Ah, isn't the LDS church wonderful?

[_beastie]

Perhaps so. I see a healthy approach to a committed relationship as one where there is often dating of many for a time, then when there is mutual attraction and good compatibility, a commitment to monogamy for a time (often a few years), then if there is still mutual chemistry and common goals and interests, make the life-long commitment. I've seen studies where this approach is the most succesfull, all things considered.

The common Utah approach to quick marriage doesn't allow the people to really get past the infatuation stage...calling it "the Spirit," rather than hormones, then later the couple realizes they really don't know their partner after the sexual tension is past.

I think the commitment the church teaches does keep couples together longer...this can be good, and bad. In some cases, love can be developed despite minor differences, but in other cases, it traps two very unhappy people together, and I think everybody suffers in that case.

Just my opinion....

AMEN BROTHER.

Marrying in haste is often a red flag in general. For an entire culture to encourage that behavior is problematic.

[_BishopRic]

I am not sure of the wisdom in abandoning religion for science to form the foundation for one's moral compass (is science even geared towards, let alone in the business of, morals and ethic?)

I believe it is. I think science (and I will include logic and reason as a part of this), which approaches life with time-tested, studied evidence, does approach morals and ethics from the perspective of what is best for all concerned. "Best" certainly consolidates mental, physical, and emotional well-being and health. One may say it excludes "spiritual" health, but even there I disagree -- but that is because I define spirituality different than a religious person. To me, spirituality is a connection one has to "the all." One's spirituality is enhanced when thoughts and behaviors aid in the betterment of self and others. So by this approach, science IS involved in morality and ethics by indicating, after much experience and research, what actually "works" to accomplish that long term.

However, if one makes that choice, I would hope that they would do so NOT with the intent of finding justification for acting on certain carnal impulses,

We'll split here quite a bit...but I believe humans have "impulses" that aid in survival of the species. I do not subscribe to the "natural wickedness," or "carnal nature of man" concept. However, we know from experience that it is not generally healthy for all concerned for two young teenagers to act on their new-found sexual urges in a way to bring a child into the world. As many of us remember, we may have thought at 13 that we knew everything, but as we got older (and hopefully wiser), we came to know that we were wrong. Thus, it is our moral responsibility to teach our children to delay child-bearing (and associated risky behaviors that cause such)...NOT through inflicting guilt for not obeying "commandments," but because it will not serve them or their children well when they are unprepared to manage parental duties.

Now, I'm going to get a little blunt here, but I believe that masturbation is "nature's" gift to aid in healthy sexual development. It releases (satisfies) the sexual urges, and actually helps one to develop attraction to a future partner through the imagination and pleasure that comes in the pleasure of the experience. It also aids in the development and maintenance of the "plumbing" and helps one learn their own "buttons" for future healthy sexual experience and intimacy. There is no real harm in the process, unless there is a degree of guilt instilled on that person...then often dysfunction arises from the shame of the act. In fact, the act itself often delays unwanted pregnancies and STDs by minimizing spontaneous, unplanned sex between "starved" partners.

It is a travesty, in my opinion, that some religions don't encourage such important behavioral development

but with the intent of determining what works best for all parties over a broad range of relationship issues. While LDS are certainly not free from relationship problems (as you may have seen in your addiction councelling), I think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who, on average, have more healthy, lasting, and fulfilling relationships (check the statistics in terms of teen pregnancies, marital infidelity, divorce, etc.).

Again, my exposure and experience is quite the opposite of everything you just said. I will agree that the culture does encourage family and marital activities and support. This is a plus. It also instills mutual hope and purpose. I like all that. But there is such an unhealthy beginning for many (as I mentioned in my last post) that it is an up hill climb for many that are not adequately prepared for the challenges of relationship.

Regardless if one believe LDS moral principles are "magical" in origin, those principles evidently work better than the alternatives--certainly far better, relationship wise, than the secularist movement of "free love" that was pervasive during the 60's and 70's. I know that at least for me, my biggest heartaches and failures in relationships were the result of not adhering to my LDS moral compass. I would gladly exchange the hurt and suffering I caused myself and others through disobedience, for the relatively mild guilt and frustration I may have experienced through obedience--though, to each their own.

