slamjet Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 I'm participating in the Self Reliance course "Emotional Resiliency" pilot program so my Bishop is reporting on what does and does not work. I've been pretty strong with some of my input (gee, shocking), but yesterday I had a heated exchange, at least heated on my end, with a passage in the "Building Healthy Relationships" chapter, "Communicating With "I" Messages" section and I thought I'd throw it out here to see if anyone else sees it the way I do: Quote When you take time to communicate your feelings to someone, you might assume it is the other person's responsibility to follow through on fulfilling your desires. But, even when you communicate your feelings to others, your feelings and desires are still your responsibility. When your “I” message doesn't produce the desired result, you can lovingly act to create the outcome you want instead of becoming resentful. I'll give my interpretation later, I'm curious about your opinion. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 (edited) Context is everything! Generically, sure I own my feelings and can usually choose to be offended, upset or not. However, "I feel scared when you raise your voice and take a swing at me," deserves a little more support than, "... create the outcome you want instead of becoming resentful." Having said all that, I imagine that this print resource is meant to be generic, and that the group facilitator would be relied on to interpret context and adjust counsel. Edited December 8, 2020 by prisonchaplain Just_A_Guy, Carborendum, Traveler and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 Speaking with a VERY wide brush, I do agree with the sentiment being expressed, even though I don't think it's worded the best. Communication is the first step towards change, whether that's changing with another party or just within yourself. It doesn't automatically mean that somebody else will or has to change things. You do still have an obligation to your own behavior, which at points may involve you taking action to change a situation. Grudge-holding / resentment are generally poisonous emotions. Anger or need to move though -- those emotions do have a practical application. Just also need to let them go at points too. The practical application of this varies a lot on what's going on in each situation. Just_A_Guy, Traveler and Carborendum 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 The core of the message seems to be “You are responsible for your feelings and desires.” Which I agree with 100%. When I’m mad, it is my fault. When I desire to eat too much ice cream... also my fault. Traveler, Just_A_Guy and Carborendum 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 (edited) @slamjet I do not believe you can change anything or anyone but yourself. I also believe if you want a different outcome - you must change something. Your location is a bit confusing to me but since you made it what it is - I also believe one definition of insanity or stupidity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I do not remember where the quote came from (maybe Henry Ford) ---- If you spill your emotions - do not expect someone else to clean them up. I also am a great believer in logic. I believe emotions are a poor excuse for anything. Whenever someone says they have a feeling or think they must follow their heart - I believe a disaster is enviable. Emotions are wonderful things but they should be governed and controlled - with logic. The Traveler Edited December 8, 2020 by Traveler Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 13 hours ago, slamjet said: I'm participating in the Self Reliance course "Emotional Resiliency" pilot program so my Bishop is reporting on what does and does not work. I've been pretty strong with some of my input (gee, shocking), but yesterday I had a heated exchange, at least heated on my end, with a passage in the "Building Healthy Relationships" chapter, "Communicating With "I" Messages" section and I thought I'd throw it out here to see if anyone else sees it the way I do: I'll give my interpretation later, I'm curious about your opinion. What was the nature of the objection? I'd like to hear both sides of the argument before passing judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted December 8, 2020 Report Share Posted December 8, 2020 14 hours ago, slamjet said: When you take time to communicate your feelings to someone, you might assume it is the other person's responsibility to follow through on fulfilling your desires. But, even when you communicate your feelings to others, your feelings and desires are still your responsibility. When your “I” message doesn't produce the desired result, you can lovingly act to create the outcome you want instead of becoming resentful. This is a quite common notion in marriage and family therapy circles and literature. Probably because MFT folks' schedules are packed with endless examples of people who never learned to own (or even identify) their emotions. Endless, endless, nevereding flow of individuals who need to be trained to say "I'm lonely", instead of "s/he is a jerk who doesn't love me". So they