Standard narratives and anger

[_Sam Harris]

To be honest, the only thing that ever made me feel angry was feeling like I had no choice, that I had to stay. Because for a while I believed that being LDS was the only way to heaven...but I knew I couldn't be the model Mormon. Trying to fit those two situations into my mind made me angry. These days I'm just apathetic. I don't care who's LDS or not, I just drop in for something to do.

And I agree with beastie. Being angry doesn't mean there's something wrong with you. Now on the other hand, walking around with a plastic smile and ready-made testimony, trying to hide what's underneath, that's a bit flicted.

[_desert_vulture]

I was thinking today how my favorite FAIR apologist says that we exmos tend to create exit stories that conform to a standard narrative format: we were trapped, brainwashed, etc., and we escaped.

But I was also thinking about how different my experience was from Polygamy Porter's. I had a pretty good family life, believed in the church wholeheartedly. I was the kid all the other kids' parents told them they should be more like. I never got in any trouble, never drank, never smoked, never did anything I shouldn't have with a girl. I believed in the church and did what I was supposed to. I had a strong testimony, served a mission that I still don't regret. Married in the temple and had a lot of kids. And I've served in a lot of callings in the church; my wife says I've presided over everything I could have presided over in the church except for being bishop.

Nice thread Runtu. I feel about like you. I was the example, so to speak, from my youth all the way through my mission. I was extremely angry and devastated at learning that the church is not what it claims to be.

My anger phase lasted for months. It seemed to me it would never end. But it did. Only a couple months ago. So it seems to have lasted almost a year. I don't know why I felt so angry, and outraged, yet others do not. It may be a reflection on my boyhood family, where anger and frustration were commonplace.

Now that I am past the anger, and have reached a level of stability, I feel for those who are stumbling through this process. I feel for those who will not look into the history of their own church. I really feel bad for those who invest so much time, effort, and money into the church, and then leave, disillusioned because they cannot take it anymore.

Maybe people's anger and frustration are in direct proportion to the amount of time, effort, energy, and life decisions that were directly influenced by Mormonism. It seems like those (such as myself) who took it very seriously, have farther to fall than those who never really bought into it. Casual Mormons probably have less to lose than those who have dedicated every waking moment of their lives to Mormonism. I don't really know why there is a difference, but it seems that some people view it as more of a betrayal than others, as in a marriage. And just as a marital betrayal, some want to try to save the marriage, while others want to split up and move on. Different strokes for different folks.

[_Runtu]

Actually, not that it may matter much, but the hypothetical was designed to show that each of you had a CHOICE to view the Church in a hyper-critical, overly harsh, and unempathetic way as Mr. B had; or, to view it in more reasonable, respectful, and charitable terms like Mr. D; or variations inbetween; and depending upon the choice, the consequences were likely to be quite different. Evidently, you CHOSE to view the Church like Mr. B, and your extreme emotional reaction and personal experience was, and to some degree still is, in keeping with that CHOICE.

Essentially, my intent was to take a general principle of effective socialization and apply it to a specific issue that some have with the Church. One has a greater potential for creating and building relationships the more reasonable and respectful and charitable one is in the way one views and interacts with others. Conversely, the more critical, harsh, and unempathetic one's view of and interactions with others, the greater the potential for loneliness, hurt, anger, grief, and so forth.

For whatever reasons, I was not successful in conveying what I had designed and intended the hypothetical to do. I have accepted that, and I have now CHOSEN to move on to more amenible and productive efforts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

[_wenglund]

Actually, not that it may matter much, but the hypothetical was designed to show that each of you had a CHOICE to view the Church in a hyper-critical, overly harsh, and unempathetic way as Mr. B had; or, to view it in more reasonable, respectful, and charitable terms like Mr. D; or variations inbetween; and depending upon the choice, the consequences were likely to be quite different. Evidently, you CHOSE to view the Church like Mr. B, and your extreme emotional reaction and personal experience was, and to some degree still is, in keeping with that CHOICE.