I understand this, and the way I view it is that if one has a strong conviction in a belief system that dictates lifestyle and has specific rules with consequences, etc., many do just fine living within those guidelines. Regardless of whether the foundation is myth, or man-made, if the adherant believes it, and its lifestyle is not obviously damaging to the members, I think it makes sense to live it with full conviction and vigor. Despite my disbelief in the foundational claims of Mormonism, I admire and respect those that believe and follow the tenets. I have found that those that truly believe, and adhere, are generally happy and productive people in society.

I am not sure how much of a fan you may be of Dr. Laura, but she has a wealth of science-based information on her website that not only strongly advises against sexual relations outside of marriage, but also against divorce (except in cases of abuse, adultry, and serious addictions), though when divorce does occur, she advises that, for the sake of the children, that the parents remain focused on their children and put off developing other relationships (particularly of a sexual, non-committed kind) until after the kids are grown up and on their own. For what it is worth.

I think there is much Dr. Laura says that is spot on. However, I know many marriage counselors that adamantly disagree with her "wait until the kids grow up" before starting a new relationship. Like you said earlier, kids have an uncanny ability to feel their parent's emotions, and if a parent is in a loving, healthy relationship, I think the kids benefit from that modeling.

Again, maybe just my opinion....

[_wenglund]

Again, my exposure and experience is quite the opposite of everything you just said. I will agree that the culture does encourage family and marital activities and support. This is a plus. It also instills mutual hope and purpose. I like all that. But there is such an unhealthy beginning for many (as I mentioned in my last post) that it is an up hill climb for many that are not adequately prepared for the challenges of relationship.

Hi Rick,

If you are interested, here is a web site that list a number of sociological studies that back up what I said:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

Here are some relevant statistics:

Utah ranked highest in the number of married-couple families, with an average of 63.2 percent. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of family households, with 76.3 percent. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of persons per family, with an average of 3.57. (2)
Utah ranked first for the youngest total population, with nearly one-third of its population 17 years old or younger. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of persons per household, with an average of 3.13. (2)
Utah ranked third for the fewest number of single-headed households with children, with 7.7 percent. (2)
Utah has the 3rd lowest teen pregancy and lowest abortion rate nation wide--behind Idaho and Wyoming, which have a higher proportion of LDS in the states population.
Utah ranked the 3rd best place for children (behind Minnesota and New Hamshire).
Utah has the fewest births to unwed mothers. Yet the highest per capita births (speaking of sex). ;-)
Utah has the lowest rate of smoking, alcohol consuption, and lung cancer, and the second lowest rate of new inpatient admissions to state mental health facilities.
Provo, Utah was ranked the #1 city for healthy women.
Active LDS are 7 times less likely to commit suicide than inactives.
Utah ranked 4th (behind Iowa, Idaho, and South Dakota) in "Family Values".
"The divorce rates for Latter-day Saints who marry in the temple are 5.4 percent for men and 6.5 percent for women."
"Duke found that Mormons are the least likely to cohabitate outside of marriage -- 8.2 percent compared with 20 percent to 24 percent for Protestants, 23.1 percent for Catholics, 32.5 percent for Jews and 44.8 percent for nonreligious Americans."
Utah ranked first for the lowest prevalence of smoking, with 14 percent. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest risk for heart disease, and was 20 percent below the national average. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest number of cancer cases, with 239.5 cases per 100,000. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest number of work days missed within a 30-day period due to physical or mental illness, with an average of under three days per month missed. (4)
Utah ranked second for the lowest overall death rate, with only 5.6 deaths per 1,000. (3)
Utah ranked second for lowest number of heart-disease mortalities, and was the most improved state since 1990. (4)
Utah ranked third for best overall health in 2000, maintaining its high standing in this category during the past decade (second in 1994 and 1996; fourth in 1990; fifth in 1992, 1997 and 1998; and sixth in 1999). (4)
Utah ranked fourth for the lowest infant mortality, and fifth in the nation for lowest total mortality. Utah ranked ninth in the nation for lowest premature death (death before age 75). (4)

