Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_Chap]

Culturally accepted beliefs aren't delusions in the psychological sense even if they are obviously unreasonable. So religions that aren't idiosyncratic to a person don't get referred to as a delusional state.

It's interesting, isn't it?

If only Joseph Smith tells us that angels come to talk to him, and all the rest of it, and he remains alone in that belief, he is delusional.

If enough people believe it, you have a legitimate religion.

[_DrW]

Culturally accepted beliefs aren't delusions in the psychological sense even if they are obviously unreasonable. So religions that aren't idiosyncratic to a person don't get referred to as a delusional state.

Absolutely agree, and I noted this in the OP, as follows:

In the interest of full disclosure, religion, in general, is normally given a pass in terms of defining delusional beliefs.

However, I would suggest that not all religious beliefs are equally justified under this exemption.

Again, I think that the florid and demonstrably false beliefs demanded from full status members in many cults, and in full blown Mormonism, Scientology and even Christian Science, for example, probably ride along on the coat tails of the more mainstream religions when it comes to this exception.

For example, the Mormon belief as expressed in Miracle of Forgiveness, that a young woman is better off to die as a virgin than as a live rape victim, or the Christian Science belief that prayer, rather than conventional medicine, is to be used to treat illness, are both unfounded persistent beliefs that can cause direct physical harm to believers and those related to believers.

Regardless of diagnostic criteria, how are these unfounded beliefs not delusional by definition?

[Guest]

Culturally accepted beliefs aren't delusions in the psychological sense even if they are obviously unreasonable. So religions that aren't idiosyncratic to a person don't get referred to as a delusional state.

It's interesting, isn't it?

If only Joseph Smith tells us that angels come to talk to him, and all the rest of it, and he remains alone in that belief, he is delusional.

If enough people believe it, you have a legitimate religion.

Great point.

Given that consensual validation is a logical fallacy, why should it be that, if enough people share a belief that is obvious delusional, it is no longer considered delusional?

[_Chap]

Given that consensual validation is a logical fallacy, why should it be that if enough people share a belief that is obvious delusional, it is no longer considered delusional?

Oh well, one doesn't want to be rude.

And if there are a lot of them about, it might be a bit dangerous.

At some times in history it could be downright fatal to point out the delusion, and fatal in very painful ways too ... nowadays, people will just stop talking to you, divorce you, or cease to do business with you. It's their way of proving that their beliefs are true.

[_Jason Bourne]

exemption.

Again, I think that the florid and demonstrably false beliefs demanded from full status members in many cults, and in full blown Mormonism, Scientology and even Christian Science, for example, probably ride along on the coat tails of the more mainstream religions when it comes to this exception.

I understand your premise and perhaps I am a bit bias. But I think Mormonism, especially modern Mormonism, is not really riding coat tails of more main stream religion, depending on what you call mainstream. Catholic ideas about transubstantiation, beatification of persons to St hood, belief by fundamentalist EVs in the literal second coming, the rapture, the end times events, and of course any of the miraculous stories of the Bible are push the fringe as far as empirical evidence. Is it delusional to believe the God had to have blood from his Son just to forgive creatures he created as flawed sinners, as is being discusses in the thread John 3:61? The only really difference in my view is Mormonism is much younger and believed by far fewer. We are like to Romans and respect the age and time a religion has been acceptable. That is why early Christians tied themselves on the the Old Testament as much as they did.

Anyway, again perhaps I am biased and I know this is a Mormon board but I think you are much harsher on Mormonism in many cases then you are equally odd but old religions.

[Guest]

exemption.

Again, I think that the florid and demonstrably false beliefs demanded from full status members in many cults, and in full blown Mormonism, Scientology and even Christian Science, for example, probably ride along on the coat tails of the more mainstream religions when it comes to this exception.