Essentially, my intent was to take a general principle of effective socialization and apply it to a specific issue that some have with the Church. One has a greater potential for creating and building relationships the more reasonable and respectful and charitable one is in the way one views and interacts with others. Conversely, the more critical, harsh, and unempathetic one's view of and interactions with others, the greater the potential for loneliness, hurt, anger, grief, and so forth.

For whatever reasons, I was not successful in conveying what I had designed and intended the hypothetical to do. I have accepted that, and I have now CHOSEN to move on to more amenible and productive efforts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Wade, I mentioned that because I believe that's part of why I wasn't able to collaborate with you. I did not say that it was an accurate reading of your intent. It was instead a barrier to communication. I'm not holding onto something that I recognize was probably colored by my own experience. I wonder why you read my admission of my own mischaracterization of your intent as an implicit criticism of you.

[Gadianton]

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I mentioned that because I believe that's part of why I wasn't able to collaborate with you. I did not say that it was an accurate reading of your intent. It was instead a barrier to communication. I'm not holding onto something that I recognize was probably colored by my own experience. I wonder why you read my admission of my own mischaracterization of your intent as an implicit criticism of you.

I wasn't aware that I had. In fact, I am quite confident that I hadn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I mentioned that because I believe that's part of why I wasn't able to collaborate with you. I did not say that it was an accurate reading of your intent. It was instead a barrier to communication. I'm not holding onto something that I recognize was probably colored by my own experience. I wonder why you read my admission of my own mischaracterization of your intent as an implicit criticism of you.

I wasn't aware that I had. In fact, I am quite confident that I hadn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

You said that I was holding onto an idea you had explicitly corrected. I'm just wondering how admitting that my perception was colored by my own experience constitutes holding onto something, for whatever reasons.

The conversation seems to have gone this way:

John: I may have misread you because of my background.
Wade: Well, you clearly have your reasons for stubbornly hanging onto something I've already corrected.
John: I'm saying that I've let go of that, and I'm sorry I misread your intention.
Wade: Now you're misreading me again.
John: We're getting nowhere.

[_harmony]

John: We're getting nowhere.

Welcome to Wade's World, also known as nowhere.

[_wenglund]

The conversation seems to have gone this way:

John: I may have misread you because of my background.
Wade: Well, you clearly have your reasons for stubbornly hanging onto something I've already corrected.
John: I'm saying that I've let go of that, and I'm sorry I misread your intention.
Wade: Now you're misreading me again.
John: We're getting nowhere.

I don't recognize my part in that particular conversation, but here are the specific statements I was responding to:

John: I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Wade: Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

John: I wonder why you read my admission of my own mischaracterization of your intent as an implicit criticism of you.

Wade: I wasn't aware that I had. In fact, I am quite confident that I hadn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I find it interesting that you find my reaction to the church extreme. I've felt that, given the circumstances, my reaction was pretty mild. And reading PP's account, I'd say my reaction was rather subdued indeed. Maybe I misread your intent, but you seemed to be suggesting that any negative emotion, whether anger or grief, was the result of cognitive distortion and not a reflection of reality. I accept that I chose to be angry for a time, but I still think it was a beneficial experience. I was thinking over the weekend that my home growing up was a place where emotions were not expressed, especially negative emotions. It was nice to finally express my feelings and get on with things. Maybe that's another piece of the puzzle, Wade. I read your condemnation of anger and grief as simply an extension of that same suppressing attitude I grew up with.

Speaking of cognitive distortions, I explicitly corrected that false perception (about suppressing emotions) no less than three times on the thread in questions. Seems you need to hold onto it dearly for reasons of your own. I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Bull. Your entire approach involves some kind of arcane "CHOOSING" to either express or suppress emotion, Wade. Or are you actually positing that angry emotions are some kind of la-la land fantasy, and that it's actually possible for a person to determine how they feel about and react to things?