Elsewhere I found these STD statistics:

http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SPUTAH.pdf
Utah has 37.7 per 100k adolescents and adults with HIV as compared with 127.8 per 100K national.
Utah has 60.3 per 100k adolescents and adults with AIDs as compared with 167.3 per 100K national
http://health.utah.gov/epi/newsletter/archives/feb98/Default.htm
Utah has 85.9 per 100k adolescents and adults with Chlamydia as compared with 170.4 per 100K national
Utah has 13.6 per 100k adolescents and adults with Gonorrhea as compared with 105.8 per 100K national
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table24.htm
Utah has 0.9 per 100k adolescents and adults with Syphillis as compared with 3.3 per 100K national (Utah was the 10th lowest state--with the lowest being Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming)

As for substance abuse and addictions:
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/con.php?cid=635&state=Utah
"The 2003 Utah Student Health and Risk Prevention Survey concluded that less than 25 percent of Utah teens fell into the category of a drug, alcohol or cigarette user, making them about half as likely as teens nationally. Statistics show drug use in Utah County is less..."
http://www.adolescent-substance-abuse.com/state-stats.html
"The State with the highest rate of past month use of alcohol among youths aged 12 to 17 was North Dakota (24.7 percent). The State with the lowest rate was Utah (10.3 percent)."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Again, my exposure and experience is quite the opposite of everything you just said. I will agree that the culture does encourage family and marital activities and support. This is a plus. It also instills mutual hope and purpose. I like all that. But there is such an unhealthy beginning for many (as I mentioned in my last post) that it is an up hill climb for many that are not adequately prepared for the challenges of relationship.

Hi Rick,

If you are interested, here is a web site that list a number of sociological studies that back up what I said:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

Thanks Wade. Certainly this report shows what you are trying to point out...and I have no doubt that "active LDS" make up many of these positive statistics. But one discussion stood out to me (highlight mine).

"For more than 10 years, 15- to 34-year-old males in Utah have had suicide rates markedly higher than those seen nationally. In fact, in the early to mid-1990s, suicide was the number one cause of death among 25- to 44-year-old men in the state and the second-leading cause of death among men aged 15 to 24.

"These results provide evidence that a low level of religious commitment is a potential risk factor for suicide," Dr. Sterling C. Hilton of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and his colleagues write in the March 1st issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

"If the observed association is real, then it gives us another piece of information that helps us understand suicide...which might help efforts to reduce it," Hilton told Reuters Health.

Hilton and his colleagues investigated the relationship between suicide and religiosity in an analysis of 1991-1995 state death records from the Utah State Department of Health, as well as data from the LDS church and the US Census Bureau.

Roughly 27,740 male deaths occurred during the study period, including 551 suicides among 15 to 34 year olds, the investigators report. About 6 in 10 of these suicides were committed by male members of the LDS church.

Suicide rates in each of the four age categories studied--15 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, and 30 to 34 years--were lower among active members of the LDS church than among less active LDS church members, nonmembers and males in the general US population, the report indicates.

For example, the suicide rate among less active LDS church members aged 25 to 29 was seven times higher than among their active church peers. Nationally, the suicide rate among 20- to 34-year old males was 2.5 to 3 times higher than among active LDS church members of the same age. Suicide risk was also 3 to 6 times higher among nonmembers in comparison to active members of the LDS church.

In addition, the risk of suicide among males aged 15 to 19 was three times higher among the less active church members than among their active peers, but the rate among the active youth was comparable to the national suicide rate.

One potential reason for the association between lower suicide risk and high levels of religiosity may be the fact that some religions forbid substance abuse or other harmful behaviors that may be associated with suicide, the researchers speculate."

Here's how I see it. If a person lives in a highly LDS dominant area, and IS committed and active, they are likely to be "healthy." If they are less active, they are more likely to be unhealthy, suicidal, etc....and I think I have observed this. While I was working in the addiction field, I found many very unhappy, unaccepted folks from Utah County. Most of those were inactive Mormons...and most quite "anti-Mormon" in their sentiment. Why is that? We can all speculate, but I think one thing is clear:

To live and/or raise a family in a dominant LDS community, your chances of survival are better if you are active LDS.

