healing/recovery through venting?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade,

I'm still mystified as to why you are offended by people talking about their own feelings and experiences.

I am even more mystified that you think I am. (Hint: I'm not)

Unless they are directing their venting at you, what business is it of yours?

Are you thinking that the "business" is solely the function of direction towards whom the venting is directed?

If I may step in here---I hardly think that "directed" is the correct verb here. It would be like saying that steam "venting" out of a hot tea kettle is "directed" somewhere. It isn't "directed" anywhere. It is the result of a build-up of pressure.

In other words, to you, using my analogy, it no longer is Mrs. X's business what Mr. X says about her to other people? It not the business of Mrs. X's children and friends what Mr. X says about his wife to others? If Mr X's venting takes the form of intense and sustained mockery, profanation, vulgarity, denegration, name-calling, gossip, teeth-gnashing, and vile accusations regarding his wive's charished beliefs, then it is not the business of those who share thoise beliefs?

With all due respect, Wade, I think this is a false analogy. There is a difference between "venting" about a specific person, vs. "venting" about a set of experiences, or an organization. Right?

And why in the world are you hanging around places like RfM that offend you?

Who says that it does and that I do? I have yet to do so. If or when I do, I will answer the question at that time. By then, sufficient foundation will have been laid to make the discussion meaningful and productive. Until then, PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. Is that asking too much?

To my mind, it would be like being a volunteer for the Democratic Party and then going over to a Republican fundraiser and complaining that they're being mean to Democrats.

Or, it could also be like a Jew viewing the website of the KKK. We'll see...in due time.

Again, a false analogy, since most KKK are not ex-Jews. Or are you claiming that one does not get to choose whether or not to be LDS?

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I see you've learned to use the sink, so I guess there is a sign of intelligence. Way to go. Good for you.

Actually I would not fit in that small of a sink....Sorry

i am thinking more like a Doberman...sweet dogs.... very easy to train...and very loyal to their families...they only look mean....and they are very very intelligent.......SWEET

[_wenglund]

Whether you are correct about whether respect has been earned by the CoJCoLDS (you are, as expected, incorrect), there is a broad range between earned respect (what you mentioned) and unwarranted disrespect (what I was talking about), as well as between universal love (what you mentioned) and rank disdain by some (what I was talking about). Sorry that was lost on you.

And thus we get to the heart of the matter. Wade finds "rank disdain" for his beliefs to be corrosive and abusive.

That is not the heart of MY matter, nor have I yet suggested what you just said about "rank disdain" Rather, I was speaking about people in general being understandably HURT (not to be confused with "corrosive and abusive") by someone feeling that level of disdain towards them and their most prized beliefs. This is simply you, once again (seemingly pathalogically) putting words into my mouth.

Let's see: I'm a conspiracy theorist, bigoted, and "pathalogically" (sic) putting words into your mouth. You specifically said in the quote above that it was the church being disdained, which I thought was rather telling. We weren't talking about respect or disdain for the members, Wade.

Actually, if you look more carefully at my statement above, you will see that while the respect issue was specific to the CoJCoLDS (which entails the belief of that faith tradition as well as the members), my comment about disdain was intentionally non-specific, but rather GENERIC. In other words, I never mentioned disdain for members, John. So, yet again, you have consistently not engaged what I actually have said, but instead put words into my mouth. The frequency and consistency at which you have done this over the last several pages of this thread, and your seemingly complete inability to actually engage what I have said, is a reasonable basis to suspect a pathology behind it. (see more examples below)

Did I say you disdained Mormons? No.

