Anger - What is it?

[_harmony]

Hmm... one day at church the Primary President started to open a door while I was opening another. Unfortunately both doors could not be opened at once. She noticed I was trying to open the door and said, "sorry," then continued to open her door, preventing me from opening mine.

Can I say "ass" here? Well, if so, I wanted to knock her flat on her ass.

I suppose I was angry because she said, "sorry," but didn't mean it. If she had meant it, she would have allowed me to open my door and waited to open hers.

That's not the only time I've wanted to beeatch slap someone at church- the other time was when another primary teacher said "you can't feel the spirit by reading" because I wanted something in written form instead of wasting my time going to another meeting. I guess reading the scriptures are pretty pointless, then!

edited to add... Primary make me angry.

Primary? Or the people who lead it? Make sure the target really is the target. Primary can't be held responsible for the bad behavior and poor attitude of the people who are the teachers and leaders, unless you're saying there's something inherent in Primary as an institution, that causes people to change into jerks who don't live what they teach.

[_wenglund]

Marginalisation does not occur because of anger, Wade, it occurs by merely having different beliefs, or departing from one's former beliefs.

One can certainly view it that way. But, I don't see it as a necessity. For my part, I don't think it useful for either side of divergent beliefs to view the divergence as marginalisations. Instead, I think it better to view it simply as a difference of opinion.

But, to each their own.

To your credit you at least try to dialogue with "apostates", regardless what some "apostates" may think of the quality of your dialogue. That I admire about you. But until you've been in "apostate shoes", that is, having lost your former beliefs, I doubt you'll really understand.

In terms of 100% empathy and sympathy, and complete understanding of a given personal experiences, you may be correct.

However, again, I don't see that as a particularly useful objective on which to focus one's attention, let alone something that may reasonably be achieved by those who haven't shared that specific experience.

Someone asked a great question earlier in the thread that went something like: "Are you looking for sympathy [or justification] for your anger, or are you looking to functionally resolve the anger?"

To me, if one is just looking for sympathy and justification, then that certainly is their choice. But, I am disinclined to enable that kind of counterproductive activity.

On the other hand, I am interested in helping people help themselves to restore peace and joy in their lives.

One does not need to have undergone a specific experiences that resulted in anger in order to have a general understanding of the process that leads to anger, the functional and valuable purposes for anger, and healthy forms of anger (in terms of intensity and duration). In other words, I don't need to have left the Church, or have experienced anger upon leaving the Church, to know that intense and/or prolonged anger (days, weeks, months, years, decades) that may be felt by former members (and vice versa), is unhealthy and dysfunctional. I also do not need that specific experience to know proven methods for resolving the anger in healthy and functional ways.

That is my intent here and on my proposed web site, and what I am offering to those looking for peace and joy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

For those who may wish to resolve their current anger and prevent the same kind of anger occuring in the future, may I suggest looking at things from the perspective of the other party. Think about what you would suggest to them to relieve their anger towards you, and then apply, in principle, that remedy to yourself.

How about dropping some of the literalistic beliefs? The "true believers" get angry because "apostates" won't abide by the legalistic rules which they think will make them "top dog" in the CK. It's almost like a grudge, "I worked 12 hours, you worked six, and we get the same reward?" Is God a bureaucrat? Is he an "institutional god"? Joseph Smith's maternal grandfather repented when he was in his seventies, Solomon Mack. Now if Solomon was on the web before that, and spewed profanities against Jesus, would any human have known how he would later change? Only God knows the heart, and the true intent of people. Judge not, lest you be judged with the same judgement.

I think both sides should be considered, indeed, the "apostates" need to evaluate anger, and the "TBMs" need to evalute what makes them so angry and alienated from former believers. Do you agree?

Absolutely! Both sides need to evaluate their anger and what alienates them from each other.

However, I don't think it necessitates their dropping literalistic beliefs and views about so-called legalistic rules, any more than it necessitates the opposite from former members. Each can retain their beliefs or disbeliefs and yet not be angered and alienated from each other. Mutual love, value, and respect can occur even where there is a difference of beliefs.

