Why they're MAD

[_wenglund]

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.

I am aware that there are still a number of therapists who are throw-backs to the increasingly discredited Freudian philosophy. Dr. Mowrer, research professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, describes the Freudian philosophy as, in part, assuming that "neurosis arises because the afflicted individual's moral standards are 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 presumeably too severe superego, and thus free the person from inhabitions and 'blocks' which stand in the way of normal gratification of 'instincts'." (In the Introduction of Dr. Glasser's book on Reality Therapy)

Advocates of Reality Therapy and Choice Theory, such as myself, suggest nearly the opposite. Our philosophy entails the three R's: reality, responsibility, and right-and-wrong. As Dr. Mower intimates that, to us "the problem is rather an incapacity or failure at the interpersonal, social level of human functioning." In other words, treatment isn't about blaming external entities, such as the Church, for internal issues like depression, but looking inward for the problem and correction. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy takes a similar philosophical stance. (Please note: I am not so much stating a personal "agenda", as you call it, but setting forth a scientifically proven philosophy and treatment approach that I share with a growing number of professionals.)

So, on the one hand we have the treatment philosophy of permissiveness and guiltlessness (the influences of which has had a profound and negative impact on the degredation of societies over the years), which has had a rather poor, if not failed, track record (at times leaving patients thinking they were okay, but ultimately ending up worse off than when they started treatment--I have witnessed this personally with a close relation). And, on the other hand, there is the philosophy of responsibility and accountabilty, which has an excellent track record.

I suppose that both therapists and patient are free to decide between the two.

Granted, there are some therapist who pick and choose from among both philosophies, and may be a mixture of the two, or even variations of other schools of thought. If you quoted your therapist correctly, it sounds as though s/he may be mixed, if not Freudian.

This is the long way of saying that while I understand that there are psychological approaches that differ from the one's I prefer, I don't know if it is wise to simply "accept" their existence. Rather, I think it in the interest of the patients and the mental health profession to advocate for the very best form of treatment--as scientifically proven. I believe I am doing just that with Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Reality Therapy, and Choice Theory. If there is an "agenda" to what I have communicated to you, that would be it. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

It sounds to me like you may be confusing unbelief with disbelief, or agnosticism with atheism. The former entails insufficient "proof" to decide one way or the other, whereas the later entail sufficient "proof" that God doesn't not exist.

If one is atheistic, then, it is no less reasonable to expect support (or "proof") for their disbelief, than it would be to expect support (or "proof") for belief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

That is an interesting theory, and one that may deserve further consideration.

However, I wonder if you may be looking in the wrong direction, and at the wrong things, as the source for your stated frustration in discussing things LDS with so-called "TBMs".

There are certain critics posting online who seem able to have rather extensive, pleasant, and productive discussions on things LDS with LDS across the board--including so-called "TBMs". Paul Haddick and Dave Waltz at ZLMB come to mind, and there were several at FAIR, but their names slip my mind. Yet, there are quitre a fewr critics who seem incapable of having a pleasant and productive discussion on things LDS with most any LDS. There are also other critics, like Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel, who are somewhere inbetween. Why do you suppose that is? Where do you think you fall within those three groups, and where do you suppose the LDS apologists would classify you?

And, even for those LDS, such as myself, who view as personal things that are said about the Church in general, or about LDS leaders and beliefs and practices, this personalization is not necessarily an impediment to pleasant and productive dialogue on things LDS. I, for one (unlike some of my critic friends) am not adverse to certain kinds and manners of personal criticism and analysis. In fact, I am known to welcome it on occasion. So, I don't see why I would be entirely adverse to the same towards the Church. As long as the criticism is evidently constructive, reasonable, fair and balanced, and delivered in a kind and respectful way, I can't see that any LDS, including so-called "TBMs" would object to it or make discussing such things near impossible.

In other words, it is not so much a matter of personalization that so-called "TBMs" may repeatedly object to, but rather the kinds and manner of criticisms of certain critics. Could that be the case with you? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Given that the "True Believers" I have in mind react as if personally attacked to all but the most obsequious pandering "critics", I don't think the problem is my personality or approach.