Above you said that I was twisting your words when I said the disdain was for the beliefs, not the people. Now you're saying I'm wrong because you really weren't saying I disdained the people. It can't be both.[/quote]

First of all, I didn't say you were twisting my words. I didn't even use the word "twist" or any derivitive thereof. I said you were PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. In other words, you were claiming I said something that I did not say (just like what you just did). In other words, you weren't twisting my words, you were fabricating them out of thin air. Second, as explicitly explained, the words I viewed you as putting into my mouth were "corrosive and abusive" (when in fact I had used the words HURT instead regarding "rank disdain"). I didn't say you were wrong about disdain for belief and not people, in fact I specifically mention beliefs in my clarification. So, if you correctly understood what I actually had said, it most certainly can be both ways. I spoke about disdain for beliefs, and I didn't say you disdained people. I can consistently say both.

See what I mean by pathology?

Have I yet eqauated disdaining doctrines and teachings with disdaining people. No.

Again, yes you did in the first quote above. Really, Wade, this is amazing. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Pick an argument and stick with it.[/quote]

Again, no I didn't (see above). You are putting words into one side of my mouth, and I am speaking different words out of my mouth, and so it appears to you that I am arguing out of both sides of my mouth. But, I am not. I have not equated the two. Rather, you falsely imagined that I did (and I defy you to rationally demonstrate otherwise). The argument that I have picked and stuck with, is the argument that I have actually said. I would be pleased if you would engage it, rather than the words you consistently keep putting into my mouth.

Again, try engaging what I have actually said.

It would help if you had a consistent argument. So, which is it that offends you? Disdain for teachings, or disdain for people?

Thanks in advance for clarifying.John

I have a consistent argument. It is the one I have actually stated. It would help if you engaged it, rather than the words you mistakenly put into my mouth.

In answer to your off-topic question (as a reminder, the discussion is on venting and whether it may be therapeutic or corrosive), it depends on the nature of the disdain (i.e. who is expressing it, how they are expressing it, etc.), the teaching that is disdained, or the people that may be disdained.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Are you thinking that the "business" is solely the function of direction towards whom the venting is directed? In other words, to you, using my analogy, it no longer is Mrs. X's business what Mr. X says about her to other people? It not the business of Mrs. X's children and friends what Mr. X says about his wife to others? If Mr X's venting takes the form of intense and sustained mockery, profanation, vulgarity, denegration, name-calling, gossip, teeth-gnashing, and vile accusations regarding his wive's charished beliefs, then it is not the business of those who share thoise beliefs?

But that's just the thing, Wade. Your analogy might be valid were exmormons denigrating Mormons; we're not.

Who says that it does and that I do? I have yet to do so. If or when I do, I will answer the question at that time. By then, sufficient foundation will have been laid to make the discussion meaningful and productive. Until then, PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. Is that asking too much?

If you're not hanging around those places, how do you know that such corrosive, abusive venting takes place and the form it takes? I'm trying to engage what you've said, but frankly, you're all over the map here. One minute, it's offensive, and the next you're not offended. One minute it's the disdaining of people you oppose; the next it's the disdaining of doctrines and beliefs. Give me something coherent to respond to, and I'll respond, Wade.

Or, it could also be like a Jew viewing the website of the KKK. We'll see...in due time.

And yet you said with a straight face that you weren't equating exmormons with anti-semites. How in the world do you expect me to take anything you say seriously?

For now, I am attempting to GENERICLY look at venting as a means of therapy and/or corrosion. Perhaps it would be good were you to have something constructive to add to that topic (not to be confused with your hyper-defensive efforts to put words into my mouth).

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Again, you'd have to have something coherent to say for me to add something constructive. If your interest is in the topic of whether or not venting is therapeutic, I've already provided you with some research, which you summarily dismissed. Which strikes me as rather "hyper-defensive."

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I'm still mystified as to why you are offended by people talking about their own feelings and experiences.

I am even more mystified that you think I am. (Hint: I'm not)

Unless they are directing their venting at you, what business is it of yours?

Are you thinking that the "business" is solely the function of direction towards whom the venting is directed?

If I may step in here---I hardly think that "directed" is the correct verb here. It would be like saying that steam "venting" out of a hot tea kettle is "directed" somewhere. It isn't "directed" anywhere. It is the result of a build-up of pressure.

