How to help those in the message - Revision history

Admin: /* The psychological background */

2025-12-15T16:28:58Z

The psychological background

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 15 December 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].		In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].

			Additionally, when someone in the message wants to believe something, they ask themselves whether it is possible to believe that thing. If they answer “yes,” they search for supporting evidence, and if they find even one piece of evidence, regardless of how tenuous or weak, they stop thinking. They have given themselves the permission to believe.

			Conversely, when they don’t want to believe something, they ask themselves whether they have to believe it. If the answer is “no,” they search for opposing evidence, and if they find a single reason for doubt, regardless of how bad or weak that reason is, they reject the evidence.

			That is what people in the message regularly do. They want an excuse to keep believing the message, so they find a poor poor excuse, even if they have to invent it, because it is something they can grab onto.

	==You need to speak to the elephant==		==You need to speak to the elephant==

Admin at 16:24, 4 July 2025

2025-07-04T16:24:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 4 July 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Top of Page}}		{{Top of Page}}
			{{Leaving}}
	So how do we help those that are still in the message?		So how do we help those that are still in the message?

Admin at 18:49, 5 June 2023

2023-06-05T18:49:55Z

Admin: /* The psychological background */

2023-03-20T17:38:03Z

The psychological background

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 20 March 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]'''		::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]'''

	People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]]" used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict causes feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings.		People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]]," which is a term used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict causes feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings.

	In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].		In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].

Admin: /* So where do you start? */

2022-11-19T23:00:41Z

So where do you start?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, 19 November 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::''I am having a lot of doubts. But in my heart, I just want to follow Christ. I love the Lord with all my heart but there is an issue with William Branham and his message that is causing me to have doubts. All I want is to know the truth. Would you help me find the truth?		::''I am having a lot of doubts. But in my heart, I just want to follow Christ. I love the Lord with all my heart but there is an issue with William Branham and his message that is causing me to have doubts. All I want is to know the truth. Would you help me find the truth?

	This last question is difficult to say "no" to '''IF~~'''~~ it is said in the right attitude and with sincerity. However, it is important that you ask the question truthfully. I think all of us want to find the truth and we all know that it is important to search for the truth.		This last question is difficult to say "no" to '''<u>IF</u> it is said in the right attitude and with sincerity'''. However, it is important that you ask the question truthfully. I think all of us want to find the truth and we all know that it is important to search for the truth.

	If the message follower responds with a "yes", then they are potentially on a journey towards truth. It depends on their attitude but, if they are sincerely interested in helping you find the truth, this is a big first step.		If the message follower responds with a "yes", then they are potentially on a journey towards truth. It depends on their attitude but, if they are sincerely interested in helping you find the truth, this is a big first step.
Line 70:		Line 70:

	WARNING: You should generally keep this approach to family members or friends. Pastors or deacons in message churches generally do not respond well to questions.		WARNING: You should generally keep this approach to family members or friends. Pastors or deacons in message churches generally do not respond well to questions.

			Both of these methods should only be used after the person you are dealing with understands CLEARLY that you love and respect them. Remember, you have to speak to the elephant first.

	==The "Rock in the Shoe" method==		==The "Rock in the Shoe" method==

Admin: /* Your friends and family in the message are afraid */

2022-11-19T22:58:07Z

Your friends and family in the message are afraid

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 19 November 2022
Line 36:		Line 36:
	So how do you deal with this fear?		So how do you deal with this fear?

	'''It is important to take things very slow.'''		'''It is important to take things very slow because you need to speak to the elephant.'''

	It is also [[Cognitive Dissonance\|critical to understand cognitive dissonance]] and to recognize it when you are confronted by it (and you will be).		It is also [[Cognitive Dissonance\|critical to understand cognitive dissonance]] and to recognize it when you are confronted by it (and you will be).

Admin: /* You need to speak to the elephant */

2022-11-19T22:57:08Z

You need to speak to the elephant

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 19 November 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Our righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and the elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too.		Our righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and the elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too.

	Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, talk to their elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. They will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.		Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, talk to their elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. They will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.</ref>

	=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=		=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=

Admin: /* You need to speak to the elephant */

2022-11-19T22:56:40Z

You need to speak to the elephant

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 19 November 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==You need to speak to the elephant==		==You need to speak to the elephant==

	The conventional wisdom in psychology~~, in fact,~~ is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref>		The conventional wisdom in psychology is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref>

	Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion (a major part of the elephant) does most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref>		Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion (a major part of the elephant) does most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref>

Admin: /* The psychological background */

2022-11-19T22:55:51Z

The psychological background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 19 November 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].		In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].

			==You need to speak to the elephant==

			The conventional wisdom in psychology, in fact, is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref>

			Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion (a major part of the elephant) does most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref>

			If you listen closely to the arguments of message followers, you will understand that that it is really the elephant holding the reins, guiding the rider. It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, right or wrong. But only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people. For message followers defending William Branham, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes a lawyer, fighting to persuade you of the elephant’s point of view.