learn to use "I" statements, but the other person still doesn't fix the problem, so their spouse/so is still a jerk, and they end up getting resentful. The quote advances the notion that just because I feel lonely, doesn't mean my SO will pick up on it, or understand, or know what to do, or even want to do anything about it at that moment. So, when you express an emotion and a need, and don't get what you want, you have a choice. You can get resentful, or you can do something else. There are a lot of 'something else's - doing something out of love is a good way to avoid some of the negative ones. Traveler, MrShorty and Jane_Doe 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted December 9, 2020 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2020 So here's my take: The scenario that was brought up in our discussion was about a spouse who agreed to being home by 6pm but was late by many hours, many times. Everyone reacted with the general sentiment here, that is, from the viewpoint of a wife, if her husband is late, then it is the wife's choice to feel resentful, angry, accepting, or happy. In short, be emotional resilient enough to not let her husband dictate how she feels. I understand and agree with that, with some caveats. I opened my big mouth, which always gets me into trouble, and asked: "Isn't it appropriate for the wife to know where her husband is? If she communicates that, and he refuses to answer, then what? Is it her job to keep herself happy and lovingly act regardless of whether he's working late or having an affair? And what if the husband is abusive? Is it her responsibility to lovingly act to try to create an outcome of not being smacked around? Is she supposed to stick around because she would not be fulfilling her responsibility to communicate to her abusive husband and keep herself happy? And is she supposed to accept her husband's behavior in either scenario because it is irresponsible for her to get resentful?" And then it was a another round of loudness when many ganged up on me to let me know that I was taking the paragraph too far. But my answer to them was that in LDS culture, temple marriages are sacrosanct. So for a church publication to have this is re-enforcing the notion that one must stick with a temple marriage, regardless, period. One of the participants suggested that a disclaimer is needed to deal with these issue, which I wholeheartedly agree with. So my Bishop will most likely include the suggestion in his report. I'm nothing but entertaining in these classes, but it would seem that the general consensus is that I have miss-interpreted the passage and will probably need to apologize for my angry outburst. However, I probably won't because I'm me and me is stubborn. But I do appreciate that there are other views and I thank you for your input. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong. I'm a big boy, I can handle it. JohnsonJones and NeuroTypical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted December 9, 2020 Report Share Posted December 9, 2020 31 minutes ago, slamjet said: So here's my take: The scenario that was brought up in our discussion was about a spouse who agreed to being home by 6pm but was late by many hours, many times. Everyone reacted with the general sentiment here, that is, from the viewpoint of a wife, if her husband is late, then it is the wife's choice to feel resentful, angry, accepting, or happy. In short, be emotional resilient enough to not let her husband dictate how she feels. I understand and agree with that, with some caveats. I opened my big mouth, which always gets me into trouble, and asked: "Isn't it appropriate for the wife to know where her husband is? If she communicates that, and he refuses to answer, then what? Is it her job to keep herself happy and lovingly act regardless of whether he's working late or having an affair? And what if the husband is abusive? Is it her responsibility to lovingly act to try to create an outcome of not being smacked around? Is she supposed to stick around because she would not be fulfilling her responsibility to communicate to her abusive husband and keep herself happy? And is she supposed to accept her husband's behavior in either scenario because it is irresponsible for her to get resentful?" And then it was a another round of loudness when many ganged up on me to let me know that I was taking the paragraph too far. But my answer to them was that in LDS culture, temple marriages are sacrosanct. So for a church publication to have this is re-enforcing the notion that one must stick with a temple marriage, regardless, period. One of the participants suggested that a disclaimer is needed to deal with these issue, which I wholeheartedly agree with. So my Bishop will most likely include the suggestion in his report. I'm nothing but entertaining in these classes, but it would seem that the general consensus is that I have miss-interpreted the passage and will probably need to apologize for my angry outburst. However, I probably won't because I'm me and me is stubborn. But I do appreciate that there are other views and I thank you for your input. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong. I'm a big boy, I can handle it. I think the wife has the right to be mad. I think the important point that seems to be missed is that it is not the husbands fault the wife is angry and frustrated. It is the wife’s own doing... however, being mad that your husband is consistently unaccounted for and has no explanation is not a bad thing. It is completely justifiable. I think the important part is taking ownership of your emotions. Again, being frustrated with an absent spouse is not a problem, but don’t blame emotions on someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted December 10, 2020 Report Share Posted December 10, 2020 1 hour ago, slamjet said: I opened my big mouth, which always gets me into trouble, and asked: "Isn't it appropriate for the wife to know where her husband is? If she communicates that, and he refuses to answer, then what? Is it her job to keep herself happy and lovingly act regardless of whether he's working late or having an affair? And what if the husband is abusive? Is it her responsibility to lovingly act to try to create an outcome of not being smacked around? Is she supposed to stick around because she would not be fulfilling her responsibility to communicate to her abusive husband and keep herself happy? And is she supposed to accept her husband's behavior in either scenario because it is irresponsible for her to get resentful?" We are indeed in charge of our own feelings, even when we are angry and have a good reason to be. Our feelings come from our own thinking and our own belief system, we enter relationships with expectations and this is reason why we find ourselves sometimes angry, hurt or disappointed because we are constantly checking if the actions of others match the expectations we have built in our minds. Many times, the hurt and disappointment comes from within. Now, it doesn't mean the wife has to accept the status quo, comfort herself, put a brave face or pretend that everything is great because "she is responsible for her feelings". No, it means that because she is responsible for her own feelings, she is also responsible for the actions she can actively take to remedy the situation for her own sake. If she is being abused, LEAVE and seek help right away because she deserves to be treated with love, dignity and respect. if she is suspecting her husband is being unfaithful then talk with with him to find what is really happening. If he refuses to communicate at all costs, then she needs to evaluate how she will proceed. At the end of it all, she can CHOOSE what path lies ahead of her whatever may be the circumstances. In healthy, honest relationships a wife wouldn't automatically think her husband is being unfaithful because he's coming home late unless there are serious trust issues and if that's the case, there are deeper concerns in that kind of relationship that needs to be addressed. In cognitive therapy, they will not entertain or encourage someone to accept the husband's behavior in either scenario. They will uplift and encourage the individual, making abundantly clear that WE ARE responsible for the way we feel and NO ONE can MAKE US feel in any particular way. Because it is in feeling empowered, that someone can change the way they feel and when they do that, they can act responsibly upon those feelings. If you think about, it is not repressive at all but very much liberating. Jane_Doe and Carborendum 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted December 10, 2020 Report Share Posted December 10, 2020 Heh - I'd be fine being in a class with you, slamjet. We could be co-boat-rockers. 2 hours ago, slamjet said: I opened my big mouth, which always gets me into trouble, and asked: "Isn't it appropriate for the wife to know where her husband is? Yes. It's appropriate. Every marriage will have umpteen oodles of things that would be appropriate, and yet are not happening. This is a discussion about how to handle things when an appropriate thing is not happening. Quote If she communicates that, and he refuses to answer, then what? The advice being given, is an attempt to answer that exact question. Wife: Hey hubby - you've said you'd be home by 6:00, and yet you keep being very late, very often. I have decided it is appropriate to respond to this by: - Murdering him in his sleep - Moving out and filing for divorce - Being quietly resentful, growing more and more resentful until it poisons my soul and all my actions, ruins my marriage, my relationship with my children, and eventually my life. - Being a doormat, blaming myself somehow, trying harder to please him in hopes that he'll finally reciprocate. - Shrugging it off as "it's just who he is", and keeping in mind that I married someone who simply can't be trusted in some ways. - Vent her feelings and gripe about her husband to her boyfriend. - Saying something like "when you tell me you'll be home at 6, and keep missing that time, I feel resentful. I need to know why it keeps happening, and I need to be able to trust and rely on you, we need a valid agreement." Now maybe it's just me, but it seems like the possible answers to your "then what" question include an awful lot of bad reactions, and maybe