I have observed this, and it is a major reason I chose to move to Sugarhouse last year...as a former Mormon, it is an area that is quite accepting of non-LDS/former LDS. And as the percentage of active LDS decreases throughout Utah, I think it is a statistic we should all think about. I think it would be prudent for the church to address this, and reather than simply attempting to convert and activate all inactives, perhaps an emphasis should be put on real acceptance/tolerance of those different than the normal LDS.

Just my thoughts.

[_wenglund]

Here's how I see it. If a person lives in a highly LDS dominant area, and IS committed and active, they are likely to be "healthy." If they are less active, they are more likely to be unhealthy, suicidal, etc....and I think I have observed this. While I was working in the addiction field, I found many very unhappy, unaccepted folks from Utah County. Most of those were inactive Mormons...and most quite "anti-Mormon" in their sentiment. Why is that? We can all speculate, but I think one thing is clear:

To live and/or raise a family in a dominant LDS community, your chances of survival are better if you are active LDS.

I have observed this, and it is a major reason I chose to move to Sugarhouse last year...as a former Mormon, it is an area that is quite accepting of non-LDS/former LDS. And as the percentage of active LDS decreases throughout Utah, I think it is a statistic we should all think about. I think it would be prudent for the church to address this, and reather than simply attempting to convert and activate all inactives, perhaps an emphasis should be put on real acceptance/tolerance of those different than the normal LDS. Just my thoughts.

Yes, this disparate suicide rate is great cause for concern.

However, I am not sure that acceptance and tolerance of differing life choices is the answer.

Rather, the Mayo clinic offers the following suggestions for suicide prevention: "effective and appropriate medical care, easy access to treatment, family or community support, skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and cultural and religious beliefs against suicide." (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/suicide/MH00053)

And, since suicides are linked with mood disorders (such as double depression) as well as substance and behavioral disorders (like drug addiction or disruptive behaviors), which may be ameliorated or prevented through social support systems (like the Church) and systems of thought that promote healthy and responsible lifestyles (like the Church); then, logically, the answer to decreasing the number of suicides of inactive or non-members is nearly the opposite to what you think should be emphasized, and may well entail efforts to convert or re-active. ;-)

Anyway, just to underscore a previous point, the conventional "wisdom" of psychiatrist and psychologist, from approximately the 1920's to the mid 1970's, was that neurosis arose "because the afflicted individual's moral standards were unrealistically high, that he has not been 'bad' but too good, and that the therapeutic task is, specifically, to counteract and neutralize conscience, 'soften' the demands of a presumably too severe superego, and thus free the person from inhibitions and 'blocks' which stand in the way of normal gratifications of his 'instincts'." (Dr. Mowner, in the Foreward to "Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry", by Willam Glasser, MD)

This Freudian philosophy still has a strong presence among the mental health community, particularly various professional organizations like the one's you mentioned, and most noteably throughout Europe.

Since the late 1970's, though, there has been a drastic increase within the US of opposing philosophies to Freudianism and divergent treatment programs. This came about in response to the demonstrable failings of Freudianism as a treatment approach, discovered through long-over-due scientific research. What has emerged is a growing conviction, supported by the research, that "human beings get into emotional binds, not because their standards are too high, but because their performance has been, and is, too low....an incapacity or failure at the interpersonal, social level of human functioning." (ibid.)

Effective treatment, then, takes the form of instilling within the patient responsible, functional, and healthy thoughts and behaviors. These new mental health approaches include Dr. Glasser's Reality Therapy or Choice Theory, Dr. Aaron Becks' Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Dr. Albert Ellis' Rational Living.

"'What is wrong with those who need psyciatric treatment?' The answer is that they haven't been satisfying their needs....For Freud, the needs which are presumeably unfulfilled, in the so-called neurotic, are those of sex and aggression. For Glasser [and others] the basic human needs are for relatedness and respect. And how does one satisfy these needs? By doing what is realistic, responsible, and right." (ibid)

Just something to consider...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Here's how I see it. If a person lives in a highly LDS dominant area, and IS committed and active, they are likely to be "healthy." If they are less active, they are more likely to be unhealthy, suicidal, etc....and I think I have observed this. While I was working in the addiction field, I found many very unhappy, unaccepted folks from Utah County. Most of those were inactive Mormons...and most quite "anti-Mormon" in their sentiment. Why is that? We can all speculate, but I think one thing is clear:

To live and/or raise a family in a dominant LDS community, your chances of survival are better if you are active LDS.