[_wenglund]

Given that the "True Believers" I have in mind react as if personally attacked to all but the most obsequious pandering "critics", I don't think the problem is my personality or approach.

That may be true if you were able to have pleasant and productive discussions with LDS apologists other than the so-called "TBMs" you have in mind.

From what I have seen, you haven't--which suggest that at least some of the impediments reside within you. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade, that is utter baloney. For one thing, if I were incapable of having reasonable discussions with believers, the former mods at Z would never have asked me to be a moderator in the first place. And it wasn't the first time a mixed moderator group asked me to help moderate a LDS-exLDS board - (except the first time I had enough sense to refuse -moderating is a horrible job, in my opinion) Or perhaps you are confusing coming to an agreement with having reasonable discussions.

Or given the extraordinarily small number of pleasant "critics" you were able to name, perhaps you confuse obsequious pandering with having a "pleasant and productive discussions." I'm not going to patronize believers by trying to massage their egos to cushion my criticisms of particular claims.

Or perhaps your perception of my interactions with believers is tainted for another reason. You, for example, always seem to assume psychological disturbances on the part of exbelievers - in fact, that is your modus operandus. There is very little difference between constantly assuming psychological disturbances on the part of exbelievers and taking personal insult at all but the most obsequious panderers. The impulse - to create a distraction from dealing with the challenge - whether to create a distraction by convincing yourself the challenger is malicious, mean, and attacking you, or that the challenger is psychologically disturbed - has a common origin.

But, all that aside, it's obvious that you believe criticisms of your faith constitute a personal attack. In my perception, that makes you an example of a True Believer whose sense of self is unhealthily enmeshed with an external system.

Of course there are certain believers I have a contentious history with, and will be abrupt with them. But that is due to our history, and their tendency to attack. Pahoran is a perfect example of that - from the first time I posted on Z he attacked me. As he does almost every critic.

But you're free, of course, to tell me that the problem is all me. I'm quite certain that you believe that to be true. We just disagree on the probable reasons you believe that is true.

[_Yoda]

Your points are interesting, Beastie. When I first started posting on FAIR, I was very disheartened because I came to FAIR looking for some answers. I was genuinely confused about issues involving polygamy, Joseph Smith's polyandry, etc., and I was immediately ripped to shreds. I was called a troll, a critic, a heretic, etc.

After repeatedly stating that I was a temple recommend holding Church member, and starting a very respectful thread on Plural Marriage (which, I believe, you participated in, Beastie...enjoyed your comments in that thread, by the way), I became more "accepted" in the apologists' group.

I never could understand attacking the person over solid debate.

For some reason, that seems to be the first thing most TBM's on FAIR/MAD do. There are a few exceptions. BC has always had solid documentation to back up his positions. You may not always agree with him, but he does "put his money where his mouth is", and if you want to engage him, forces you to do the same.

I think that Gaz and Mak have the potential to be the type of apologist that BC is. They are both very young.

I have never understood Pahoran's penchant need to snipe. He also has a solid knowledge of the gospel. If he could learn to simply state his position, rather than adding that extra little snipe, I honestly think people on both sides of the aisle would respect him more.

The problem with attacking someone is that it usually escalates. One person attacks someone else. They feel the need to defend themselves. They come back with something else, and on and on it goes. The subject matter ends up getting lost.

Look how this whole mess between Juliann and me spiralled into oblivion. We were both at fault for just not letting the matter drop. Our egos got in the way.

Like Runtu, I get frustrated when I see unnecessary sniping on this board as well. I feel, however, that at least here, we're a little more open about things, and can talk about it.

What I don't understand about the penchant need to snipe and be judgemental is this. Growing up in the Church, I was always taught that we were suppose to treat everyone with kindness. Christ is the eternal judge...not us.

Does D&C 64:9-10 ring a bell with anyone?

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

[_Alter Idem]

The problem with attacking someone is that it usually escalates. One person attacks someone else. They feel the need to defend themselves. They come back with something else, and on and on it goes. The subject matter ends up getting lost.

Look how this whole mess between Juliann and me spiralled into oblivion. We were both at fault for just not letting the matter drop. Our egos got in the way.

