Greg Smith'S Review Of Dehlin'S "Mormon Stories" Is Now Available

[cinepro]

Absurd, how can one validate something that is patently wrong and to which I do not subscribe to.

Maybe in addition to all the other stuff, someone who would be an apologist or otherwise interact with struggling members of the Church should have a good understanding of how to answer that question.

[Calm]

The moment you dismiss anybody's feeling is the moment constructive dialogue ends.

And if it is a requirement to dismiss one person's feelings in order for you to validate another's feelings?

[jwhitlock]

And if it is a requirement to dismiss one person's feelings in order for you to validate another's feelings?

If someone's feelings about me are those of intense hatred, simply because I am a member of the church, then my only concern is how I am going to react to that. Validation of their feelings about me is utterly irrelevant at that point.

The problem with philosophizing about how we should all validate each other's feelings is that the reality of what we actually experience has a nasty habit of exposing the flaws of a neatly presented truism. "Yes, I'd love to validate your feelings as you're firing me solely because I'm a Mormon." At my age, I've had far too much real life experience to give much credence to the claim that we should always validate, or respect, or accept someone else's feelings while turning a blind eye to how destructive to others some of those "feelings" really are.

[rockpond]

If someone's feelings about me are those of intense hatred, simply because I am a member of the church, then my only concern is how I am going to react to that. Validation of their feelings about me is utterly irrelevant at that point.

The problem with philosophizing about how we should all validate each other's feelings is that the reality of what we actually experience has a nasty habit of exposing the flaws of a neatly presented truism. "Yes, I'd love to validate your feelings as you're firing me solely because I'm a Mormon." At my age, I've had far too much real life experience to give much credence to the claim that we should always validate, or respect, or accept someone else's feelings while turning a blind eye to how destructive to others some of those "feelings" really are.

I think the importance of validating someone's feelings is dependent on the amount of constructive dialogue you wish to have with that person.

In the example you gave (being fired based on religious affiliation/beliefs), one might wish to engage in constructive dialogue as means of avoiding the termination. Or, one might wish to "lawyer up" and take a different route.

[jwhitlock]

I think the importance of validating someone's feelings is dependent on the amount of constructive dialogue you wish to have with that person.

In the example you gave (being fired based on religious affiliation/beliefs), one might wish to engage in constructive dialogue as means of avoiding the termination. Or, one might wish to "lawyer up" and take a different route.

Did I forget to mention that these were my real life experiences? And did you miss the point that there are situations where trying to discuss or validate feelings is simply an exercise in futility? I'll give you another one of my experiences to help you see this a little better.

I had the pleasure of looking at a young man with a nylon pulled over his head one time, who was also pointing a gun with a barrel that was about three feet in diameter at me. I suppose that a discussion with him about validating his feelings towards me (and he was very vocal about how he regarded me, even though I was just a lowly teller) just might have made the world a better place, but I also suspect it would have been a world without me living in it.

As I said, real life has a way of unraveling neat theories, and when hatred or anger are involved, validation of the other party's feelings is wasted energy.

[rockpond]

Did I forget to mention that these were my real life experiences? And did you miss the point that there are situations where trying to discuss or validate feelings is simply an exercise in futility? I'll give you another one of my experiences to help you see this a little better.

I had the pleasure of looking at a young man with a nylon pulled over his head one time, who was also pointing a gun with a barrel that was about three feet in diameter at me. I suppose that a discussion with him about validating his feelings towards me (and he was very vocal about how he regarded me, even though I was just a lowly teller) just might have made the world a better place, but I also suspect it would have been a world without me living in it.

As I said, real life has a way of unraveling neat theories, and when hatred or anger are involved, validation of the other party's feelings is wasted energy.

Agreed... and as you'll note in my post that you quoted: I said that the importance of validating feelings corresponds to your desire (or the need) for constructive dialogue. Obviously, constructive dialogue with someone pointing a lethal weapon at you is not necessarily a high priority. (And yes, I too have been similar situations -- once while proudly wearing that black & white tag on my shirt pocket.)

[jwhitlock]

Agreed... and as you'll note in my post that you quoted: I said that the importance of validating feelings corresponds to your desire (or the need) for constructive dialogue. Obviously, constructive dialogue with someone pointing a lethal weapon at you is not necessarily a high priority. (And yes, I too have been similar situations -- once while proudly wearing that black & white tag on my shirt pocket.)