Let's take your experience for example. Can you tell me what you tought at the time was the cause of your anger for so many years? Can you also tell me what you thought may have been the cause of anger members may have had towards you? Then, we can dig deeper into each and see what was really may have been driving that emotion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_twinkie]

.[/quote]

Primary? Or the people who lead it? Make sure the target really is the target. Primary can't be held responsible for the bad behavior and poor attitude of the people who are the teachers and leaders, unless you're saying there's something inherent in Primary as an institution, that causes people to change into jerks who don't live what they teach.[/quote]

Harmony, I was joking about Primary making me angry, but your comment made me realize that yes, it makes me angry that people don't live what they teach. I couldn't teach primary because I don't believe or live by EVERYTHING the church teaches. However, I think that there are people that accept a calling because they are conditioned to believe that rejecting a calling is bad. And so those people may be teaching things they don't believe or live by which I think is worse.

[_Ray A]

Let's take your experience for example. Can you tell me what you tought at the time was the cause of your anger for so many years? Can you also tell me what you thought may have been the cause of anger members may have had towards you? Then, we can dig deeper into each and see what was really may have been driving that emotion.

I have to go back a long way, and as I said I only recently re-discovered this by reading old correspondence. I think my main emotion, or anger if you like, was at having lost 13 years of my life, but in retrospect I now feel it was a learning experience, and I did gain a lot from Mormonism - and lost a lot. I would be considerably materially richer now had I not become a Mormon, instead of being an insolvent, that I am certain of. But material wealth is nothing, so I count my other gains in that regard. It's really difficult to say whether life would have been better without my Mormon experience, but at the time of leaving I felt angered that I had "thrown away" 13 years, and I think this is a common statement from most exmos. However most of my reading and writing skills were developed because of my Mormon experience. It made me want to read a lot more to find out the truth, and in the process I developed skills I would otherwise not have gained. I'm also the sort of person who moves on - whether it be divorce or Mormonism. I don't linger. Any subsequent anger came out in 2000 when I went on LDS Internet boards, quite an irony. If not for the net I would not have given Mormonism too much more thought, and in my pre-Internet days I never clashed with Mormons. In fact occasional returns to Church were convivial. I think Internet forums bring back the negative feelings for many, or allow them to continue to fester. Going fishing might be a better idea. I have no bitterness left from my divorce - except when people bring up the subject and try to blame me when not knowing the full story, I go on the defensive. So I think this is sort of like how exmos feel. And this is why I think RFM is unproductive, it rekindles anger that might otherwise fade with time. This is not recovery, this is rekindling anger. Like trying to put out a fire by fanning it.

As for member anger towards me, it's not so much anger, but the labelling, like "Korihor", it's derisive. Or "son of perdition", which I was literally called by TBMs on LDS Internet between 2000-2002. Heavens, just for touting the non-historicity question about the Book of Mormon you'd think I'd committed the unpardonable sin. On FAIR I grew to like Mormons, and even defended them from attacks, because, for me, apart from the literalism I could see value, and still do, in the LDS lifestyle. However I think there's a growing haughtiness and mockery by some LDS posters, and perhaps that's in reply to the sort of attacks from places like here and RFM. I have no desire to attack Mormons, but my personal view is that some of the beliefs are, to be frank, un-believable, and indefensible, even silly, but I can respect people's right to believe whatever they want. If people similarly respect my rights, even if they think I'm going to hell, and don't want to save me from my beliefs, I will have no problem with their beliefs. I think anger arises on both sides by lecturing or judgement which is condescending or mocking. There's nothing wrong with some light-hearted mockery, but some make it a full time profession.

[_wenglund]

Let's take your experience for example. Can you tell me what you tought at the time was the cause of your anger for so many years? Can you also tell me what you thought may have been the cause of anger members may have had towards you? Then, we can dig deeper into each and see what was really may have been driving that emotion.

