RfM--why it's a useless site. (Simon will love this!)

[_EAllusion]

Godwin's Law is just a humorous observation that as an argument moves forward someone inevitably will make a comparison to the Nazis. That's because "Nazi" is a collective, standin metaphor for the worst possible thing.

The corollary that whoever makes that comparison automatically loses comes from the fact that these Nazi analogies often are lazy, trite, or hyperbolic.

But, there are times when a Nazi comparison is totally valid. If someone says we should start keeping a national registry on religious minorities, it might be apt to say, "Uh, like the Nazis?" I'm not going to begrudge anyone for that. Bringing up Godwin's law should be reserved for when someone goes to a Nazi analogy quite badly or unnecessarily.

[_marg]

However, I am seriously reconsidering the value of venting.

I agree that's it's not healthy to get stuck in an anger mode, rehearsing and repeating in one's mind negative thoughts over and over for long periods of time.

But acknowledging the anger, and understanding why has value.

I don't think that because people post on RFM for long periods of time they are stuck in an anger mode. Their criticisms and arguments against the church may be rational arguments not fueled by anger but instead because they think it's the right thing to do to expose a church to the public for whatever criticism of it they have.

[_angsty]

By OP logic, we should also avoid therapy because all it does is drive us to anger and rage.

As I recall, the article more or less states outright that therapy sessions consisting of venting are a bad idea. Also, as I recall, I did state that I have my own frustrations with the church and to some extent can understand why other may have some deeper than me. However, I am seriously reconsidering the value of venting.

It is rare, and possibly unheard of, that threads and posts there consist entirely of venting, although there is certainly a venting element-- just like in therapy. For that reason, I don't think the "dangers of venting" concern is warranted-- like at all.

I also believe that RfM poses a danger to the individual participants. I believe the site makes it more difficult to integrate with the out-group--other Mormons by solidifying the boundary between in and out groups. RfM often paints Mormons as stupid or dishonest. This is probably a bad idea if one is trying to keep the peace in a home with a believing spouse or with believing loved ones. Now certainly the church itself also solidifies in and out groups when it speaks about the evils of apostasy and apostates. The point isn't to say one side or the other is worse. The point is to be aware.

"Danger"? That seems extreme. I've navigated relationships with a believing spouse and family members. It is very useful to get feedback from people who understand what that's like. It is refreshing and anxiety-reducing to feel like someone hears and understands your uncensored thoughts and won't divorce you over it. In my experience with RfM, usually people come there in a state of personal crisis. They get fellowship and perspective. They vent a little. They work through their problems, and they either move on or stay on to help other people do the same. Of course, my perspective is also informed by knowing a number of members there in real life, knowing their personalities, understanding their intentions, and also having some idea of what their lives are like beyond just the hassle of extricating themselves from Mormonism and rebuilding a life outside it. Maybe that's why I don't see this "danger" that you are so concerned about?

I don't recommend that anyone be a push-over always deferring to one's opponents. Rather I think it wise to try stepping back and seeing the consequences of one's actions. We're not as smart as we think we are nor as in control of our reactions as we hope. Fallible as our brains are, we are lucky to have the ability to step back and try to see the big picture. It's hard because our intuitions, emotions, and so on lure us into thinking we see things clearly when we do not.

Certainly, and no one at RfM would disagree. In fact, they'd probably give you the same advice after noticing that your impression of what goes on at that board doesn't jive with their experience.

[_Blixa]

I know its really my own problem, but postmormon.org has the worst colour scheme ever. Yeah, MDB, MDD, RfM, NOM....the whole lot are aesthetic abominations. But at least none of them remind me of this:

[_why me]

By OP logic, we should also avoid therapy because all it does is drive us to anger and rage.

I participate on RfM regularly and think it's a fantastic outlet that serves an important role for people who are transitioning out of Mormonism. I've found it to be a lively, friendly forum of mostly cool people. And, Susan, the primary moderator, is a gem.

My guess is that those who have a negative judgment of the forum might be missing the point of it or just haven't had the kind of experiences that would allow them to see the value of it. The posters over there have been excluded from weddings because they are not "worthy".

And yet those posters who have now been excluded from weddings because they are not worthy had no problem with the rule when they were worthy attending weddings in the temple. They knew the rules.

And what exactly does it mean to be transitioning out of Mormonism? Sounds like a cult term to me. Most people who leave the church, just leave the church. No problem. And of course if their sons or daughters are members, well, they know the rules. Why have sour grapes?

I am not a worthy member and so, I will not see my daughters married in the temple. But I know the rules and I have no reason to vent. I choose to live my life the way I do. Likewise for the people on rfm.