While the steam is a result of build-up of pressure, the release of that steam pressure (i.e. "venting") goes somewhere. In the case of a hot tea kettle, it is "directed" out the spout. In the case of humans, it may be directed in a variety of ways--some that may be therapeutic and others corrosive, and in a variety of directions.

In other words, to you, using my analogy, it no longer is Mrs. X's business what Mr. X says about her to other people? It not the business of Mrs. X's children and friends what Mr. X says about his wife to others? If Mr X's venting takes the form of intense and sustained mockery, profanation, vulgarity, denegration, name-calling, gossip, teeth-gnashing, and vile accusations regarding his wive's charished beliefs, then it is not the business of those who share thoise beliefs?

With all due respect, Wade, I think this is a false analogy. There is a difference between "venting" about a specific person, vs. "venting" about a set of experiences, or an organization. Right?

Yes, there is a difference, but not a PRINCIPLE difference that would make the analogy false. The PRINCIPLE that my analogy is attempting to get at is not the difference you mentioned, but whether venting is the business of others based solely on where the venting is directed. I believe that the venting can be the business of those who may be included, in one way or another, as a subject of the venting. I believe the analogy bears that point out quite well.

And why in the world are you hanging around places like RfM that offend you?

Who says that it does and that I do? I have yet to do so. If or when I do, I will answer the question at that time. By then, sufficient foundation will have been laid to make the discussion meaningful and productive. Until then, PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. Is that asking too much?

To my mind, it would be like being a volunteer for the Democratic Party and then going over to a Republican fundraiser and complaining that they're being mean to Democrats.

Or, it could also be like a Jew viewing the website of the KKK. We'll see...in due time.

Again, a false analogy, since most KKK are not ex-Jews. Or are you claiming that one does not get to choose whether or not to be LDS?

You may have a point were the PRINCIPLE of my analogy about former membership in a group. It is not, and so you don't. No mention was made in John's analogy whether the Democrate was a former Republican or not, because that is not relevant. Rather, the PRINCIPLE at issue is whether someone shouldn't investigate or visit locations where they may be offended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Let's cut to the chase here, Wade.

What exactly constitutes venting? Can you give me some examples of venting? What do you think would constitute harmful, corrosive venting?

So far, I've heard from you that "bad" venting involves some sort of disdain, whether it's for beliefs or for people, it's the same (and I would disagree with that).

On that basis, I gather that you believe that a former member of an institution who vocalize disdain for that institution or its beliefs is guilty of corrosive venting. Is that right?

I've been trying to get past these facile comparisons to anti-semitism and find out exactly what it is you object to. I'm not coming up with much. Help me out here.

[_wenglund]

Are you thinking that the "business" is solely the function of direction towards whom the venting is directed? In other words, to you, using my analogy, it no longer is Mrs. X's business what Mr. X says about her to other people? It not the business of Mrs. X's children and friends what Mr. X says about his wife to others? If Mr X's venting takes the form of intense and sustained mockery, profanation, vulgarity, denegration, name-calling, gossip, teeth-gnashing, and vile accusations regarding his wive's charished beliefs, then it is not the business of those who share thoise beliefs?

But that's just the thing, Wade. Your analogy might be valid were exmormons denigrating Mormons; we're not.

The thing is, John, at this point the discussion it isn't about ex-mormons as you keep mistakenly supposing, but rather it is about the GENERIC issue of "venting" and whether it is therapeutic or corrosive or not. Once this fundamental framework is established, then we can move on to test your debatable assertion above. Did you get it that time?

Who says that it does and that I do? I have yet to do so. If or when I do, I will answer the question at that time. By then, sufficient foundation will have been laid to make the discussion meaningful and productive. Until then, PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. Is that asking too much?

If you're not hanging around those places, how do you know that such corrosive, abusive venting takes place and the form it takes?

What I may or may not know about those places is not yet relevant to the discussion. Again, once the GENERIC foundation has been laid, then we can get into testing whether there is corrosive or abusive venting taking place at RFM or not. Until then, please engage only what I have actually said.