I have to go back a long way, and as I said I only recently re-discovered this by reading old correspondence. I think my main emotion, or anger if you like, was at having lost 13 years of my life, but in retrospect I now feel it was a learning experience, and I did gain a lot from Mormonism - and lost a lot. I would be considerably materially richer now had I not become a Mormon, instead of being an insolvent, that I am certain of. But material wealth is nothing, so I count my other gains in that regard. It's really difficult to say whether life would have been better without my Mormon experience, but at the time of leaving I felt angered that I had "thrown away" 13 years, and I think this is a common statement from most exmos. However most of my reading and writing skills were developed because of my Mormon experience. It made me want to read a lot more to find out the truth, and in the process I developed skills I would otherwise not have gained. I'm also the sort of person who moves on - whether it be divorce or Mormonism. I don't linger. Any subsequent anger came out in 2000 when I went on LDS Internet boards, quite an irony. If not for the net I would not have given Mormonism too much more thought, and in my pre-Internet days I never clashed with Mormons. In fact occasional returns to Church were convivial. I think Internet forums bring back the negative feelings for many, or allow them to continue to fester. Going fishing might be a better idea. I have no bitterness left from my divorce - except when people bring up the subject and try to blame me when not knowing the full story, I go on the defensive. So I think this is sort of like how exmos feel. And this is why I think RFM is unproductive, it rekindles anger that might otherwise fade with time. This is not recovery, this is rekindling anger. Like trying to put out a fire by fanning it.

Hi Ray,

This is excellent. You seemed to have figured out on your own what leading psychologist have been suggesting for years about how to resolve anger. Anger is not resolved through venting, grieving, and stewwing in one's juices, but by changing the way one thinks. Your anger was the result of looking backwards and viewing your past experience in the Church in a purely negative and somewhat victimological way (what some may consider a distorted way, or "cognitive distortion"). And, you were able to move past that anger by changing your thinking to a more fair and balanced and charitable perspective.

I think your experience could be of great help to a number of former members or unbelieving members (particularly those at RFM). You hold in your mind at least one of the keys to legitimate "recovery"--if one wishes to call it that, and I hope you can find the time and the way to share your "secret" with those currently in need.

The advantage in you doing this over me, is you can't be so easily dismissed by certain parites because you have been where they currently are. You have experienced what they are experiencing. You have, in some ways, reacted like they have reacted, and you have attempted to resolve things the same way they are now trying to resolve things. You know what works and what doesn't--and even what may backfire. You can help them avoid counterproductively simmering for years, and put them quickly on the road to inner peace.

If you do decide to do this, I will be happy to help in any way that I can. However, if you are disinclined, I will understand, but would ask if you would let me use your story as a means of validating the General Principles of self-help that I hope to espouse--including the principle you figured out and put into practice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

As for member anger towards me, it's not so much anger, but the labelling, like "Korihor", it's derisive. Or "son of perdition", which I was literally called by TBMs on LDS Internet between 2000-2002. Heavens, just for touting the non-historicity question about the Book of Mormon you'd think I'd committed the unpardonable sin. On FAIR I grew to like Mormons, and even defended them from attacks, because, for me, apart from the literalism I could see value, and still do, in the LDS lifestyle. However I think there's a growing haughtiness and mockery by some LDS posters, and perhaps that's in reply to the sort of attacks from places like here and RFM. I have no desire to attack Mormons, but my personal view is that some of the beliefs are, to be frank, un-believable, and indefensible, even silly, but I can respect people's right to believe whatever they want. If people similarly respect my rights, even if they think I going to hell, and don't want to save me from my beliefs, I will have no problem with their beliefs. I think anger arises on both sides by lecturing or judgement which is condescending or mocking. There's nothing wrong with some light-hearted mockery, but some make it a full time profession.

This raises an important issue for consideration. While one may have found an effective resolution to one's own anger, it is not always readily apparent what ways are effective in dealing with other people's anger and ill-treatment.

