DiscussMormonism.com

Some of Ray A.'s astute comments on another thread motivated me to devote a thread specifically to the question whether or not venting, particularly unstructured "venting" like what occurs at RFM, is an effective means of recovery/healing.

Could someone who thinks you can heal/recover from venting, please explain the alleged therapeutic dynamic?

I am interested to see if this same alleged therapeutic dynamic works with anti-Semites when they "vent" against Jews.

Thanks, -Wade

wenglund wrote:Some of Ray A.'s astute comments on another thread motivated me to devote a thread specifically to the question whether or not venting, particularly unstructured "venting" like what occurs at RFM, is an effective means of recovery/healing.

Could someone who thinks you can heal/recover from venting, please explain the alleged therapeutic dynamic?

I am interested to see if this same alleged therapeutic dynamic works with anti-Semites when they "vent" against Jews.

Thanks, -Wade

I'll be perfectly honest with you Wade. I'd expect no less from you.

I'm going to refuse to participate with you. I will admit that your previous antics on the old board have jaded me. Your constant harping about what must be wrong with people you disagree with is tiresome.

This incessant slant of yours, this agenda that you are trying to subtley promote is making my hairs turn.

I think you are an intelligent man, Wade. Sometime a little oblivious, but definetely smart.

That being the case, perhaps you would have more success in your endeavors if you were to conduct your experiments without bias.

Best of luck to you.

wenglund wrote:Could someone who thinks you can heal/recover from venting, please explain the alleged therapeutic dynamic? I am interested to see if this same alleged therapeutic dynamic works with anti-Semites when they "vent" against Jews.
Thanks, -Wade

Okay, I'll take the bait. First, to characterize someone who is healing/recovering as an anti just because they are venting, is inaccurate. I know black/white thinking dominates church discussions, but it really isn't fair to compare someone venting on RfM to an anti-Semite, when they may or may not be an anti-mormon. Hell, I've even vented on RfM, the Foyer, FLAK, quite a number of places actually, but I am hardly an anti-mormon. I've been a member my entire life, was baptized in the 60s, served a mission, got married in the temple, and serve as a primary teacher in my ward. So, by definition, one who vents isn't automatically an "anti" by objective standards. By subjective, judgmental standards maybe, but not by objective standards. I am not hostile to the church, and don't have any agenda to bring it down. I have just been hurt by learning many things about its history that have been hidden from my view. The venting has definitely been therapeutic for me.

For me, the therapeutic dynamic was that there was an immense amount of anger and frustration I felt inside about being duped. In my subjective opinion I have been duped to a high degree by the Mormon church. We could argue all day long about whether, based on an objective standard I had been duped or not. But for the sake of this discussion, I subjectively felt in my own heart that I had been betrayed to a high degree, which was very painful to me. This feeling occured to me during 2005, with literally nobody to talk to about it. The anger and frustration and my realization was all bottled up inside. Again, we could argue the merits of my conclusions and stray from the point. My point is that it caused me a huge amount of stress, because the betrayal I felt was apocalyptic. I was able to take my mind off of it for a few months while I coached youth football, and didn't even think about church doctrine. During that time period I went to church basically numb, and the whole thing seems like a blur.

After football season, early this year I discovered a number of message boards relating to the church. I found that there were other members like me, who had been disillusioned with the church for various reasons, and had become disaffected. Many, like me on the new order Mormons board continued to attend church and do the best they could, but were struggling with many issues. As I continued to participate in these boards I discovered that I wasn't allowed to vent any anger or frustration on the new order Mormon board, but was referred to The Foyer as an appropriate place to vent my frustrations. As my frustration level ebbed and flowed over the months, and I spewed a lot of venom, the anger level and frustration began to taper off. I felt like I was getting important things off of my chest, that needed validation from someone, anyone. In this sense, I think the venting was good for me, especially on the DAMU boards, because it allowed me to spew out the anger, much like the poison from a snakebite, and release it. Obviously, I am not giving you a clinical account of how venting can help someone heal/recover from disaffection, I'm just giving you an idea how it helped me, personally. I was able to spew things I could never say at church, in my home, or at work, without fear of repercussions. I have said a lot of mean things about the church, its doctrine, and its leaders, I admit, but I said it to an audience of people who could understand me. Again, whether or not I should feel deceived or duped is my own subjective determination. I'm just saying that I did feel that way to a high degree, and venting the original angst and pain was helpful.

Now that its been almost a year since I started participating on DAMU boards like NOM, FLAK and RfM, I am able to engage in much more pleasant and positive conversation about the church. RfM has a niche for people who need it. Many people don't need it. Other people may find that its a good place to go for a while. But I can honestly say that its been a lot easier for me to talk with truly faithful members about the church lately. Even julieann has been pleasant to me, and that's quite an accomplishment for a heretical member such as myself.

wenglund wrote:Could someone who thinks you can heal/recover from venting, please explain the alleged therapeutic dynamic?

Let me answer a question with a question: In a marriage, if there's a problem, is it better to get it out into the open, or is it better to bottle it up and let it fester?

No, catharsis exhibited as a physical expression of vented anger is psychologically proven to be counter-productive, because it only results in an increase in anger. However, the question of “healing/recovery” is more complicated, and seems to be untestable. After all, only the victim can determine if he or she is really healed.

