sidetracked into arguing political ideologies.  However, above he says pretty much what I have been observing and thinking for some years now, including how things are being addressed in the Church.

I'm thinking here of Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin (and others, such as Dehlin and Runnells), and other "prominent" members of the Church who seem to be caught up in the "signature emotion" of outrage, who use Internet-based resources to spread their particular brands of it.

Outside-of-the-Church anti-mormons are doing the same thing (Fred Karger, for example).  But I have different expectations for people like him.

Yes, and smaller subsets of society, like the membership of the Church, should likewise reserve their outrage for special occasions.  

Mr. Morrow goes on to provide some salient examples, but I'll omit those (again, I'm trying to keep this thread focused on how some members of the Church are fomenting perpetual "outrage" against the Church).

Yep.  Consider, for example, Bill Reel's ongoing hissy fit about Elder Holland holding up a copy of The Book fo Mormon.  What an absurd thing to get upset about, and yet Bill has moved heaven and earth to generate "outrage" about it.

Yes.  Think of Sam Young and his histrionics.  They are shot through with intellectual laziness.

Think of Bill Reel and the deep-as-a-puddle screeds against Elder Holland, and the Church.  "Organizing a [figurative] lynch mob" against Elder Holland (who, I think, is a convenient proxy for the Church) sounds about right.

I agree with this.  But perpetual outrage is exhausting.  And sooner or later (usually sooner), the lack of good faith associated with such things becomes apparent.  Chicken Little redux.  Over and over and over again.

Sam Young and Bill Reel have, I think, been the worst at ratcheting up the "outrage" to 11.

Here Mr. Morrow gives voice to my concerns.  I've spent the past several years reading all sorts of disparaging remarks about my "category" (white male).  I've seen such category-based resentments and hostilities becoming voiced with increasing frequency in the Church.  It's not a good thing.

Well put.  And I think this has some application to the Church as well.  Sam Young's rhetoric is not, I think, "authentic."  His indignation is playacting (or even, as Morrow puts it, a "mania").  The same goes for Bill Reel and much of his hyperbolic stuff. 

The same also goes for a lot of the rhetoric about the Church's 2015 policy changes.

Quite so.  Fortunately, the Church has a mechanism for putting an end to the "endless indulgence of outrage" typified in the cases of people like Sam Young, Bill Reel, and others.  Membership in the Church is a bilaterally voluntary thing.  A person can choose to associate with the Church, or not.  The Church can choose to associate with a person, or not.  When that person's behavior becomes so noxious and disruptive and profane, that voluntary association may need to be limited for a time, or perhaps even ended.  If and when that person has a change of heart, they can be welcomed back with open arms.  And I hope that happens.  

But if not, they and their Perpetual Outrage antics need to be addressed.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe as society has become more secular, this is the inevitable result. If one doesn't love their neighbor as Christianity teaches, one tends to get more selfish. Our citizenry now expects more from government than ever before, and that sets them up to be outraged if they don't get it. They don't think of the sacrifice of other citizens to pay for everything government does. Anger/outrage is largely a selfish emotion. It does not have empathy and love for others. Society has become quick to judge on a "politically correct" scale. This tendency can spill over into attitudes towards Church policies and teachings as well, which I think is your point. Should we excommunicate members just because they are outraged? I think everyone is entitled to a cooling off period. 

Society is teaching outrage though because that is what motivates people to get off their duff. It is a highly motivating emotion, so if you want to get people to do things, get them outraged. So that button is getting pushed a lot. I think the Church needs to be forgiving as much as individuals do. Nonetheless, if someone is going on a public campaign of outrage, and trying to stir up people against the Church, and lead them away, that is where I draw the line. Otherwise there is not much room for grassroots movements within the Church for change. I don't think someone should be excommunicated just because they want change in the Church, and are speaking their mind.  It;s kind of that old authority vs free speech debate. Trying to stomp out all dissent seems a little characteristic of the Middle Age Church, and I believe has no place in Yeshua''s restored Church.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe as society has become more secular, this is the inevitable result. If one doesn't love their neighbor as Christianity teaches, one tends to get more selfish. Our citizenry now expects more from government than ever before, and that sets them up to be outraged if they don't get it. They don't think of the sacrifice of other citizens to pay for everything government does. Anger/outrage is largely a selfish emotion. It does not have empathy and love for others. Society has become quick to judge on a "politically correct" scale. This tendency can spill over into attitudes towards Church policies and teachings as well, which I think is your point. Should we excommunicate members just because they are outraged? I think everyone is entitled to a cooling off period. 