I have observed this, and it is a major reason I chose to move to Sugarhouse last year...as a former Mormon, it is an area that is quite accepting of non-LDS/former LDS. And as the percentage of active LDS decreases throughout Utah, I think it is a statistic we should all think about. I think it would be prudent for the church to address this, and reather than simply attempting to convert and activate all inactives, perhaps an emphasis should be put on real acceptance/tolerance of those different than the normal LDS. Just my thoughts.

Yes, this disparate suicide rate is great cause for concern.

However, I am not sure that acceptance and tolerance of differing life choices is the answer.

Rather, the Mayo clinic offers the following suggestions for suicide prevention: "effective and appropriate medical care, easy access to treatment, family or community support, skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and cultural and religious beliefs against suicide." (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/suicide/MH00053)

And, since suicides are linked with mood disorders (such as double depression) as well as substance and behavioral disorders (like drug addiction or disruptive behaviors), which may be ameliorated or prevented through social support systems (like the Church) and systems of thought that promote healthy and responsible lifestyles (like the Church); then, logically, the answer to decreasing the number of suicides of inactive or non-members is nearly the opposite to what you think should be emphasized, and may well entail efforts to convert or re-active. ;-)

Again, we approach this very differently, and that's okay. I've highlighted part of your post, and want to emphasize that for a minute. How does one best "give support" for a family member who has come to believe differently than the family. I think we all know that a leading reason for the high suicide rate in Utah is the lack of acceptance for unbelieving (in LDS) family members. In particular, there is a high suicide rate in gay Mormons. I think it's easy to see that they are not supported very well. Until recently, the church approach has been to try to "straighten them out." Clearly, that is not support, tolerance, or acceptance in any way.

If I were LDS, and my family (and 90% of the community) were staunch believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hereafter FSM), as the one true God and cretor of all things in the universe, the process of getting the helpful support for my depression due to my conviction that the FSM is bogus, and the LDS religion is true, would be a challenge, to say the least. And if instead of the family having an attitude of "if your faith and lifestyle while living the FSM guided lifestyle makes you happy and productive, we will support you in your different beliefs." the family was constantly trying to sell you on "this is the only way a person should live, and the only way to true happiness...," I think it's obvious why some choose to end the strife with suicide.

"'What is wrong with those who need psyciatric treatment?' The answer is that they haven't been satisfying their needs....For Freud, the needs which are presumeably unfulfilled, in the so-called neurotic, are those of sex and aggression. For Glasser [and others] the basic human needs are for relatedness and respect. And how does one satisfy these needs? By doing what is realistic, responsible, and right." (ibid)

As above, one needs the respect of others. This does not mean they need to be changed or converted. In the addiction field, our approach (although many don't know this) is to help the patient gain self worth. Most addicts have been told all their life that they were bad in some way. They have not been loved and accepted as they are, and they escape with chemicals that give, albeit temporarily, a euphoric feeling of being okay. They crave this. If that feeling can be gained through processes other than drugs, the craving is reduced.

I think most addictions, and many mental disorders have this same foundational process,

Again, just my thoughts.

[_wenglund]

Rather, the Mayo clinic offers the following suggestions for suicide prevention: "effective and appropriate medical care, easy access to treatment, family or community support, skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and cultural and religious beliefs against suicide." (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/suicide/MH00053)

And, since suicides are linked with mood disorders (such as double depression) as well as substance and behavioral disorders (like drug addiction or disruptive behaviors), which may be ameliorated or prevented through social support systems (like the Church) and systems of thought that promote healthy and responsible lifestyles (like the Church); then, logically, the answer to decreasing the number of suicides of inactive or non-members is nearly the opposite to what you think should be emphasized, and may well entail efforts to convert or re-active. ;-)

Again, we approach this very differently, and that's okay. I've highlighted part of your post, and want to emphasize that for a minute. How does one best "give support" for a family member who has come to believe differently than the family. I think we all know that a leading reason for the high suicide rate in Utah is the lack of acceptance for unbelieving (in LDS) family members. In particular, there is a high suicide rate in gay Mormons. I think it's easy to see that they are not supported very well. Until recently, the church approach has been to try to "straighten them out." Clearly, that is not support, tolerance, or acceptance in any way.