Like Runtu, I get frustrated when I see unnecessary sniping on this board as well. I feel, however, that at least here, we're a little more open about things, and can talk about it.

What I don't understand about the penchant need to snipe and be judgemental is this. Growing up in the Church, I was always taught that we were suppose to treat everyone with kindness. Christ is the eternal judge...not us.

Does D&C 64:9-10 ring a bell with anyone?

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

Liz, this is what I was trying to say on the other board. I am relatively new to LDS boards--I joined Fair over a year ago and since that time have posted here and at Kevin's board. I have often wondered how some can go to church on Sunday, listen to the lessons and talks and then act in such an opposite manner on the boards. I know some rationalize their behavior by saying they are defending the church. However, I see no reason why some feel they must humiliate, ridicule and denigrate their opponent in order to defend the church.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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.

I am aware that there are still a number of therapists who are throw-backs to the increasingly discredited Freudian philosophy. Dr. Mowrer, research professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, describes the Freudian philosophy as, in part, assuming that "neurosis arises because the afflicted individual's moral standards are 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 presumeably too severe superego, and thus free the person from inhabitions and 'blocks' which stand in the way of normal gratification of 'instincts'." (In the Introduction of Dr. Glasser's book on Reality Therapy)

Advocates of Reality Therapy and Choice Theory, such as myself, suggest nearly the opposite. Our philosophy entails the three R's: reality, responsibility, and right-and-wrong. As Dr. Mower intimates that, to us "the problem is rather an incapacity or failure at the interpersonal, social level of human functioning." In other words, treatment isn't about blaming external entities, such as the Church, for internal issues like depression, but looking inward for the problem and correction. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy takes a similar philosophical stance. (Please note: I am not so much stating a personal "agenda", as you call it, but setting forth a scientifically proven philosophy and treatment approach that I share with a growing number of professionals.)

So, on the one hand we have the the influences of treatment philosophy of permissiveness and guiltlessness (which has had a profound and negative impact on the degredation of societies over the years), which has had a rather poor, if not failed, track record (at times leaving patients thinking they were okay, but ultimately ending up worse off than when they started treatment--I have witnessed this personally with a close relation). And, on the other hand, there is the philosophy of responsibility and accountabilty, which has an excellent track record.

I suppose that both therapists and patient are free to decide between the two.

Granted, there are some therapist who pick and choose from among both philosophies, and may be a mixture of the two, or even variations of other schools of thought. If you quoted your therapist correctly, it sounds as though s/he may be mixed, if not Freudian.

This is the long way of saying that while I understand that there are psychological approaches that differ from the one's I prefer, I don't know if it is wise to simply "accept" their existence. Rather, I think it in the interest of the patients and the mental health profession to advocate for the very best form of treatment--as scientifically proven. I believe I am doing just that with Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Reality Therapy, and Choice Theory. If there is an "agenda" to what I have communicated to you, that would be it. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you are reading way too much into what I posted about my therapist, and you are assigning extremes where they don't exist. I said that many therapists do not believe that devotion to a controlling religion is a contributor to good mental health. You turn that into a treatment philosophy of permissiveness and guiltlessness -- your agenda being to demonize anything that can be perceived as a criticism of your beliefs.

I mentioned my own therapy in this thread as a comment to the over-identification Mormons have with their religion, not to debate CBT with you, but it's not really a disrailment because you are perfectly manifesting exactly what Beastie is talking about in this thread. I hope this helps.

[_bcspace]

Good, bcspace, I like being challenged.

No, I didn't mean a political liberal. I was referring to the construct of some MADders that exmormons are really "fundamentalists" because they can't embrace the ambiguity inherent in revelation, while they are "liberals" because they do embrace it. I call them "faux" liberals because they are only willing to embrace certain ambiguity that touches peripheral issues (like Adam/God), they refuse to admit that the ambiguity touches core issues of belief, too (is the church "true"?).

Interesting beastie, as I tend to think of revelation as quite unambiguous (though there might be missing details or subjects not touched upon). Can you give a more explicit example as I don't think I quite understand? Perhaps you should start a thread called 'The ambiguity of revelation'.

Is the principle taught in Jeremiah 18:1-10 (that prophecy is conditional) part of this ambiguity you speak of?