a few good ones. Seems worthwhile for her to evaluate her options, and pick accordingly. And I didn't just make up that list - I have experience with, or have heard stories about, each and every one of those answers. Quote Is it her job to keep herself happy and lovingly act regardless of whether he's working late or having an affair? Well, if he's working late for good reasons, should that not be factored into account? If he's having an affair, should that not be factored into account? Sounds like you're hearing "it doesn't matter why he's breaking his agreement over and over, her reaction should be the same no matter what". I don't think that's good, do you? Quote And what if the husband is abusive? Is it her responsibility to lovingly act to try to create an outcome of not being smacked around? Is she supposed to stick around because she would not be fulfilling her responsibility to communicate to her abusive husband and keep herself happy? Well, we're good to run that exercise if you want to stop running this one, and present another hypothetical. What if she's abusive, and he's basically hiding from her for his own well-being? What if one of them is a space alien? We can spend all our time coming up with 'what if's' all day, if you like. I see you are adding a possible response to the above list. Wife should: - Assume the reason her husband is home late, is because he's having an affair, and she should assume if she makes an issue of it, he'll beat her black and blue. I'll leave it up to you to determine if this sounds like a good reaction or not. Quote ...in LDS culture, temple marriages are sacrosanct. So for a church publication to have this is re-enforcing the notion that one must stick with a temple marriage, regardless, period. One of the participants suggested that a disclaimer is needed to deal with these issue, which I wholeheartedly agree with. So my Bishop will most likely include the suggestion in his report. Fair feedback, and reasonable suggestion. From what I can tell, in 1st world civilization in general, 'one must stick with marriage, regardless, period', has been the going notion for much of history. Not just LDS. I was born into a world full of people that did not accept the notion that a husband could rape a wife. That began changing in the '70's and '80's, was mostly changed by the '90's. These days, I notice every general conference talk on the sanctity of marriage includes such disclaimers. Good discussion! Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted December 10, 2020 Report Share Posted December 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Suzie said: We are indeed in charge of our own feelings, even when we are angry and have a good reason to be. Our feelings come from our own thinking and our own belief system, we enter relationships with expectations and this is reason why we find ourselves sometimes angry, hurt or disappointed because we are constantly checking if the actions of others match the expectations we have built in our minds. Many times, the hurt and disappointment comes from within. Now, it doesn't mean the wife has to accept the status quo, comfort herself, put a brave face or pretend that everything is great because "she is responsible for her feelings". No, it means that because she is responsible for her own feelings, she is also responsible for the actions she can actively take to remedy the situation for her own sake. If she is being abused, LEAVE and seek help right away because she deserves to be treated with love, dignity and respect. if she is suspecting her husband is being unfaithful then talk with with him to find what is really happening. If he refuses to communicate at all costs, then she needs to evaluate how she will proceed. At the end of it all, she can CHOOSE what path lies ahead of her whatever may be the circumstances. In healthy, honest relationships a wife wouldn't automatically think her husband is being unfaithful because he's coming home late unless there are serious trust issues and if that's the case, there are deeper concerns in that kind of relationship that needs to be addressed. In cognitive therapy, they will not entertain or encourage someone to accept the husband's behavior in either scenario. They will uplift and encourage the individual, making abundantly clear that WE ARE responsible for the way we feel and NO ONE can MAKE US feel in any particular way. Because it is in feeling empowered, that someone can change the way they feel and when they do that, they can act responsibly upon those feelings. If you think about, it is not repressive at all but very much liberating. @Suzie beat me to this. I have had very good friends that are in abusive relationships. Both individuals are still responsible for their own feelings. It's not ok for one to say "it's your fault that I berate you because you're being stupid"-- no that's a horrible foundation. Likewise the abused person alone can reach out to change their situation- if you feel hurt because they're being abusive, you don't sit around saying "well, maybe he'll get better one day" - that only leads to further victimization. It takes a GREAT strength and empowerment to take the