And lets be honest here. Daughters and sons can have a ring ceremony after the wedding in the park under a beautiful blue sky and warm sun. And it can be just as meaningful for the parent or relative.

And what is the fantastic outlet. To vent spleen? To post bitter posts and anger? I don't see that as fantastic at all.

[_EAllusion]

In the 1960's, it was discovered by psychologists that people with high self esteem - that is people who thought positively of their self-image and had high self-confidence and personal sense of worth - correlated nicely with all manner of traits we find desirable. This was true even taking into account people's socioeconomic circumstances. I'm sure most people are familiar with that, as these discoveries gave birth to an extensive trend in education to encourage high-self esteem in children.

However, that wasn't the whole story.

Take this famous paper:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/bbc00.pdf

There's also evidence that high self-esteem correlates with higher levels of narcissism, aggression, and violence. The theory is that people with high self-esteem are more likely feel entitled, to see themselves above norms, and to lash out when their egotism is threatened. Prisons contain above average self-esteem, and the "worst" offenders tend to be perform even higher on self-esteem measures.

So is self-esteem a good thing? Well, the answer to that is complex as it correlates with a variety of things, some we regard as good and some bad. And the direction of causation is tricky.

Getting back to the original post, there has been a back and forth debate in psychology about whether venting anger is a psychological healthy thing to do. When I went to school, the viewpoint expressed in the OP had ascended. What I want to suggest is when reading studies like this is to remember that it is only looking at one domain of cognition. We now know it likely is the case that venting anger makes you more prone to aggressive thinking and violence. But that's not the whole story. It could have many other impacts as well, and that should breed in you some caution about a global judgment on whether it is advised.

[_angsty]

[
And yet those posters who have now been excluded from weddings because they are not worthy had no problem with the rule when they were worthy attending weddings in the temple. They knew the rules.

You have illustrated my point perfectly.

And what exactly does it mean to be transitioning out of Mormonism? Sounds like a cult term to me. Most people who leave the church, just leave the church. No problem. And of course if their sons or daughters are members, well, they know the rules. Why have sour grapes?

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

And lets be honest here. Daughters and sons can have a ring ceremony after the wedding in the park under a beautiful blue sky and warm sun. And it can be just as meaningful for the parent or relative.

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

And what is the fantastic outlet. To vent spleen? To post bitter posts and anger? I don't see that as fantastic at all.

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

Thank you Why Me. I couldn't have asked for a better reaction to support the gist of my post.

[_stemelbow]

Let us not forget, there is plenty of anger and venting happening here. There is also some venting and anger occuring at MDD and many other internet joints. I'm not trying to vindicate RfM, but if its negative there, you can't say its not negative here too. matter of degree? maybe. But if its unhealthy to vent, as has been discussed, then why would anyone overlook it here but be concerned about it over there?

[_why me]

[
And yet those posters who have now been excluded from weddings because they are not worthy had no problem with the rule when they were worthy attending weddings in the temple. They knew the rules.

You have illustrated my point perfectly.

And what exactly does it mean to be transitioning out of Mormonism? Sounds like a cult term to me. Most people who leave the church, just leave the church. No problem. And of course if their sons or daughters are members, well, they know the rules. Why have sour grapes?

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

And lets be honest here. Daughters and sons can have a ring ceremony after the wedding in the park under a beautiful blue sky and warm sun. And it can be just as meaningful for the parent or relative.

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

And what is the fantastic outlet. To vent spleen? To post bitter posts and anger? I don't see that as fantastic at all.

Again, illustrating my point perfectly.

Thank you Why Me. I couldn't have asked for a better reaction to support the gist of my post.

And yet I am an inactive member of the LDS church. But I also have chosen the life I chose to live. Should I blame the LDS church? Should I vent anger and bitterness if I can't go into the temple? Should I have bitterness inside me? I don't think so.

I made my own choices. As you have done. Here is the point: it would not matter if you and your wife were devout catholics and you chose to leave the catholic church. Your wife would be devastated and your marriage would be in trouble. However, in the catholic faith, divorce is frowned upon and so, maybe your wife would stay married but unhappily. That is the way it is when one breaks the deal. There is disappointment. It is not only a Mormon thing.

[_why me]

But if its unhealthy to vent, as has been discussed, then why would anyone overlook it here but be concerned about it over there?

It is unhealthy to hate not to vent. And hatred is what one can see on exmormon sites. And bitterness that eats away at the soul. But venting in a healthy way is okay as long as one knows why they are venting. For example: discovering the church is not true. Well, it hasn't been proven untrue and so, what jump the gun by venting one's own fallacy?