Also, does merely criticizing one’s former faith count as “anger”? Mormons like to color ex-Mormons in the worst possible light. They are often described as liars, deceivers, angry, bigoted, et cetera. So virtually anything said critically is understood by Mormons as an expression of “anger.”

Further, psychological catharsis is often used in terms of “closure,” which actually is beneficial. In psychology, “closure may refer to the state of experiencing an emotional conclusion to a difficult life event, such as the breakdown of a close interpersonal relationship or the death of loved one.” I don’t see why this couldn’t also be applied in the context of someone who has had a close relationship with a religious lifestyle, and needs to let go of the emotional baggage.

I believe it has been stated that the turn-over rate at RFM is pretty high. Meaning, the people there usually pop on, vent their frustrations, and then move on with their lives never to be heard from again. If this is true, then it seems that RFM serves as a means for closure, and is probably beneficial to those who moved on.

So while physical anger is never served through venting physically, I believe closure can help cure emotional frustrations. To use an analogy, Robert DeNiro was asked to shoot his pillow in the movie Analyze This. While he felt better, it only made him want to keep shooting. By contrast, in the movie Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon unleashed years and years of built up emotion via crying, at the end of the film, and this sense of closure allowed him to move on with his life in a productive way.

I think most ex-Mormons who speak out against their former Church, fall into the latter category, whereas Mormons would prefer to categorize them as the “angry” mob, akin to the one that ransacked Carthage jail. Ultimately, it isn’t for us to decide whether RFM actually helps people. That is for them to decide.

desert_vulture wrote:Now that its been almost a year since I started participating on DAMU boards like NOM, FLAK and RfM, I am able to engage in much more pleasant and positive conversation about the church. RfM has a niche for people who need it. Many people don't need it. Other people may find that its a good place to go for a while. But I can honestly say that its been a lot easier for me to talk with truly faithful members about the church lately. Even julieann has been pleasant to me, and that's quite an accomplishment for a heretical member such as myself.

DV,

What is your current overall view of RFM? I know you said it benefitted you, apparently for a short while, and it's a niche for some, but do you believe it is achieving its stated purpose of "recovery". Is that what helped you to recover (if you have, and it seems so, or are well on the way), and if not, what do you think helped the most to bring on a much calmer approach, while of course still making your points of disagreement with the church.

Dr. Shades wrote:

wenglund wrote:Could someone who thinks you can heal/recover from venting, please explain the alleged therapeutic dynamic?

Let me answer a question with a question: In a marriage, if there's a problem, is it better to get it out into the open, or is it better to bottle it up and let it fester?

Depends how you get it out in the open. Do you get it out in the open by screaming and "venting" about your spouse, or do you bring things up in a manner in which they can be discussed outside of their emotional context, to intice greater change?

Now, that's really a bad analogy.

In response to Wade's original post -- Many therapists believe that expressing the anger in an outward fashion is the only way to relieve an inner dissonance that an shatter a persons will and ability to continue their life in a viable manner. Gestalt therapies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_Therapy) have been created where people in therapy imagine the person or concept that angers them in an empty chair, and they go beat it up. It has been said to have a high success rate.

Now, the reality of the success rate is hard to determine. Just how do you determine if you've "healed" from a wound that has no physical substance?

Personally, I think Venting leads to more venting. Energy tends to be momentous. If you head in one direction, you'll keep heading in that direction faster, harder, and stronger, until you crash into something that immediately changes you. Most people tend to do that. And when they change their direction, all they think about is the direction they WERE heading -- its hard to actually change.

So what is venting in all reality? It's a bunch of Mormons who feel they've been lied to, and miss their old life. They don't want to change, they feel forced in to it. Venting is really the subconsious desire to return to the past. A real change would involve leaving any and all evidence of the past behind.

Now, what about the flip side? What about all the apologetics, and their arguments? They vehemenently attack anti-mormons, or even neutral arguments. They feel their energy and path as threatened. In order to avoid changing, they struggle desperately to justify their actions. Their attacks and arguments are made for the same reason that anti-mormon venting is made -- to express discomfort at a change.

If change were accepted and embraced, then neither party would argue -- they would both move on with their lives down their respective paths, and enjoy it fully.

Dr. Shades wrote:
Let me answer a question with a question: In a marriage, if there's a problem, is it better to get it out into the open, or is it better to bottle it up and let it fester?

It depends on how one goes about it. I was just watching an interview with a lady with half her face blown away from a gun blast by an angry ex-boyfriend. That's obviously an extreme. In a marriage situation it's obviously better to talk things out, and be open about problems. But will anger in such a situation solve anything? It just becomes oneupmanship. So it's always better to talk things out rather than bottling up. But how you talk things out is also very important in a relationship. I think I know a thing or two about this, having been married for 22 years and having five children. I could say a lot about this but it would involve disclosing private matters.

I wonder, if we gave Wade and Pahoran along with Scratch and Shades a foam bat each and let them go at it, if the end results would be positive?

moksha wrote:I wonder, if we gave Wade and Pahoran along with Scratch and Shades a foam bat each and let them go at it, if the end results would be positive?

As one who meets weekly with others to beat each other with foam-padded approximations of medieval weaponry, I must say. . . Well, duh!

The physical exertions and thrill of besting one another not by wit or word by by feats of arms is comparable to none.

:P