reins of responsibility and leave (or another action you can do and control). I've watched my friends be abused... but until "Sally" wants to take the reins herself and change the situation, there's nothing I or anyone else can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted December 10, 2020 Report Share Posted December 10, 2020 22 hours ago, slamjet said: The scenario that was brought up in our discussion was about a spouse who agreed to being home by 6pm but was late by many hours, many times. Everyone reacted with the general sentiment here, that is, from the viewpoint of a wife, if her husband is late, then it is the wife's choice to feel resentful, angry, accepting, or happy. In short, be emotional resilient enough to not let her husband dictate how she feels. I understand and agree with that, with some caveats. There are always caveats. Do you honestly think there is any meaningful statement ever made that we can't find some exception for? Possibly enough to count on one hand. The central point is that we can control our responses to our situations. That was a lesson that Viktor Frankl taught us during his time imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. Even in that horrific circumstance, he found that HE was responsible for HIS OWN responses. HE was responsible for HIS feelings. Eventually he found that he had more freedom than some of his captors. The reason why people didn't appreciate your comments was not that they necessarily disagree with them. It is that you took the time to focus on what you perceived as an exception to nullify the perfectly valid point which was the central message of the chapter. The simple fact is that it wasn't really an exception. It was an exception to YOUR perception of the point being made. But that wasn't the point being made. Again: The central point was that WE are responsible for our own responses to our situations. And this includes our emotional responses. EXAMPLE: When I was a child, I remember telling my dad about my sister. "She makes me so mad!" His response fell on my deaf young ears at the time. But over the years, I've come to understand that he was right. He said,"No, YOU make you mad. It doesn't matter what she does. You choose to get mad about it." This is a lesson that is completely lost on this generation. We're constantly told that we need to give "trigger warnings". Why? Because I might offend someone? In order to THINK, we MUST RISK offending someone. You had no scruples about offending everyone else in the room with your arguments. And fine, good for you. That is what active discussion is about. That's something that they need to learn. But the lesson you need to learn is that a wife who deals with a husband who is "behaving suspiciously" still has control over her own feelings. She still chooses that even if her husband is abusive. That doesn't mean that she needs to stay with him. Sometimes the greatest act of love for someone is to abandon them to their own devices. Then we pray that they may eventually learn from such experiences and change for the better. MrShorty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted December 11, 2020 Report Share Posted December 11, 2020 Seems like we have gotten to the subject of Righteous Expression of Emotions. In the scriptures we read about God and find that he expresses emotion quite a bit. One instance that I know people here like is the one where Christ gets mad and drives the money changers out of the temple. Like with the rest of the Gospel the path of Righteous Expression of Emotion is a strait and narrow one that we struggle with. One of the most common struggle is to be out of control. While what we feel is what we feel to many use that as an excuse to act poorly. It is a variation of the "Devil Made Me Do It" excuse, or the Hulk's 'Don't make me angry.. You will not like me when I am angry." While some might have various issues that make it harder (medical, emotional, mental etc), assuming such a person is accountable they have the responsibility work on control. And like with many other things in the gospel it can be a work in progress. That is one side. The other side is the choke hold of control, denial, and suppression of emotion. While we need control, control is not the same as denial, increasingly so over the long term. God gave us emotions for a reason, just like he gave us a lot of other things. We need to use them correctly. Emotions are one way we have of understanding things around us. For many it is the emotional cues that are the first indicator we have that something that is happening is wrong, or it is right. There are many stories of people who had a "Bad" feeling about something, but they ignored that feeling into tragedy. There are many times the feelings of "I deserve better then this" is what ends up getting people out of bad situations and help them make something better. We need to make sure we are not to far one way or the other. So this is a case where one of my favorite J. Golden Kimball quote applies Quote “I may not always walk the straight and narrow, but I sure in hell try to cross it as often as I can.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.