DiscussMormonism.com

Psychopathy is not a clinical term, however the more technical terms “sociopathy", “Dissocial personality disorder” or “Antisocial Personality Disorder” is used. The World Health Organization in ICD-10 defines this condition as have at least three of the following traits:

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;
c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

Is the LDS Church a psychopath?

John Larsen wrote:Psychopathy is not a clinical term, however the more technical terms “sociopathy", “Dissocial personality disorder” or “Antisocial Personality Disorder” is used. The World Health Organization in ICD-10 defines this condition as have at least three of the following traits:

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;
c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

Is the LDS Church a psychopath?

The LDS Church is not a person. So no, it cannot be psychopathic.

Jason Bourne wrote:

John Larsen wrote:Psychopathy is not a clinical term, however the more technical terms “sociopathy", “Dissocial personality disorder” or “Antisocial Personality Disorder” is used. The World Health Organization in ICD-10 defines this condition as have at least three of the following traits:

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;
c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

Is the LDS Church a psychopath?

The LDS Church is not a person. So no, it cannot be psychopathic.

The LDS Church is a corporation, which makes it a person according to the US government.

John Larsen wrote:Psychopathy is not a clinical term, however the more technical terms “sociopathy", “Dissocial personality disorder” or “Antisocial Personality Disorder” is used. The World Health Organization in ICD-10 defines this condition as have at least three of the following traits:

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;

Where would this manifest? There is humanitarian aid --- this doesn't fit.

b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;

Yet, the Church does (grudgingly it appears) shift to change policies to fit within social norms, rules, and obligations.

c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;

I'm not sure how this would fit? With outsiders? Or with those in the Church?

d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;

I don't see this as fitting. Is there violence (currently) attributed to the Church?

e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;

Hmm... maybe? Not sure about this one.

f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

This quite possibly is a yes. For instance the speaking of persecution and yet not discussing the reasons for the persecution of the early Saints.

Is the LDS Church a psychopath?

No.

John Larsen wrote:The LDS Church is a corporation, which makes it a person according to the US government.

Do you know of any international law that might make it a tangerine instead? Besides, calling the Church psychopathic sounds a bit abnormal and offensive to boot.

moksha wrote:

John Larsen wrote:The LDS Church is a corporation, which makes it a person according to the US government.

Do you know of any international law that might make it a tangerine instead? Besides, calling the Church psychopathic sounds a bit abnormal and offensive to boot.

I was thinking calling the Church a psychopath fit with this:

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;

moksha wrote:

John Larsen wrote:The LDS Church is a corporation, which makes it a person according to the US government.

Do you know of any international law that might make it a tangerine instead? Besides, calling the Church psychopathic sounds a bit abnormal and offensive to boot.

Maybe so, but the question is a serious one. A psychopath cannot function in society because it does not comprehend its role in that society. The Church is obviously not a human being, but to extend to it the roles and responsibilities we give to humans is a useful analogy. Another way to ask this question is, if the Church were a person, would we tolerate its behavior?

a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
I think the Church obviously exhibits this behavior. It does not regard the feelings of its members when they disagree in that there is no room or toleration for dissent. Any other Church or organization that takes an opposing viewpoint is not just seen as an alternative force, but as enemies that need to be destroyed.

b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;
There are many examples of this where the Church acts in ways that go against the grain of society, take polygamy for example. There is no consideration at all of living in a community or of conforming to societal rules.

c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
This one is also the case, although maybe not as apparent. The Church very quickly establishes relationships with individuals, think about how quickly investigators are pressured into baptism. It was commit by the second discussion when I was out there. But the relationships only persist as long as the individual confirms to every whim of the Church. Each relationship can be thrown away quickly if this one way relationship does not persist.

d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
Violent acts have been noted. But also aggressive censure of its members occurs daily. The Church will quickly use humiliation and intimidation to gain control over the most menial aspects of its members lives. Even the slightest perceived questioning of authority will be meet with swift retribution.

e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
From denying blacks the priesthood to MMM, the Church is unable to acknowledge any guilt or culpability. Any kind of official sanction, in the form of lawsuit or whatever is merely met with a persecution complex.

f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.
Just head over to MAD and you will see this.

Once again, my point is not to call the church a big poo-poo head, it is to point out that by the standards we judge human beings to be a threat to society, the Church meets every standard. If the Church were a person, it would be sent to a mental institution.

P.S. I don't mean to imply that the members or leadership are psychopathic, just the institution.

This little test can also be applied to other organizations and corporations and you will see that it often applies: to get something really cold and heartless, you usually need and institution.

John Larsen wrote:a. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;

Anyone who's left the church knows just how unconcerned with an individuals feelings and desires they really are.

John Larsen wrote:b. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;

The culture of not reporting grossly inappropriate acts to the authorities and taking care of things "in-house" is a classic example of the church disregarding social norms and obligations.

John Larsen wrote:c. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;

The church isn't interested in equitable relationships. They are only interested in master/servant type relationships. Having a positive relationship with the church is contingent upon doing everything they want you to. To me, this doesn't sound like much of a relationship in the first place. It’s certainly not a healthful one.

John Larsen wrote:d. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;

To test this, go over to MAD and tell them they aren't Christians, or that you're questioning certain aspects of the theology, and let's see how tolerant they are before discharging some aggression.

John Larsen wrote:e. incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;

I think the way they've handled the issue of homosexuality is a great example of how they refuse to learn through experience. There are numerous other examples where the church just keeps doing the stupid things over and over because that is its tradition.

John Larsen wrote:f. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

Persecution complex, anyone?

No one person in the church is to blame for all of these behaviors, obviously, but the institutionalized practices and encouraged culture of the church can most definitely be considered psychopathic by these definitions. It is what it is.

The LDS Church is a corporation, which makes it a person according to the US government.

I understand the legal aspects of a corporation being a person. Are you actually claiming that this makes it a live sentient being? Maybe proszac would help then.