			The message follower is like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light:

			:''“Did you drop them here?” asks the cop.
			:''“No” says the man, “I dropped them back there in the alley, but the light is better over here.”

			Message followers reasoning to support the message are the tail wagged by the intuitive dog. A dog’s tail wags to communicate. You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change the minds of message followers by utterly refuting their arguments (which we know is easy to do).

			If you want to change their minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants. You have to convey respect, warmth, and an openness to dialogue before stating the case against the message.

			Our righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and the elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too.

			Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, talk to their elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. They will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

	=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=		=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=

Admin at 21:02, 19 November 2022

2022-11-19T21:02:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 19 November 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Top of Page}}		{{Top of Page}}
	So how do we help those that are still in the message?		So how do we help those that are still in the message?

			=The psychological background=
			::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]'''

			People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]]" used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict causes feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings.

			In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].

	=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=		=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 5 June 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]'''		::''Related articles'': '''[[Cognitive Dissonance]]'''

	People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]]," which is a term used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict ~~causes~~ feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings.		People who are still in the message have a hard time even listening to explanations of why the message is false. This is because of "[[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]]," which is a term used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs (the message is God's word / the message is false). This conflict can cause feelings of unease, discomfort, frustration, nausea, dread, guilt, anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings.

	In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].		In fact, when you offer someone in the message undeniable proof that the message is false, they will generally believe the message more intensely and fanatically then they did previously. This is a direct result of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance]].
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The conventional wisdom in psychology is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref>		The conventional wisdom in psychology is that the brain has two independent systems at work at all times. First, there’s what we called the emotional side. It’s the part of you that is instinctive, that feels pain and pleasure. Second, there’s the rational side, also known as the reflective or conscious system. It’s the part of you that deliberates and analyzes and looks into the future.<ref>Heath, Chip; Heath, Dan. Switch (p. 6). Crown. Kindle Edition.</ref>

	Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion (a major ~~part~~ of the elephant) ~~does~~ most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref>		Jonathan Haidt describes this in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, as the Elephant (emotional self) and the Rider (rational self). Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does. Reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior, but emotion and "gut feelings" ( major parts of the elephant) do most of the work. The elephant includes the gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions that comprise much of the automatic system. The elephant and the rider each have their own intelligence, and when they work together well, they enable the unique brilliance of human beings. But they don’t always work together well.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 10-34). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.</ref>

	If you listen closely to the arguments of message followers, you will understand ~~that~~ that it is really the elephant ~~holding the reins,~~ guiding the rider. It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, right or wrong. But only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people. For message followers defending William Branham, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes a lawyer, fighting to persuade you of the elephant’s point of view.		If you listen closely to the arguments of message followers, you will understand that it is really the elephant that is guiding the rider (and not the other way around). It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, right or wrong. But only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people. For message followers who are defending William Branham, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes the lawyer, fighting to persuade you of the elephant’s point of view.

	The message follower is like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light:		The message follower is like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light:

	:''“Did you drop ~~them~~ here?” asks the ~~cop~~.		:''“Did you drop your keys here?” asks the police officer, trying to help. ''
	:''“No” says the man, “I dropped them back there in the alley, but the light is better over here.”		:''“No” says the man, “I dropped them back there in the alley, but the light is better over here.”

	~~Message~~ followers ~~reasoning to support~~ the message are the tail wagged by the ~~intuitive~~ dog. A dog’s tail wags to communicate. ~~You~~ can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change the minds of message followers by utterly refuting their arguments (which we know is easy to do).		The reasons that message followers give for believing the message are like the tail which is being wagged by the dog. The dog’s tail wags to communicate. But you can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And '''you can’t change the minds of message followers by utterly refuting their arguments''' (which we know is easy to do).

	If you want to change their minds, you’ve got to talk to their ~~elephants~~. You have to convey respect, warmth, and an openness to dialogue before stating the case against the message.		If you want to change their minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephant. You have to convey respect, warmth, and an openness to dialogue before stating the case against the message.

	Our righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and ~~the~~ elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too.		Our self-righteous minds readily shift into combat mode. Our own rider and our elephant work together smoothly to lob rhetorical grenades and fend off attacks. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the anti-message team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of message followers if they are in combat mode too.

	Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, talk to their elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their ~~intuitions~~, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. ~~They~~ will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.</ref>		Therefore, if you want to change a message follower’s mind about William Branham, '''you must talk to their elephant first'''. If you ask people to believe something that violates their long-held beliefs, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch — a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. AND they will almost always succeed.<ref>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind (p. 56-59). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.</ref>

	=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=		=Your friends and family in the message are afraid=