Why they're MAD

[_wenglund]

Even after I'd left the church, and having some counseling for depression and problems, when my therapist suggested that Mormonism could be to blame for some of it I honestly didn't know what she was talking about and defended the church!

Assuming that you correctly understood your therapist (it is possible that you didn't), there are several logical reasons to challenge your therapist's claim:

1) Since not everyone in the Church has been depressed or experiencing the problems that you have--in fact, for many in the Church, their quality of life and general mood is often upbeat, hopeful, and joyous;

2) And, since not everyone in the Church who has been depressed, such as myself, were depressed for the same reason--some have had chemical imbalances, some have experienced traumatic and sorrowful events unrelated or not directly related to the Church, some have lived in toxic environements that, in certain ways, conflict with the teachings of the Church, etc.;

3) And, since some of those in the Church who have been depressed, have found the support system within the Church and the hopeful and uplifting message of its teachings, among other things, to be both an impediment to, and a partial cure for, depression (there are scientific studies which confirm this effect, and the show religious faith among the top 4 impediments to depression);

4) Then, it is unreasonable and illogical to place general blame on the Church for a specific person's specific depression in relation to the Church.

Granted, some people can interprete and give a particularly meaning to certain aspects of the Church, and respond in a certain way to certain aspects of the Church, which may, in part, result in depression. But, that speaks to the individual in relation to the Church, but not to the Church, itself. In other words, if one is looking to blame (I don't see blaming as a particularly useful strategy in this case), it rests with the individual, not the Church.

To better understand this GENERAL PRINCIPLE, let's look at a similar example outside the Church. Let's say that a therapist told a patient that the public school system is to blame for the patient's depression. For the same reasons listed above (just substitute the words "public school system" for the word "Church" above), this would be unreasonable and illogical. Rather, it is the particualr manner in which the student interpretes, applies meaning, and interacts withing the public school system which may have caused the depression. It may have to do with the students lack of adaptive, coping, education and social skills. Or, it may have to do with the low sense of self of the student in relation to others. It may have to do with the student's various interpretations (or misinterpretations) which resulted in false beliefs about his/herself and what that means in relation to others (beliefs about needing to be innerant, perfect, and at the top of one's class, in order to be loved, valued. and respected, etc.). Etc.

Just something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

In other words, if one is looking to blame...it rests with the individual, not the Church.

You could have just said that. We wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think it's because it demonstrates a lack of manners. If you're going to be rude you're not going to have civil discourse. I'm sure you'd be none too pleased if I referred to you, your spouse and familiy with derogatory names. I'm happy to refer to other religous leaders and scholars by their proper titles--at least if I expect something more than mudslinging, rants, and garbage in an exchange of words.

And this illustrates my point. It may be poor manners, and immature, but TBMs act as if you are offending them or their family personally.

[_asbestosman]

And this illustrates my point. It may be poor manners, and immature, but TBMs act as if you are offending them or their family personally.

I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.

[_Who Knows]

I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.

Does atheism deserve respect?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Even after I'd left the church, and having some counseling for depression and problems, when my therapist suggested that Mormonism could be to blame for some of it I honestly didn't know what she was talking about and defended the church!

Assuming that you correctly understood your therapist (it is possible that you didn't), there are several logical reasons to challenge your therapist's claim:

1) Since not everyone in the Church has been depressed or experiencing the problems that you have--in fact, for many in the Church, their quality of life and general mood is often upbeat, hopeful, and joyous;

2) And, since not everyone in the Church who has been depressed, such as myself, were depressed for the same reason--some have had chemical imbalances, some have experienced traumatic and sorrowful events unrelated or not directly related to the Church, some have lived in toxic environements that, in certain ways, conflict with the teachings of the Church, etc.;

3) And, since some of those in the Church who have been depressed, have found the support system within the Church and the hopeful and uplifting message of its teachings, among other things, to be both an impediment to, and a partial cure for, depression (there are scientific studies which confirm this effect, and the show religious faith among the top 4 impediments to depression);

4) Then, it is unreasonable and illogical to place general blame on the Church for a specific person's specific depression in relation to the Church.

Granted, some people can interprete and give a particularly meaning to certain aspects of the Church, and respond in a certain way to certain aspects of the Church, which may, in part, result in depression. But, that speaks to the individual in relation to the Church, but not to the Church, itself. In other words, if one is looking to blame (I don't see blaming as a particularly useful strategy in this case), it rests with the individual, not the Church.

To better understand this GENERAL PRINCIPLE, let's look at a similar example outside the Church. Let's say that a therapist told a patient that the public school system is to blame for the patient's depression. For the same reasons listed above (just substitute the words "public school system" for the word "Church" above), this would be unreasonable and illogical. Rather, it is the particualr manner in which the student interpretes, applies meaning, and interacts withing the public school system which may have caused the depression. It may have to do with the students lack of adaptive, coping, education and social skills. Or, it may have to do with the low sense of self of the student in relation to others. It may have to do with the student's various interpretations (or misinterpretations) which resulted in false beliefs about his/herself and what that means in relation to others (beliefs about needing to be innerant, perfect, and at the top of one's class, in order to be loved, valued. and respected, etc.). Etc.

Just something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, Wade, you're just going to have to get used to the idea that many therapists do not believe that devotion to a controlling religion is a contributor to good mental health.

