healing/recovery through venting?

[_wenglund]

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.

Actually, not taking me at my WORD, and putting words into my mouth, is 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.

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

Again, I will do that once I have heard form each of YOU.

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?

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.[/quote]

Whether you were trying or not, that is what has consistently happened. If you want to understand my position, stop trying to tell me what it is. Try asking non-presupposing questions instead. That may drastically help your 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?

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PUT IN MY MOUTH! WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE IS EXACTLY AS I SAID. PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID AND NOT THE WORDS YOU KEEP PUTTING INTO MY MOUTH!

Sheesh, do you suppopse that "venting" did any good? ;-)

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.

If you would stop assuming that the subjects of the analogy necessarily applied to you and ex-Mormons, then you just might see that the analogies are great for vetting the intended PRINCIPLE. In other words, the analogies are only emotionally charged with you (they aren't to me) because you assume an equating with you/RFM and the subject, and this prior to the foundation even being laid to determine whether there is a valid equating or not.

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.

NO I DIDN"T DISMISS IT. I simply raised the question whether that kind of research was a good determinate or not of venting as "a good thing". In fact, I posed the question to YOU, whether it would be a good thing or not--how could I be dismissing something that I am asking your opinion on?. No where did I say that we shouldn't consider the research at all. In other words, no where did I say the research should be dismissed.

Your question was not "whether that kind of research may be valid" but whether the opinions the venters had any bearing on positive outcomes.

Given the preface to the question, it was both. It was about whether that kind of research is a valid means for determining the positive outcomes.

Let me underline the fact that it was a QUESTION--which means I wasn't dismissing your research, but simply questioning it. Do you understand the difference?

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.

Again you misread me (see what I mean by pathology?). My statement about dehumanization was NOT in general to venting, but was a specific statement pertaining to its POTENTIAL in terms of online venting. Furthermore, it was not related to your "research", but to online venting. So, no, John, I wasn't dismissing your research. Nor, for that matter, would I have been dismissing it even were I to have considered venting as dehuminizing (which I did not).

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.

I'm certainly trying, Wade.

Perhaps it is how you are going about trying that may be causing you to consistently fail in accurately comprehending what I ACTUALLY HAVE SAID. Again, rather than telling me what I said and being continually corrected, try asking non-presumptuous questions to gain clarity on what I actually have said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

Great. To you, one way to distinguish between therapeutic/healthy venting and unhealthy venting is whether the venter moves on or obsesses. Anything else?

For example, to your mind, could the intensity of the venting, or the form of the venting, or the context of the venting, make a difference whether venting in GENERAL is healthy or not (see my Mr. X analogy)?

Also, does anyone else have something to add?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Polygamy Porter]

Hey Wade,

Just wanted to share something near to my heart.


The nice fella that you are pitchin a fit at, Runtu? Well, I just wanted you to know he is a recent apostate.

Yep, many moons ago, he and I would lock horns at yonder Fboards, when he was a defender, just like you Wade... well he was nicer.

They are still leaving Wade, one by one.

*cue Taps*

[_wenglund]

Hey Wade,

Just wanted to share something near to my heart.


The nice fella that you are pitchin a fit at, Runtu? Well, I just wanted you to know he is a recent apostate.

Yep, many moons ago, he and I would lock horns at yonder Fboards, when he was a defender, just like you Wade... well he was nicer.

They are still leaving Wade, one by one.

*cue Taps*

I was already aware of that. But, I am at a loss to figure out why you would think that of any significance to me in terms of my own beliefs, let alone how that relates to the topic at hand.

*cue picture of man scratching his head*

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.

Great. To you, one way to distinguish between therapeutic/healthy venting and unhealthy venting is whether the venter moves on or obsesses. Anything else?

For example, to your mind, could the intensity of the venting, or the form of the venting, or the context of the venting, make a difference whether venting in GENERAL is healthy or not (see my Mr. X analogy)?

Also, does anyone else have something to add?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would imagine it would vary by the person. As the research I quoted indicated, it's difficult to make a blanket statement about what is out of bounds in venting. After all, one requirement for it to be venting at all is that the venter feel free to express everything he or she is feeling. You wouldn't for example, say that those in a rape victim support group should refrain from saying anything that might be offensive to rapists, would you?

The best and most accurate way to determine what's appropriate, as I've said, seems to be whether the venting is productive in terms of helping the venter get through the grieving process (that's really what we're talking about here). What we see on RfM, for example, is the anger stage of the grieving process. Ever read Sylvia Plath's "Daddy"? A better verbalization of this stage of grieving I've never seen. Was it inappropriate for her to call her father a Nazi? Or was it therapeutic?