And that gets to the end point of this. There are times when interaction with a person indicates that they aren't looking for validation, they're looking only for capitulation. Such is the case with many enemies of the church. Many of us have enough interaction with such people to know that validation of feelings just isn't going to work in those cases. After one has had enough experience with people leaving the church "under the influence" of anti-Mormon literature masquerading as "valid concerns about the church", certain patterns become recognizable. When those leaving have regressed to denigrating the church and its members, then, as I said, trying to validate their feelings is wasted energy. It's better in those cases to call it for what it is and not beat around the bush about it.

[rockpond]

And that gets to the end point of this. There are times when interaction with a person indicates that they aren't looking for validation, they're looking only for capitulation. Such is the case with many enemies of the church. Many of us have enough interaction with such people to know that validation of feelings just isn't going to work in those cases. After one has had enough experience with people leaving the church "under the influence" of anti-Mormon literature masquerading as "valid concerns about the church", certain patterns become recognizable. When those leaving have regressed to denigrating the church and its members, then, as I said, trying to validate their feelings is wasted energy. It's better in those cases to call it for what it is and not beat around the bush about it.

This is true. And I think that as Latter-day Saints it is incumbent upon us to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. I'm not sure that we always have the ability, even based on life experience, to know when someone is "under the influence of anti-Mormon literature" or when they simply feel hurt or betrayed by some new bit of knowledge that has crossed path and which they don't yet have the tools to reconcile. In my experience, those two situations can appear remarkably similar. But, I don't know you -- you might have a deeper experience with this than I.

[wenglund]

-

You are right it does seem at times that people do not validate church members feelings. All I said is the world would be a little better if more feelings were validated. The moment you dismiss anybody's feeling is the moment constructive dialogue ends. My friend Wade, you are entitled to feel the way you do just as much as the next guy. My plea is to be empathetic towards all people, put yourself in other peoples shoes(I need to more). If you do not try to understand the other person or argument it will cause bitterness in your heart. That is what I have learned from sad experience.

I hear you. Empathy, particularly mutual empathy, can be a very good preliminary to progress--that is, as long as things don't get stuck in the preliminaries. Too often it just becomes about feeling each other's pain, or feeling one parties pain, and indulging the woes and complaints about the pain, rather than fixing and healing the pain. At best, the preliminaries should be like smelling salts that wake us up, but should then be put away so as to get on with fixing and healing.

Hopefully, people can empathize with the way I feel about empathizing. :/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I think the importance of validating someone's feelings is dependent on the amount of constructive dialogue you wish to have with that person.

That makes it appear as if you have total control over the conversation and are able to manipulate the individual into having a constructive dialogue as long as you say or mean the right things.

Reality isn't like that at all.

[wenglund]

Empathize with emphasis on empathy--try saying that three times fast.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Empathize with emphasis on empathy--try saying that three times fast.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

No way man, it makes my tongue swim.

[wenglund]

No way man, it makes my tongue swim.

Try quickly eating a stack of saltines beforehand and see if that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

That makes it appear as if you have total control over the conversation and are able to manipulate the individual into having a constructive dialogue as long as you say or mean the right things.

Reality isn't like that at all.

Yeah, I didn't intend to make it appear that way... It can't be done alone no matter how empathetic and validating one is.

But I think that if constructive dialogue is the end goal -- empathy extended to validating someone's feelings is a good place to begin.

[ERayR]

Note that Tyler said: "I think the world would be a better place if we all sought to validate each others feelings."

Someone's feelings are not patently wrong. They are what they are. Feelings can be based upon some incorrect fact or perception. But, I agree with Tyler, if you seek to validate & understand the feelings, you'll have a better chance of correcting the underlying misunderstanding (assuming there is one).

To validate is to grant official sanction or to support and corroborate. If something is incorrect you do no favor to someone by supporting or corroborating their incorrect facts or perceptions. All that does is do damage to ones own veracity. One doesn't have to be mean or impolite to point out the errors but you are certainly not doing anyone any good by validating their error.

[ERayR]

That is essentially what validating someones feelings is.

I

No it isn't. . See my above post.

[ERayR]

-

You are right it does seem at times that people do not validate church members feelings. All I said is the world would be a little better if more feelings were validated. The moment you dismiss anybody's feeling is the moment constructive dialogue ends. My friend Wade, you are entitled to feel the way you do just as much as the next guy. My plea is to be empathetic towards all people, put yourself in other peoples shoes(I need to more). If you do not try to understand the other person or argument it will cause bitterness in your heart. That is what I have learned from sad experience.

I would say it seems crazy to me that if someone tells you they feel like hurting themselves or others that you say "you are so right, that is the way you should feel and act". But then again taking your stance who am I to stand in their way. Perhaps I ought to show them a high bridge. I don't think so.