Society is teaching outrage though because that is what motivates people to get off their duff. It is a highly motivating emotion, so if you want to get people to do things, get them outraged. So that button is getting pushed a lot. I think the Church needs to be forgiving as much as individuals do. Nonetheless, if someone is going on a public campaign of outrage, and trying to stir up people against the Church, and lead them away, that is where I draw the line. Otherwise there is not much room for grassroots movements within the Church for change. I don't think someone should be excommunicated just because they want change in the Church, and are speaking their mind.  It;s kind of that old authority vs free speech debate. Trying to stomp out all dissent seems a little characteristic of the Middle Age Church, and I believe has no place in Yeshua''s restored Church.

Neither apostasy nor excommunication need reflect outrage, but i think it is far more rarely expressed in the latter than the former.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Neither apostasy nor excommunication need reflect outrage, but i think it is far more rarely expressed in the latter than the former.

I see some similarities in the dynamics that play out, or can play out, in divorce proceedings.  The dissolution can be amicable, but can only be shot through with anger and outrage.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:20 PM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

A few random thoughts:

 

First, I disagree that in politics “perpetual outrage” began in the W. Bush administration; A.M. radio shock jocks have been nursing perpetual outrage since at least the early 90’s.

 

Second, I’m amused that the only examples of being perpetually outraged you mention are critics of your church. There are any number of faithful members who habitually troll the Internet looking for criticisms of their faith and then react with outrage when they find it (I’ll refrain from citing specific examples). How could that not be addictive behavior?

 

Third, it's a lot easier to detect unhealthy levels of outrage by uncharibly reading the opinions of your enemies than it is to see it in yourself.

 

Fourth, if you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying attention.

 

Finally, a snippet from one of the great punk rock anthems of all time: Clampdown by the Clash:

 

The judge said five-to-ten
But I say double that again!
I'm not working for the clampdown!
No man born with a living soul
Can be working for the clampdown!
 

Kick over the wall!

Cause governments to fall!
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour!
Anger can be power!
You know that you can use it!

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Analytics

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A few random thoughts:

 

First, I disagree that in politics “perpetual outrage” began in the W. Bush administration; A.M. radio shock jocks have been nursing perpetual outrage since at least the early 90’s.

You may have a point.  The pervasiveness of it sure seems to have started with the 2000 election, though.

Quote

Second, I’m amused that the only examples of being perpetually outraged you mention are critics of your church. There are any number of faithful members who habitually troll the Internet looking for criticisms of their faith and then react with outrage when they find it (I’ll refrain from citing specific examples). How could that not be addictive behavior?

Not sure what you are referencing here.  And in the absence of "specific examples," there's not much more to say.

And I used "critics of [my] church" because the Church is the subject of this board.  But I'm not going to deny that members of the Church can succumb to this "perpetual outrage" phenomenon.

Quote

Third, it's a lot easier to detect unhealthy levels of outrage by uncharibly reading the opinions of your enemies than it is to see it in yourself.

Not really.  "Unhealthy levels of outrage" are often self-evident.  Sam Young, for example.

Quote

Forth, if you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying attention.

That is an interesting admission.

Quote

Finally, a snippet from one of the great punk rock anthems of all time: Clampdown by the Clash:

 

The judge said five-to-ten
But I say double that again!
I'm not working for the clampdown!
No man born with a living soul
Can be working for the clampdown!
 

Kick over the wall!

Cause governments to fall!
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour!
Anger can be power!
You know that you can use it!

Not sure how to respond to this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you are referencing here.  And in the absence of "specific examples," there's not much more to say.

And I used "critics of [my] church" because the Church is the subject of this board.  But I'm not going to deny that members of the Church can succumb to this "perpetual outrage" phenomenon.

As an example, your own reaction to california boy yesterday, and how you emphatically insisted the demonstrators outside of the LA temple constituted a "mob." You sure came across as feeling outraged. Surely you weren't feeling as serene when you wrote that as you did when you were reading scriptures with your family Sunday night.