[_desert_vulture]

You wouldn't for example, say that those in a rape victim support group should refrain from saying anything that might be offensive to rapists, would you?

Great quote Runtu. If I may step back into this discussion again, and I am well aware that I am pretty much an unknown on these boards, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. The analogy to a rape victim is classic. In most rapes there are people who believe that the victim is to blame for inciting the rape in the first place. Whether the victim wore provocative clothing, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was a bit too flirtatious, there are always those who accuse the victim of having a role in the commission of the crime. The truth is hard to bear for those folks that the victim had no blame, and that the rapist bears the full burden for the commission of the crime. Those are the facts, as hard as they are to believe for some people.

As in a rape, those who are becoming more familiar with the real truths of the Mormon gospel feel violated. Of course there is a difference in degree, and I am in no way trying to claim that the pain of an apostate is commensurate with the pain of a rape victim. Please don't misinterpret what I am trying to say. But I believe the analogy is instructive in the sense that it carries through on a number of levels. A rape victim is not always believed, indeed many rape victims do not even come forward for fear that they will not be believed, but they suffer in silence. Juanita Broaddrick comes to mind. Many apostates feel overwhelmed with a sense of betrayal and that triggers a deep anger. Having been there myself, I understand this emotion. I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't been through this process to even understand what I am talking about. But if you could liken it to the sense of anger and disgust a rape victim feels toward the perpetrator, maybe that gives some insight into how a new heretic view of the church makes the church member feel towards the church and the general authorities. It is a sense of anger, frustration, and disgust multiplied many times over. Sometimes this angst spills over into the person's personal life and work environment. Indeed it can become so burdensome, that one almost feels like a "spiritual" rape victim.

For people who are going through this process, RfM and FLAK, and other boards of that type, provide an outlet where people can blow off steam. Of course a TBM would not be welcome there, or even understand the dynamic going on there. That's like taking a scout troop over to a rape clinic and letting the young boys listen to the women venting about the specifics of their particular rape, in order to prevent these young boys from becoming future rapists. Since many of the boys would not even be aquainted with fundamental sexual knowledge, the discussion may only frighten and confuse them, and could even have harmful side effects. In this same way, RfM and other Mormon recovery boards, are really not intended to offend believers, but serve a purpose in helping disillusioned, hurt members to "recover" from their perceived injury. In my case, the NOM board, FLAK, and the Foyer saved my marriage and my business, because I was able to spew the venom online, that I would have been spewing in real life. Therefore, in my case, boards like RfM and to a small degree RfM itself have been helpful to me in the recovery phase of my disillusionment with Mormonism. I would give equal credit to FAIR as RfM though. FAIR has helped me see the church for what it really is.

[_Runtu]

You wouldn't for example, say that those in a rape victim support group should refrain from saying anything that might be offensive to rapists, would you?

Great quote Runtu. If I may step back into this discussion again, and I am well aware that I am pretty much an unknown on these boards, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. The analogy to a rape victim is classic. In most rapes there are people who believe that the victim is to blame for inciting the rape in the first place. Whether the victim wore provocative clothing, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was a bit too flirtatious, there are always those who accuse the victim of having a role in the commission of the crime. The truth is hard to bear for those folks that the victim had no blame, and that the rapist bears the full burden for the commission of the crime. Those are the facts, as hard as they are to believe for some people.

As in a rape, those who are becoming more familiar with the real truths of the Mormon gospel feel violated. Of course there is a difference in degree, and I am in no way trying to claim that the pain of an apostate is commensurate with the pain of a rape victim. Please don't misinterpret what I am trying to say. But I believe the analogy is instructive in the sense that it carries through on a number of levels. A rape victim is not always believed, indeed many rape victims do not even come forward for fear that they will not be believed, but they suffer in silence. Juanita Broaddrick comes to mind. Many apostates feel overwhelmed with a sense of betrayal and that triggers a deep anger. Having been there myself, I understand this emotion. I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't been through this process to even understand what I am talking about. But if you could liken it to the sense of anger and disgust a rape victim feels toward the perpetrator, maybe that gives some insight into how a new heretic view of the church makes the church member feel towards the church and the general authorities. It is a sense of anger, frustration, and disgust multiplied many times over. Sometimes this angst spills over into the person's personal life and work environment. Indeed it can become so burdensome, that one almost feels like a "spiritual" rape victim.