I'm trying to engage what you've said, but frankly, you're all over the map here. One minute, it's offensive, and the next you're not offended. One minute it's the disdaining of people you oppose; the next it's the disdaining of doctrines and beliefs. Give me something coherent to respond to, and I'll respond, Wade.

But I am not all over the map. You are confusing me with the straw man you keep propping up all over the place by putting words into my mouth. If you want coherency, then stick to what I have actually said. Stop putting words into my mouth. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Or, it could also be like a Jew viewing the website of the KKK. We'll see...in due time.

And yet you said with a straight face that you weren't equating exmormons with anti-semites. How in the world do you expect me to take anything you say seriously?[/quote]

Again, THAT IS NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. I wasn't equating exmormons with anti-Semites any more than you were equating Mormons with Democrates. You were illustrating a PRINCIPLE with your analogy, and so was I. The PRINCIPLE wasn't whether Mormons are Democrates or even like Democrates, but whether people should investigate or go to places where they may be offended. Is that too hard to understand?

How in the world do you expect me to take you seriously when you consistently misread, or more particularly misread-into, most everything I say?

For now, I am attempting to GENERICLY look at venting as a means of therapy and/or corrosion. Perhaps it would be good were you to have something constructive to add to that topic (not to be confused with your hyper-defensive efforts to put words into my mouth).

Again, you'd have to have something coherent to say for me to add something constructive. If your interest is in the topic of whether or not venting is therapeutic, I've already provided you with some research, which you summarily dismissed. Which strikes me as rather "hyper-defensive."

Again, I DIDN"T DISMISS YOUR RESEARCH. I simply asked YOU whether that kind of research may be valid in certain instances (this is the second time I have corrected this specific words you have falsely put into my mouth).

If you keep looking for coherency in the words you falsely put into my mouth, then I don't think you will find it. I certainly don't see anything coherent there. Try looking instead at what I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID, for a change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

The thing is, John, at this point the discussion it isn't about ex-mormons as you keep mistakenly supposing, but rather it is about the GENERIC issue of "venting" and whether it is therapeutic or corrosive or not. Once this fundamental framework is established, then we can move on to test your debatable assertion above. Did you get it that time?

I understand that we're theoretically talking about generic venters, but the context of this forum is Mormonism. Saying "we'll get to Mormonism later" seems rather disingenuous.

If you're not hanging around those places, how do you know that such corrosive, abusive venting takes place and the form it takes?

What I may or may not know about those places is not yet relevant to the discussion. Again, once the GENERIC foundation has been laid, then we can get into testing whether there is corrosive or abusive venting taking place at RFM or not. Until then, please engage only what I have actually said.[/quote]

Then answer the questions, Wade. Tell me what you think venting is and why it may or may not be harmful.

I'm trying to engage what you've said, but frankly, you're all over the map here. One minute, it's offensive, and the next you're not offended. One minute it's the disdaining of people you oppose; the next it's the disdaining of doctrines and beliefs. Give me something coherent to respond to, and I'll respond, Wade.

But I am not all over the map. You are confusing me with the straw man you keep propping up all over the place by putting words into my mouth. If you want coherency, then stick to what I have actually said. Stop putting words into my mouth. Is that too hard for you to understand?[/quote]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Wade. I'm trying to understand your position, which to me (and apparently others) isn't too coherent. But if I have misread you, I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension.

Again, THAT IS NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. I wasn't equating exmormons with anti-Semites any more than you were equating Mormons with Democrates. You were illustrating a PRINCIPLE with your analogy, and so was I. The PRINCIPLE wasn't whether Mormons are Democrates or even like Democrates, but whether people should investigate or go to places where they may be offended. Is that too hard to understand?

The principle you were illustrating is that hate speech hurts people. So, yes, in that way you were equating exmormons with the same kind of hate speech employed by the KKK. Do you really not understand this?