I think that once again you have touched on the key. The solution to this problem isn't about bridging the gap in beliefs through getting one or both parties to change their beliefs, but rather in working towards mutual love, value, and respect.

However, more often than not, that is more easily said than done.

What I have recently found effective in reverse (where those who have left the faith have disrespected me and/or my faith), are several things:

1) Changing my perception about them. Rather than perceiving the other party as the "enemy", or the situation in an "us vs. them" way, or looking at their behavior as attacking or victimizing, I choose to view them as "broken"--i.e. as hurting and making poor and dysfunctional choices in responding to their hurt. Think of it like were a friend to have a cold or flu, wouldn't you expect there to be a certain amount of unpleasant coughing, sneezing, and throwingup? Likewise, with those who are "broken", one may expect them to cough, sneeze, and throwup in the form of insults and other disrespectful mannerisms, until they are fixed. Viewing them in this way helps, to some degree, not to take things personally, just as I wouldn't take personally were one of my friends to inadvertantly sneeze and cough in my direction. It also helps to keep in mind that the disrespect towards you is really about them, and not you. Their disrespect is often a function of lack of respect for, and a low sense of, self.

2) Determine and clarify one's intentions for interacting with others. As intimated earlier, in terms of most online discussions, there is little chance of productive interaction where the intent of either or both parties is to change the beliefs of others. There is even less chance, or no chance, when the intent is to blame, judge, condemn, etc. However, the chances are greatly increased when one's intent is to assist one another in becoming our very best selves (whatever we respectively determine that to be), and to find functional ways of satisfying our basic human need for mutual love, value, and respect. And, while that has been my intent here, I think I would have been more successful were I to have clearly stated that intent up front. To me, while I may think that folks would be better off by abiding the precepts of the restored gospel and working towards becoming like Christ through obedience to the principles and ordinances that have been divinely instituted, I am also obliged by my beliefs to allow for free agency and to respect other people's beliefs. And, the way I look at it, I much prefer that people be restored to peace and joy, and reconnect with family and friends in meaningful and uplifting ways, than proactively promote and try to pursuade others to my belief--particularly where such efforts may tend to engender strife, contention, and other counterproductive disputations. In other words, I would much prefer to see people treat others with generosity and kindness, and lovingly raising their children in a healthy and moral family life, than trying to get them to begrudgingly do their Home Teaching, or pay their tithing, and resentfully attend the temple--I prefer to see them living the pure religion of Christ than disingenuously or resentfully abiding the practices of the Church.

3) Negotiate and set boundries. I find that some people are open to making deals like: "I promise to respect you and your right to believe according to the dictates of your conscience, if you promise the same to me in return." "I promise not to proactively attempt to change your beliefs if you promise the same to me in return." "I promise not to be critical of you (except perhaps in a balanced and constructive way), if you promise not to be critical of my faith." Etc., etc. It may also be wise to set forth reasonable boundries (such as, I will not permit you to denegrate my faith and my charished leaders) and enforce those boundries in appropriate ways (setting them as a conditions for continued interaction).

4) Pick your battles and be patient and charitable in one's expectations. In other words, don't sweat the small things. Reserve your challenges to things of real significance and importance. And, be patient--understanding that some things take time to improve, and some old habits die hard. This applies to expectations you have on yourself as well as others.

5) Ignore and let slide when necessary. I have come to realize that not everyone cares about or is interested in having reasonable, respectful, and productive interactions. Some people are so "broken" that they can't help but cough and sneeze and throwup when ever they get a chance, and thus are not open to meaningful dialogue, let alone doing what it takes to be "fixed", and become socially healthy and functional. And, attempts to engage them may very well enable and encourage their "brokenness". I have found that it is best in such cases to ignore and/or be unaffected by what they may say or do, and reserve my interaction to those people and situation that may be productive.

