A few points may be in need of clarification:
1) Feeling vs. thinking: I don't generally use the words "feel" and "think" interchangeably to the extent most people seem to in casual conversation. When I say "it may be irrational, but I feel like..." I mean exactly that: I recognize it may not be rational to be having the emotional response and associated thoughts, but my emotions are bringing this or that out, whether or not I'll see through that in the future. Maybe my distinction is confusing because if it was really only about pure, raw emotion, I would have said, "I feel lonely. I feel afraid. I feel hurt. I feel angry." Even while writing "I feel like..." I recognized I was ascribing thinking and reasons to the emotions, but I'm pretty aware of where a lot of it comes from even if I don't vocalize every underpinning. I was fascinated by the intensity of my emotions, recognizing even in the midst of them that some were possibly more justified than I had allowed myself to admit until I was "broken" and some possibly involved insecurities and demons I needed to face, which I could do by recording them and looking back on them now and in more sober times, my own outside observer. I wanted to see how much of it others might identify with, to learn from them or to share what I learn. I wanted to vent in a diffuse way so as to not wear out any one listener. As I've admitted, some part of me probably even hoped [he] would read it one day and...care. It wasn't about "explaining away" my emotions, or blaming anyone for them, but articulating the feelings and associated thoughts at the time.
2) I don't believe [he]'s a hapless victim: I don't actually believe he was some dupe lured away cluelessly by deceptive psychological predators. He's a really good-hearted and open-minded guy, no dummy by any means, and he honestly considers ideas and follows his heart. These are just a few of the traits I love and respect about him, which attracted me to him. So OK, I do believe Evergreen presenters often present only or primarily one side and promote hopes which, in most cases, will probably not be fulfilled. But I also know some who are quite open and honest, and I don't believe the only way for someone to buy into the LDS Church's prescription for same-sex attracted people (celibacy or marriage to someone of the opposite sex) is to have some naive misperception or false hopes about it, as much as part of me would like to talk him out of it. Again, much of what I've vented about, while partially based on experiences of many people including myself, and some rational disagreement, has also been largely emotionally motivated or based on my rejection of certain underlying theories. I've tried to be clear about that when that's the case.
3) Facebook: I did limit access to many people on my Facebook account for various reasons. I didn't care to answer questions or debate doctrine or be told how to fix my pain, and I needed to avoid certain people because of my messy emotions redirecting anger and resentment. I needed time and distance to work through it, choosing my conversations more selectively. I eventually decided, a couple of weeks ago now, to deactivate my Facebook account entirely for various reasons, which is probably temporary but probably also going to continue until I've figured a few things out sans the distraction. So if you're thinking I blocked you, you're probably just noticing that my account is inactive.
That's all the clarification I care about for now. :-)