We do see this differently, and I am fine with that as well. However, when the Mayo Clinic speaks of "family or community support", they don't have in mind passive or even active acceptence of alternative beliefs or lifestyle, or even casual friendships. Rather, they mean something far more complex: the kinds of relationships where there exist a significant measure of mutual involvement, nurturing interactions, and shared activity. care and concern.

And, one can easily have the latter even absent acceptance of certain beliefs and lifestyles. So, whatever the suicide is in Utah and among gay Mormons, I actually think we both know that it is not due to a supposed lack of tolerance and acceptance of differing beliefs and lifestyles, but instead it is, IN PART, due to a lack of the kind of relationship just mentioned, as well as the lack of effective and appropriate medical care, easy access to treatment, skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and cultural and religious beliefs against suicide. It also may be due to psychiatric disorders, alcohol or substance abuse, genetic predispositions, family violence, or significant medical illness. To suggest otherwise is to not understand the nature of suicide.

"'What is wrong with those who need psyciatric treatment?' The answer is that they haven't been satisfying their needs....For Freud, the needs which are presumeably unfulfilled, in the so-called neurotic, are those of sex and aggression. For Glasser [and others] the basic human needs are for relatedness and respect. And how does one satisfy these needs? By doing what is realistic, responsible, and right." (ibid)

As above, one needs the respect of others. This does not mean they need to be changed or converted. In the addiction field, our approach (although many don't know this) is to help the patient gain self worth. Most addicts have been told all their life that they were bad in some way. They have not been loved and accepted as they are, and they escape with chemicals that give, albeit temporarily, a euphoric feeling of being okay. They crave this. If that feeling can be gained through processes other than drugs, the craving is reduced.

I think most addictions, and many mental disorders have this same foundational process,

Again, just my thoughts.

I am not sure that you correctly understanding what Doctors Mowerer and Glasser mean by "respect", particularly as that notion relates to their equation for achieving respect: i.e. via "reality and responsibility and right". It's not so much about respecting differing points of view or different lifestyles, or being accepted for who and what one is, but about feeling worthwhile to oneself and to others. And, while a lack of self worth may, at times be reinforced by being told "they were bad" and not being accepted for who they are, it is more likely to result from irresponsible and wrong thinking and behavior.

Dr. Glasser (who is not LDS) states:

"To be worthwhile we must maintain a satisfactory standard of behavior. To do so we must learn to correct ourselves when we do wrong and to credit ourselves when we do right. If we do not evaluate our own behavior or, having evaluated it, if we do not act to improve our conduct where it is below our standards, we will not fulfill our needs to be worthwitle and will suffer as acutely as when we fail to love or be loved. Morals, standards, values, or right and wrong behaviors are all intimately rekated to the fulfillment of our needs for self worth." (ibid.)

In other words, drug addiction, like low self-esteem, are symptoms of dysfunction or a lack of "interpersonal competencies"--which entails, among other things, personal responsibility, consistency, and accountability. "People do not act irresponsibly because they are 'ill', but they are 'ill' because they act irresponsibly." (ibid.) The point of treatment, then, isn't to get the world to accept people as they are, but to enable the patient to functionally and effectively satisfy their basic human need to love and be loved and to feel worthwhile to self and others.

"The therapist who acccepts excuses, ignores reality, or allows the patient to blame his present unhappiness on a parent or on an emotional disturbance, can usually make his patient feel good temporarily at the price of evading responsibility. He is only giving his patient 'psychiatric kiks," which are no different from the brief kicks he may have obtaihned from alcohol, pills, or sympathetic friends before consulting the psychiatrist. When they fade, as the soon must, the patient with good reason becomes disillusioned with psychiatry." (ibid.)