How in the world do you expect me to take you seriously when you consistently misread, or more particularly misread-into, most everything I say?

It might help if you used less emotionally charged analogies, Wade. Bringing up the KKK and anti-semites is not exactly an invitation to civility.

Again, I DIDN"T DISMISS YOUR RESEARCH. I simply asked YOU whether that kind of research may be valid in certain instances (this is the second time I have corrected this specific words you have falsely put into my mouth).

Wade, here's what you said:

You will note that the perceived therapeutic value in venting was measured by selectively polling the opinions of those doing the venting. Even the online anti-Semite will tell you that they feel protected by their anonymity and believe they are more free to express thair experiences and feelings, and they feel better about themselves through the process. Should we take from this that venting is a good thing?

Dr. Aaron Beck, in his book on the psychology of anger and hate, mentions that a key component in anger and hate, particularly as a cycle, is dehuminization. I would think that the anonymity of online venting would make dehuminization much easier if not inevidable.

To summarize, you dismissed the results of the research as "selectively polling" of the venters, whom you then went on to compare (again) with anti-semites. Your question was not "whether that kind of research may be valid" but whether the opinions the venters had any bearing on positive outcomes. You went on to suggest that, despite the perceived positive nature of venting, that venting was a dehumanizing practice. So, yeah, you summarily dismissed it, Wade.

If you keep looking for coherency in the words you falsely put into my mouth, then I don't think you will find it. I certainly don't see anything coherent there. Try looking instead at what I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID, for a change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm certainly trying, Wade.

[_wenglund]

Let's cut to the chase here, Wade.

What exactly constitutes venting? Can you give me some examples of venting? What do you think would constitute harmful, corrosive venting?

So far, I've heard from you that "bad" venting involves some sort of disdain, whether it's for beliefs or for people, it's the same (and I would disagree with that).

On that basis, I gather that you believe that a former member of an institution who vocalize disdain for that institution or its beliefs is guilty of corrosive venting. Is that right?

I've been trying to get past these facile comparisons to anti-semitism and find out exactly what it is you object to. I'm not coming up with much. Help me out here.

I have been trying to cut to the chase all along, John. I have tried to get you to cut to what I have ACTUALLY SAID, rather than the words you keep putting into my mouth (like you did yet again above).

Apparently, you don't happen to grasp what the chase is ACTUALLY ABOUT. It is not so much about what I may or may not think about venting and RFM, but what WE each may think thereon. In other words, I am FACILITATING a discussion about whether venting is therapeutic or not. I am soliciting opinions from people like YOU on the matter. I am fine with YOU coming up with YOUR own reasonable and GENERIC definition of "venting". In fact, I ENCOURAGE IT, and as previously indicated, I am fine with using the definition YOU and others have used for venting in relation to RFM.

I am trying to get YOU and others to list what YOU think are distinguishing characteristic between healthy and harmful venting.

I have intentionally not voiced my opinion as yet in order to prevent the discussion from breaking down as it has with YOU (i.e. in endless corrections of misunderstandings of things that I have or haven't' said to YOU).

However, once I believe there has been sufficient chance for some to voice their opinion, then maybe I will list some of the distinctions I believe exist between healthy venting (or rather healthy ways to release and manage high emotions) and unhealthy or dysfunctional venting. Hopefully, during that process you will confine yourself to engaging only what I have said, and not the words you have a penchant for putting into my mouth.

Once that is done, then we can move on to examine the venting at RFM to see it falls within the spectrum of healthy to corrosive. But, until then, please only engage what I have ACTUALLY SAID.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade,

I've already answered this question. Whatever your definition of venting, it's a positive, therapeutic activity when it leads people to confront their feelings and put them behind them. It's not healthy if it leads people to obsess on those feelings. As I've said, most of the "venting" I'm familiar with took place on RfM. I'd say the healthy venters are those who came, vented, and moved on. It really doesn't matter what the venting looks like. The research I quoted seems to bear that out.