I understand your premise and perhaps I am a bit bias. But I think Mormonism, especially modern Mormonism, is not really riding coat tails of more main stream religion, depending on what you call mainstream. Catholic ideas about transubstantiation, beatification of persons to St hood, belief by fundamentalist EVs in the literal second coming, the rapture, the end times events, and of course any of the miraculous stories of the Bible are push the fringe as far as empirical evidence. Is it delusional to believe the God had to have blood from his Son just to forgive creatures he created as flawed sinners, as is being discusses in the thread John 3:61? The only really difference in my view is Mormonism is much younger and believed by far fewer. We are like to Romans and respect the age and time a religion has been acceptable. That is why early Christians tied themselves on the the Old Testament as much as they did.

Anyway, again perhaps I am biased and I know this is a Mormon board but I think you are much harsher on Mormonism in many cases then you are equally odd but old religions.

Jason,

I certainly agree with most of what you have said here.

The distinction that one could make relates to whether the religions make assertions as to recent historical events or scientific fact that can be readily disproven using physical evidence.

The Book of Abraham is a great example. Joseph Smith claimed, within the last 200 years, that with the help of God, he "translated" of specific papyri. Unlike the mythical gold plates, the papyri from which this "translation" was made exists and it can be shown that Joseph Smith's translation bore no resemblance whatsoever to the content of the papyri.

In the face of this widely accepted fact (even by LDS), supported by evidence, I would claim that continued belief in the Book of Abraham as a translation of the Joseph Smith papyri should be considered delusional.

[_maklelan]

I am simply asking you to consider whether or not the definitions apply.

That's a lie. "Show me it's not true" is not asking one to consider whether or not it's true, it's asserting it's true and challenging others to prove you wrong. Your little game doesn't get off the ground, though, because your definition is inadequate and does not apply to Mormons. Delusions are always pathological. Belief systems are not a pathology. Also, delusions are defined by clear and indisputable evidence that they are false. You cannot point to clear and indisputable evidence that Mormonism is false, all you can do is point to the general likelihood that certain perspectives within Mormonism are not true. You may feel quite strongly about those likelihoods, but that is a far cry from clear and indisputable evidence. Also, you do medicine a great disservice when you try to manipulate the vagaries of broad definitions of clinical disorders just to drum up fodder for your bigotry.

[_maklelan]

Jason,

I certainly agree with most of what you have said here.

The distinction that one could make relates to whether the religions make assertions as to recent historical events or scientific fact that can be readily disproven using physical evidence.

The Book of Abraham is a great example. Joseph Smith claimed, within the last 200 years, that with the help of God, he "translated" of specific papyri. Unlike the mythical gold plates, the papyri from which this "translation" was made exists and it can be shown that Joseph Smits translation bore no resemblence whatsoever to the content of the papyri.

In the face of this widely accepted fact (even by LDS), supported by evidence, I would claim that continued belief in the Book of Abraham as a translation of the Joseph Smith papyri should be considered delusional.

Again you betray your manipulation of the facts and these definitions. First, you cannot possibly show that such beliefs are pathological, and so you cannot, by definition, call it a delusion. Second, do members who are aware of these facts continue to insist that the Book of Abraham is a literal and accurate translation of the very words found in the Smith papyri, or do they find other ways to move the goal posts, like insisting the real Vorlage is missing, or that the English text is an inspired rendering of a normal funerary text? If the latter, it cannot by definition be a delusion. It can be irrational and it can be dogmatic, but it cannot be a delusion.

[_Yoda]

Dr. W., I am assuming that you are claiming Mormons delusional based on this:

-Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person

(bold emphasis mine)

If you consider Mormons to be delusional based on this definition, then indeed, ALL religions would have to come under this delusion as well. I am sure that is why the journal you found this in excluded religions.

Most religions that I am aware of believe that we are all God's children. That would possibly be considered a delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or special relationship to a deity. It is also the goal of most religions to establish a special relationship with God, or, in the case of Christian religions, Jesus Christ.

You can't have it both ways. You either excuse all religions or none.

[Guest]

-