But thanks for setting out your agenda so clearly here.

[_asbestosman]

I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.

Does atheism deserve respect?

Is atheism a religion? Many atheists vehemently object to such a notion. I wonder though. I've been reading Dawkins' Delusion (yes, the wording is intentional) and keep hearing stories about atheist persecution. I swear I've heard plenty of those opposed to the church deride the LDS when they talk about persecution.

Now if I wish to have a civil dialogue about atheism, I will be respectful regardless of how silly (or at least misguided) I think the claims are.

[_Alter Idem]

I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.

Does atheism deserve respect?

Is atheism a religion? Many atheists vehemently object to such a notion. I wonder though. I've been reading Dawkins' Delusion (yes, the wording is intentional) and keep hearing stories about atheist persecution. I swear I've heard plenty of those opposed to the church deride the LDS when they talk about persecution.

Now if I wish to have a civil dialogue about atheism, I will be respectful regardless of how silly (or at least misguided) I think the claims are.

Some athiests defend their non-belief as emphatically as if it were a religion. And like all religions or systems of belief, athiests can't prove their disbelief in God any more than I can prove my belief in God.

[_Trojan Tapir]

I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.

Does atheism deserve respect?

Is atheism a religion? Many atheists vehemently object to such a notion. I wonder though. I've been reading Dawkins' Delusion (yes, the wording is intentional) and keep hearing stories about atheist persecution. I swear I've heard plenty of those opposed to the church deride the LDS when they talk about persecution.

Now if I wish to have a civil dialogue about atheism, I will be respectful regardless of how silly (or at least misguided) I think the claims are.

Some athiests defend their non-belief as emphatically as if it were a religion. And like all religions or systems of belief, athiests can't prove their disbelief in God any more than I can prove my belief in God.

One is generally expected to support a particular belief with evidence/reason (at least outside of religion). Why would one, on the other hand, feel compelled to try and "prove" a disbelief? I don't believe in unicorns or dragons, but I certainly don't feel as though I should somehow "prove" my lack of a belief in them. I simply haven't seen evidence that establishes their existence to my satisfaction.

I think it's silly to try and compare atheism to a religion by saying they can't prove their disbelief in God any more than you can prove your belief in God. I'm sure even the staunchest atheist could be convinced of God's existence, given enough evidence. For nearly every aspect of a person's life outside of religion, lack of belief is the default. One does not believe that his or her spouse is cheating, for example, without evidence. If someone believes their spouse is cheating, they may be asked for evidence in support, but I've never heard of someone being asked to prove their disbelief in having an unfaithful mate. Atheists simply carry this logical proposition into the realm of religion.

[_beastie]

I want to clarify my original post.

All human beings connect their self identity with various external entities - relationships, careers, religion, politics. But I think that there is a difference between the normal level at which this takes place, and the level of complete enmeshment of self with the external entity, to the point that the psyche cannot separate the two. I think that is an abnormal event. Let's take politics as a neutral example.

I consider myself, for all intents and purposes, aligned with the democratic party (with the clarification that I live in an extremely conservative state, so what passes for democrats here could also pass as moderate republicans in non uber conservative states). Yet I would not feel personally attacked if someone criticized any given democratic stance on a subject. In fact, I am quite interested in hearing opposing viewpoints, partly to make sure that I weigh both sides of important arguments. The only time I would become personally offended would *possibly* be if some person started mouthing off limbaugh-like generic insults about the intelligence or evil nature of democrats. And even then I tend not to take offense, but conclude that an individual that partisan is a fool. So it takes what really WOULD be a personal insult for me to feel insulted.

I think that for an individual to associate him/herself so completely with the democratic party that he/she would take offense at a critical analysis of some particular stance as a personal insult has underlying emotional issues. I would speculate that the individual had difficulties forming a healthy sense of self, likely in childhood, and hence, tried to form that sense by a complete identification with the external entity.

This is what I mean by a "true believer". Eric Hoffer discussed this at length and speculated that the individuals who became "True Believers" in the sense that no amount of objective evidence could dissuade them from their loyalty and complete belief in a certain mass movement, like religion or politics had a flawed sense of self that left them desperate for some external entity to supply a feeling of self worth. Since the feeling of self worth is completely associated with the external system, any criticism of that external system, no matter how "reality based", so to speak, is seen as a direct attack on self.

I certainly do not believe all, or even the majority, of LDS posters on MAD are "true believers" in this sense. But I have come to believe that the most personally aggressive defenders of the faith - often taking pride in that approach as well - are the real "True Believers" on MAD. It's not those who may have the most traditional or even "fundamentalist" interpretation of the religion. It is those who interpret ANY criticism of the LDS belief system as a personal attack, and respond accordingly, who are the True Believers in the Hoffer sense of the word.

There are True Believers on the exmormon side, as well. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head, who have created a system of beliefs regarding the nature of the LDS church, members, leaders, teachings, history, and act as every bit as personally aggressive as the MAD True Believers when their particular party line is challenged.

Please don't misunderstand me to say that I am objecting to strenuous challenges, debates, analysis. Not at all, I enjoy that. I am talking about those who clearly feel personally offended, insulted, and angry when LDS (or exLDS) truth claims are analyzed and criticized.