Tori wrote:After reading your exchange with Rick, I wonder....why are you being combative?
No where does Rick say it is the Church's fault. I have talked with him at length about this topic because it hits very close to home. I have a child that is an addict and has been clean and sober for over 2 years thanks to Rick's help.
I also live in Utah County and have wondered what part our Mormon culture has played in her becoming an addict. I have attended several viewings and funerals of young adults in our area that have died from overdoses. Most of these kids come from active LDS families. It is epidemic, painful and very troubling.
I thought the movie was moving and very real as it told the stories of several families touched by this. It in no way bashes the LDS Church or lays blame. At the end of the movie, Williams says that he could've told the same story about any community in the U.S. Addiction knows no boundaries. It doesn't matter what religion a person is, what profession they have, what their education level is.....Addiction doesn't care!
You asked Rick if he wanted to get to the real "root of the problem". You accused him of not wanting that stating that you believe he just wants to blame the Church. I can tell you that you are dead wrong in your assumption. I have seen this man help countless people. I know how the drug problem we have in our community concerns him. Believe me....he does want to get to the real root of the problem and we discuss many theories about it.
So, I ask you Harmony...When you don't live it Utah....When you don't really know what is going on here in Utah County....When you obviously haven't seen the movie.....Why are you being so accusatory and cranky?
I see. Because I don't agree with your assumption or Rick's assumption, I am accusatory and cranky?
From the OP:
It shows with heart-wrenching interviews, the devastation and extent of drug abuse in this state.
In this state. The OP started out talking about Utah, not just Utah county.
Then:
A few statistics it discusses:
* prescription drug abuse is the highest in the country;
* suicide rates are among the highest in each age category;
* anti-depressant use is twice the national average;
These stats apply to the entire state of Utah, not just Utah county. Yet the discussion devolved into a discussion of Utah county only.
The obvious question he attempts to answer is...Why?
I think he does a good job of interviewing a few LDS members trapped in the addiction world that explain their process. They explain the obvious, that there is much denial about the problem, and very little willingness to communicate with family members about their reasons for using.
Here, Bishopric mentions only LDS members, yet we all know that not 100% of the citizens of Utah are LDS. Yet his words have us believe that this problem only exists in the LDS church (which is why I asked him if all of his clients were LDS).
in my opinion much of the problem comes from a two-faced approach to the professed principle of unconditional love. From the pulpits, it is taught and encouraged. In the trenches of the community, it is not lived. Anybody who strays from the cultural norms of belief or lifestyle is judged and avoided as if they have the plague. This lack of acceptance leads to chemical abuse to have some degree of "feeling good" about themselves.
Here, he up's the ante against the church. His solution to the problem is taught from LDS pulpits, but not lived by LDS members.
On his blog, Ron quotes a response from a local bishop:
"This film begins as a critique of Utah (Mormon) culture and how the very religion that gives its inhabitants postive family values positively leads them to hide deep problems and indulge in private addictions–especially prescription drug abuse. Shocking statistics are announced throughout the film about Utahns and drug abuse, and part of this film wants to be an expose. Luckily it does not follow that track as vigorously as the down-to-earth and painful stories of various families and individuals victimized by drugs. I’m all for bringing attention to real problems, but the film plays fast and loose with its statistics and their interpretation...
(sounds like MAD apologetics to me!)
Other religions aren't associated with bishops and MAD, at least in Utah. Juxtapositioning the bishop's comment with the snide comment about MAD seems like a dig against the church.
...Nor was there any acknowledgment whatsoever of the tremendous efforts made both locally and generally by the LDS Church to address addictions of all sorts and to provide social services for their treatment. Not only is the problem addressed frankly and frequently from a spiritual vantage point by church leaders
(I'll tell you, their approach is not adequate, or effective most of the time)
Another dig against the church.
...So it was a bit hard for me to watch the cheap shots at Mormons (as though the faith does more to produce addicts than to significanty prevent and meaningfully heal addictions)."
(in my opinion, that is a correct statement. As one who dealt with addiction, the church had much to do with it. You've got to bury your head in the sand to think otherwise.)
Another dig against the church.
====================
I simply said if the church contributed significantly to drug abuse, suicide, and use of antidepressants, North Dakota wouldn't be 2nd on that list. Idaho and Arizona would be, based on their concentration of LDS people. Everywhere LDS congregate, we'd see a similiar ratio of abuse. And we don't.
Bishopric couldn't refute that argument, either in Utah state or Utah county.
I don't deny that Utah county has a problem, or that Utah as a state has a problem, but to directly connect the problem to the church, as Bishopric does in his OP, requires more than what he's presented here. I repeatedly suggested that he figure out what similiarities exist between Utah and North Dakota, since they are #1 and #2 on his list. That didn't seem to be of interest to him. Isolation, the economy, family history, and the weather were all immaterial; Bishopric already has it all figured out.
Whatever.
I never attacked him, nor will I attack you, but I think it's pretty low that just because I don't agree with you or him, I'm seen as accusatory and cranky.
edited for clarity and emphasis.