6) Set a good example. The best way I have found to be treated respectfully is to be respectful and to manifest the benefits of being respectful whether others are respectful in return or not.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

The advantage in you doing this over me, is you can't be so easily dismissed by certain parites because you have been where they currently are. You have experienced what they are experiencing. You have, in some ways, reacted like they have reacted, and you have attempted to resolve things the same way they are now trying to resolve things. You know what works and what doesn't--and even what may backfire. You can help them avoid counterproductively simmering for years, and put them quickly on the road to inner peace.

If you do decide to do this, I will be happy to help in any way that I can. However, if you are disinclined, I will understand, but would ask if you would let me use your story as a means of validating the General Principles of self-help that I hope to espouse--including the principle you figured out and put into practice.

I don't mind you using anything I write, Wade, and when your site is going I'll see what I can do to help. Very long working hours at present prevent me from posting too much, but I'm hoping to resolve this problem somehow in the future so I can once again devote more time to writing and research. I'm just not "with it" after 12-14 hours of driving, but bread and butter issues are also important.

[_Mephitus]

Ray,

In regards to your analogy of boards such as RFM "faning the flames" rather then letting them settle and die out of their own accord. Im unsure how most people deal with their anger issues, (i grew up in a very dysfuntional family now that i now how to recognise it) But personaly, I've always had to burn out all feelings of anger. I've always had to continualy feed all the problems associated with that anger into the fire untill theres nothing left to be angry about. The problem that has arrisen from the connection to Mormonism, is that the more i look, the more i find legitimate reason to be angry. more fuel for the fire if you will.

And for many of us ex's, its not merely an issue of time spent. Yeah, i wasted countless hours and money on a lie for the first 19 years of my life. But im also the only personl in my entire family (extended included) who isn't Mormon. So this is something that to this day is still effecting me by proxy if you will. Let alone the psychological issues that arrose from Mormonism. Due to the guilt that Mormonism instill in its members, i wrestled with depression for many years within the morg. Im sorry, but you don't go through a horrible psychological terrorizing like that and come out happy or even neutral about things. As well as all the instilled issues with how to think of the world and the information that is provided to you. That you always have to anylize everything to see if it holds to the mind virus that is Mormonism. That took me nearly 3 years to deprogram the major part of that out of myself.

So don't just view us as people pissed off over a "few lies". I would say that nearly all of us have had un-repairable damage done to us by Mormonism through the years. Sure, some in differing areas. But overall, i wouldn't wish the problems that Mormonism had on me to my worst enimy. People do not get this pissed off over something that could be discribed as "spilt milk". They get pissed off when people they love and trust show to have a track record of not acting in your best interest or downright lieing about everything you have ever held dear.

Im making this a bit long, but i hope you can understand more fully why some of us seem as ticked off as we do.

[_wenglund]

Ray,

In regards to your analogy of boards such as RFM "faning the flames" rather then letting them settle and die out of their own accord. Im unsure how most people deal with their anger issues, (i grew up in a very dysfuntional family now that i now how to recognise it) But personaly, I've always had to burn out all feelings of anger. I've always had to continualy feed all the problems associated with that anger into the fire untill theres nothing left to be angry about. The problem that has arrisen from the connection to Mormonism, is that the more i look, the more i find legitimate reason to be angry. more fuel for the fire if you will.

Hi Sono_hito

I very much appreciate you saying this because I think it crystalizes the point that I have been making.

What you have illustrated is, attempts at "burning out" feelings of anger really doesn't work. That approach is counterproductive or dysfunctional. In truth, the feelings never actually burn all the way out, but end up providing embers and fuel to keep the fires of anger near endlessly burning. This is true whether the object of your anger is the Church, or your family, or unrequited love, or school, or work, etc.

Is that what you want? Is your anger that important to you that you wish to keep it around for long, if not forever?

Wouldn't you prefer to be at peace? Wouldn't you prefer that your heart and mind be occupied with love and joy? Wouldn't you rather build healthy and lasting relationship bridges with family and friends and loved ones, rather than burning them down with your eternal flame of anger?

There is a workable or functional way of resolving your anger, but it takes letting go of the unworkable and dysfunctional approach you have been using. Are you ready to do that now?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-