I don't know about you, but I find these points compelling--more so as they have become increasingly substantiated by scientific research.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_karl61]

Wade wrote:

"However, if one makes that choice, I would hope that they would do so NOT with the intent of finding justification for acting on certain carnal impulses, but with the intent of determining what works best for all parties over a broad range of relationship issues. While LDS are certainly not free from relationship problems (as you may have seen in your addiction councelling), I think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who, on average, have more healthy, lasting, and fulfilling relationships (check the statistics in terms of teen pregnancies, marital infidelity, divorce, etc.). Regardless if one believe LDS moral principles are "magical" in origin, those principles evidently work better than the alternatives--certainly far better, relationship wise, than the secularist movement of "free love" that was pervasive during the 60's and 70's. I know that at least for me, my biggest heartaches and failures in relationships were the result of not adhering to my LDS moral compass. I would gladly exchange the hurt and suffering I caused myself and others through disobedience, for the relatively mild guilt and frustration I may have experienced through obedience--though, to each their own."

I would agree that the 1860's and 70's in Utah were moments or years of "free love". That was the assessment of most people in the United States too.

[_harmony]

I would agree that the 1860's and 70's in Utah were moments or years of "free love". That was the assessment of most people in the United States too.

A fine piece of analysis, Style. Definitely apropo.

[_BishopRic]

Dr. Glasser (who is not LDS) states:

"To be worthwhile we must maintain a satisfactory standard of behavior. To do so we must learn to correct ourselves when we do wrong and to credit ourselves when we do right. If we do not evaluate our own behavior or, having evaluated it, if we do not act to improve our conduct where it is below our standards, we will not fulfill our needs to be worthwitle and will suffer as acutely as when we fail to love or be loved. Morals, standards, values, or right and wrong behaviors are all intimately rekated to the fulfillment of our needs for self worth." (ibid.)

In other words, drug addiction, like low self-esteem, are symptoms of dysfunction or a lack of "interpersonal competencies"--which entails, among other things, personal responsibility, consistency, and accountability. "People do not act irresponsibly because they are 'ill', but they are 'ill' because they act irresponsibly." (ibid.) The point of treatment, then, isn't to get the world to accept people as they are, but to enable the patient to functionally and effectively satisfy their basic human need to love and be loved and to feel worthwhile to self and others.

"The therapist who acccepts excuses, ignores reality, or allows the patient to blame his present unhappiness on a parent or on an emotional disturbance, can usually make his patient feel good temporarily at the price of evading responsibility. He is only giving his patient 'psychiatric kiks," which are no different from the brief kicks he may have obtaihned from alcohol, pills, or sympathetic friends before consulting the psychiatrist. When they fade, as the soon must, the patient with good reason becomes disillusioned with psychiatry." (ibid.)

I don't know about you, but I find these points compelling--more so as they have become increasingly substantiated by scientific research.

If Glasser is referring to "standards" created by religion, then I simply disagree with him, and I can find loads of studies to support my position. Certainly, common standards of decency, criminal behavior, etc., must be corrected. My point is that when the "standards" are illogical, based on mythology rather than science (eg, gays are sinners, must be straightened out, tea are coffee are always bad, etc.), then there will be a problem because the standards are not based in reality.

So to me it comes down to who sets the standards. For you, that may be your concept of God. For me, I would choose time-tested science and logic.

One possible example was described in todays opinion section of the SL Tribune regarding the tragic suicide ofGayle Ruzicka's son:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7970012

A quote: "Gayle Ruzicka and her Eagle Forum activists fervently denounce moral impurities according to their standards and consider people with "immoral propensities" as evil and dirty, untouchable outcasts. Then when it hits home they hesitantly reveal, with shameful resolve, "he was a dear boy. He wasn't this hard core, mean, awful thing that you hear about when you hear about someone who took drugs. He was a kind, sweet boy and the family dearly loved him."


In other words, there seems to be a double standard in the words and behaviors of moral activists. On the one hand, they preach unconditional love. On the other, and I can assure you, people can feel this, they treat those with different beliefs and standards as wicked, second class humans. And the results are obvious.

Again, this is my experience.