For people who are going through this process, RfM and FLAK, and other boards of that type, provide an outlet where people can blow off steam. Of course a TBM would not be welcome there, or even understand the dynamic going on there. That's like taking a scout troop over to a rape clinic and letting the young boys listen to the women venting about the specifics of their particular rape, in order to prevent these young boys from becoming future rapists. Since many of the boys would not even be aquainted with fundamental sexual knowledge, the discussion may only frighten and confuse them, and could even have harmful side effects. In this same way, RfM and other Mormon recovery boards, are really not intended to offend believers, but serve a purpose in helping disillusioned, hurt members to "recover" from their perceived injury. In my case, the NOM board, FLAK, and the Foyer saved my marriage and my business, because I was able to spew the venom online, that I would have been spewing in real life. Therefore, in my case, boards like RfM and to a small degree RfM itself have been helpful to me in the recovery phase of my disillusionment with Mormonism. I would give equal credit to FAIR as RfM though. FAIR has helped me see the church for what it really is.

Very well said, DV. I vented on RfM precisely so I wouldn't do it at home. My wife has never understood the feelings of betrayal and violation that you describe, and it would have been counterproductive for me to blow off steam to her. Instead, it would have hurt her and caused even more marriage problems for us. Venting in a safe place was good for me.

And, yes, participating on FAIR helped me see the church for what it really is, as well. Part of the anger I felt was at myself for having defended the church over there.

And, Wade, I'm not angry at you. You have repeatedly accused me of reading things into what you've said, presumably because I'm blinded by feelings of anger. Such is not the case. Again, I apologize if I have misconstrued what you wrote, but I believe that reasonable people could have read you the same way.

[_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.

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.

So you're admitting that it is merely a function of this pressure being "directed out the spout" of the person doing the venting? Well then, this means that your claims that this stuff is directed at the Church are totally unfounded.

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.

But as has been established with your kettle analogy, the venting is simply directed "out" of the venter. It is not directed *towards* the Church. So your analogy remains false.

On the other hand, thinking this over a bit more, and in an effort to give you the full benefit of the doubt, I suppose what you are saying could make a little bit of sense. But nonetheless, your scenario---based on the a priori tea kettle analogy---would require the outside person to make a proactive effort to seek out the venters. Thus, you have to *choose* to make it your business.

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-

Nevertheless, we are indeed dealing with the PRINCIPLE of ex-Mormons and venting, so I think the issue of membership, and choice, is extremely important.

[_Ray A]

The question I'd like to put here is, do all Mormons who make these discoveries feel anger? This is not the case. For example, Simon Southerton made his discovery in about a week. He was researching the subject of the flood and what other LDS thought, because he believed in evolution and also accepted a "local flood" scenario, but was criticised by some members for this. While he was searching he came across the DNA article about American native DNA being 99% Asian. He researched this for about a week, then said he went to bed one night a believer, and the next morning he work all of his belief was gone. He did not express any anger (from what I've read in his account), yet his whole LDS world had just crumbled. Then, some seven years later, because he had published Losing A Lost Tribe, and this came to the attention of the leaders, they excommunicated him for adultery! (Because he had temporarily lived with another woman during his inactivity.) Not apostasy. This upset him, yet after all this I still didn't see any expressions of anger.

Why are the responses so different? How many are like Simon? (I'm one) What I would like to gauge is just how wide this anger is among exmos, and whether the internet represents a very small number of very vocal exmos.

[_Runtu]

The question I'd like to put here is, do all Mormons who make these discoveries feel anger? This is not the case. For example, Simon Southerton made his discovery in about a week. He was researching the subject of the flood and what other LDS thought, because he believed in evolution and also accepted a "local flood" scenario, but was criticised by some members for this. While he was searching he came across the DNA article about American native DNA being 99% Asian. He researched this for about a week, then said he went to bed one night a believer, and the next morning he work all of his belief was gone. He did not express any anger (from what I've read in his account), yet his whole LDS world had just crumbled. Then, some seven years later, because he had published Losing A Lost Tribe, and this came to the attention of the leaders, they excommunicated him for adultery! (Because he had temporarily lived with another woman during his inactivity.) Not apostasy. This upset him, yet after all this I still didn't see any expressions of anger.

Why are the responses so different? How many are like Simon? (I'm one) What I would like to gauge is just how wide this anger is among exmos, and whether the internet represents a very small number of very vocal exmos.

I have dinner about once a month with an exmo friend who also says he never experienced any anger. We had nearly identical experiences in the church, but he didn't react the way I did. I don't know why. And his postmormon experience has been nothing short of horrific, as his bishop encouraged his wife to leave him because he didn't have a temple recommend, which she did. And still no anger from him.

Maybe it's a personal thing in the way we react to deep hurt. I don't know.