[Calm]

I think there has been some confusion because of the choice to use "validate" in association with feelings.

There is a huge difference between recognizing that a person is really feeling a certain way---validating or recognition of the actual feelings in that sense is appropriate and telling someone they don't really feel that way is very nonproductive.

However, taking the next step that is often assumed as part of the "validation" process and that is supporting them by telling them they have valid reasons for feeling that way can be very counterproductive....the reality is that many people do not have valid reasons, they may be delusional, they may have completely misinterpreted the situation, they may be projecting their experiences on to others and responding to what are essentially nonexistent circumstances, etc. etc. In fact there is probably a very good chance that most of our feelings in life are somewhat 'off' as we are rarely fully aware of everything and everyone involved and thus our emotional reactions are based on incomplete information just as our rational reactions are.

One has to deal with what a person is feeling if one wants to interact with someone in a positive way...and if in a therapeutic way, one would help the person identify the feeling and understand how it is affecting him/her, but that does not mean one has to or even should accept it as a realistic response to a situation.

Using the term of "recognition of feelings" is better imo in nonprofessional settings where terms are not so clearly defined.

Edited March 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In my very limited time reading and learning about psychology I thought 'validating somebody's feelings' only had one meaning. Which is accepting that they feel a certain way and that it is ok to feel that way. It does not mean you have to agree with everyone; it just means you are willing to 'confirm' that a person can feel a certain way.

That may be how it is technically used by some therapists, but that is not how it is always understood by nonprofessionals or even some professionals. Too often they understand the term in its nontechnical usage or going all the way to acceptance and respect of those feelings. Edited March 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

That is essentially what validating someones feelings is.

In my very limited time reading and learning about psychology I thought 'validating somebody's feelings' only had one meaning. Which is accepting that they feel a certain way and that it is ok to feel that way. It does not mean you have to agree with everyone; it just means you are willing to 'confirm' that a person can feel a certain way.

Validate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/validate

[Calm]

Even in therapy, "validation" often goes beyond recognition:

What Validation Is

To validate someone's feelings is first to accept someone's feelings. Next, it is to understand them, and finally it is to nurture them.

To validate is to acknowledge and accept one's unique identity and individuality. Invalidation, on the other hand, is to reject, ignore, or judge their feelings, and hence, their individual identity.

When we validate someone, we allow them to safely share their feelings and thoughts. We are reassuring them that it is okay to have the feelings they have. We are demonstrating that we will still accept them after they have shared their feelings. We let them know that we respect their perception of things at that moment. We help them feel heard, acknowledged, understood and accepted.

Sometimes validation entails listening, sometimes it is a nod or a sign of agreement or understanding, sometimes it can be a hug or a gentle touch. Sometimes it means being patient when the other person is not ready to talk.

http://eqi.org/valid...t Validation Is

BTW, there are several errors of approach on the site that would have gotten me scolded by my professors in my reflective listening classes. I do not recommend this site, just using it as an example.

We let them know that we respect their perception of things at that moment.

I think respecting someone's perception that everyone is out to get them or that a certain celebrity is really in love with them though they have no contact save through the television screen can be very dangerous. Edited March 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

http://breslov.org/rebbe-nachmans-story-the-turkey-prince/

[Calm]

But did he ever stop thinking of himself as a turkey even if he stopped behaving as he had imagined turkeys must behave?

[volgadon]

But did he ever stop thinking of himself as a turkey even if he stopped behaving as he had imagined turkeys must behave?

Indeed. That is the point of the tale.

[rockpond]

To validate is to grant official sanction or to support and corroborate. If something is incorrect you do no favor to someone by supporting or corroborating their incorrect facts or perceptions. All that does is do damage to ones own veracity. One doesn't have to be mean or impolite to point out the errors but you are certainly not doing anyone any good by validating their error.

Yes, I agree with that. I guess it has to do with how I interpret "validating someone's feelings". Allow me to put it in context with an example relative to this thread...

Say someone comes to you and says... "Hey, I grew up in the church and never knew about Joseph Smith's polyandry. The church has hidden this from me and I feel completely betrayed."

I think one could respond and validate their feelings by saying: "Yeah, I think if I felt like the church leadership had intentionally hid important information from me after years of dedicating my life to the faith, I'd feel betrayed too."

That's the validating part, right?

But then you quickly move to something along the lines of: "Let's talk about why you feel like they hid it from you and why you feel it's important to your testimony."

And from there you work toward correcting mis-perceptions so that you can lead them away from the feelings of betrayal.