The reason what you said was striking to me is because the night before I read that thread, I happened to be reading the book 1917 by Arthur Herman, and read about the mobs that were harassing German-Americans across the country during World War I. To give a sense of what was going on, here is a brief quote from the book:

Likewise, harassment of individual German Americans became commonplace. Employers would get anonymous phone calls asking if they still had “that German spy” on the payroll. Someone seen reading a German-language newspaper or book on a train or trolley would garner insults or even get spat upon. Just having a German surname could be enough to start the American Protective League on its own private investigation into a person’s background and business. When a German American vacationing in Florida was caught unprepared by a cold snap and exclaimed within hearing of witnesses, “[D]amn such a country as this,” he was arrested for having violated the Espionage Act.*

Not surprisingly, acts of violence increased dramatically during the winter months, reaching a climax in the spring of 1918. In Pensacola, Florida, a German American was severely flogged by a citizens’ group. He was forced to shout, “To hell with the Kaiser,” and then was ordered to leave the state. In Avoca, Pennsylvania, an Austrian American was accused of criticizing the Red Cross. A group of vigilantes tied him up, hoisted him thirty feet in the air, and blasted him with water from a fire hose for a full hour. In Oakland, California, a German American tailor was nearly lynched by a local organization called the Knights of Liberty. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, where IWW members had been tarred and feathered, a German American resident received the same treatment, was lashed fifty times, and was forced to leave the city. Several Lutheran pastors were whipped for having delivered sermons in German.

The worst case was the fate of Robert Prager...

Herman, Arthur. 1917 (pp. 247-248). Harper. Kindle Edition.

I won't address the point that the demonstrators in California had good reason to feel their own outrage after the LDS Church had worked so hard to take away their civil rights. But insisting that a group of non-violent protestors was a "mob" trivializes actual mob violence.
 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure how to respond to this.

You should say, "I love London Calling! Now that you got that song stuck in my head with the mere mention of those lyrics, I'm going to listen to the whole album right now, blasted at 10!"

[Kevin Christensen]

This essay in The Atlantic strikes me as relevant, looking at trends in Universities toward hypersensitivity and a paradigm in which people need to be protected from thought and language that bothers them.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-1007733893

Quote

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

A solution cited in the essay is Cognitive Therapy, something I've learned in the context of recovery and marriage counseling that I have done.

Quote

Common Cognitive Distortions

A partial list from Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn’s Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders (2012).

1. Mind reading. You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. “He thinks I’m a loser.”

2. Fortune-telling. You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. “I’ll fail that exam,” or “I won’t get the job.”

3. Catastrophizing.You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it. “It would be terrible if I failed.”

4. Labeling. You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. “I’m undesirable,” or “He’s a rotten person.”

5. Discounting positives. You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. “That’s what wives are supposed to do—so it doesn’t count when she’s nice to me,” or “Those successes were easy, so they don’t matter.”

6. Negative filtering. You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. “Look at all of the people who don’t like me.”

7. Overgeneralizing. You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.”

8. Dichotomous thinking. You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. “I get rejected by everyone,” or “It was a complete waste of time.”

9. Blaming. You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. “She’s to blame for the way I feel now,” or “My parents caused all my problems.”

10. What if? You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. “Yeah, but what if I get anxious?,” or “What if I can’t catch my breath?”

11. Emotional reasoning. You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. “I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out.”

12. Inability to disconfirm. You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought I’m unlovable, you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. “That’s not the real issue. There are deeper problems. There are other factors.”

I've also noticed these cognitive distortions frequently appear in Exit Narratives, indeed also in the public narratives that eventually culminate in an Exit Narrative.  For instance, I recently mentioned that I was immediately alarmed a few years ago when Bill Reel (who once interviewed me on my FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets) put up a "guest post" on a major LDS blog claiming that the Church was "An Abusive Parent" which struck me as negative filtering, overgeneralizing, dichotomous thinking, discounting positives and labeling, and demonstrating an inability to disconfirm.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Glenn101]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As an example, your own reaction to california boy yesterday, and how you emphatically insisted the demonstrators outside of the LA temple constituted a "mob." You sure came across as feeling outraged. Surely you weren't feeling as serene when you wrote that as you did when you were reading scriptures with your family Sunday night.

Isn't there a difference between being outraged at a specific action o set of actions and being "addicted to outrage?" There are differences in the level of outrage felt, how it is expressed, the frequency, and he trigger levels for unbridled outrage. I do believe there are people and groups for which outrage is expressed vociferously and sometimes violently at just the expression of a different opinion by another person or group. It is not helpful to reduce all outrage down to the addiction in discussion.

Glenn