Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_Chap]

... I am sure that most clinical psychologists, upon reading the revelations of Warren Jeffs since he has been in prison, would consider him delusional, religion or no religion. Yet the behavior Jeffs exhibits in the 21st century in making up revelations from God ... is exactly the behavior exhibited by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. ...

I'd like to hear Maklekan's take on that point. (I have edited out the claim that Smith made up his revelations in order to justify criminal acts, which is not essential to the comparison.)

For reasons I do not fully understand, I was recently one of the chosen recipients of a pamphlet containing a newly-minted 'revelation' by Warren Jeffs. It is maybe a bit more fruity than Joseph Smith's revelations that we read today in D&C , but not much. (And of course what we have in D&C today is a cleaned up version.)

It seems to me as if the only way one can differentiate between the two men as purported channels of revelations from God is to say that Smith really did receive revelations, and Jeffs doesn't.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not sure how one quantifies delusion in order to ascertain whether one group is more delusional than the other.

I can tell you that a lack of altruism & empathy leads to sociopathic behavior, and any ideology that codifies violence in order to advance its agenda is probably more delusional than a society that seeks all remedies that don't infringe on others' lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

- VRDRC

[_EAllusion]

... I am sure that most clinical psychologists, upon reading the revelations of Warren Jeffs since he has been in prison, would consider him delusional, religion or no religion. Yet the behavior Jeffs exhibits in the 21st century in making up revelations from God ... is exactly the behavior exhibited by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. ...

I'd like to hear Maklekan's take on that point. (I have edited out the claim that Smith made up his revelations in order to justify criminal acts, which is not essential to the comparison.)

For reasons I do not fully understand, I was recently one of the chosen recipients of a pamphlet containing a newly-minted 'revelation' by Warren Jeffs. It is maybe a bit more fruity than Joseph Smith's revelations that we read today in D&C , but not much. (And of course what we have in D&C today is a cleaned up version.)

It seems to me as if the only way one can differentiate between the two men as purported channels of revelations from God is to say that Smith really did receive revelations, and Jeffs doesn't.

1) I don't think it's true that Warren Jeffs would be pronounced delusional upon having read his revelations. I'm sure you can find some kangaroo court psychiatrist to do that, as those have thoroughly infected the US justice system. But I don't think it is clear that Jeffs' revelations should be considered delusional and I'd be shocked if you got 70% agreement among clinicians to think that.

2) A religious leader can be delusional while his/her followers believe him for non-delusional reasons. It is almost certainly the case that mental illness has played a role in the shamans of some religions. It's plausible on a pious fraud theory that J. Smith has biopolar disorder with psychotic features. I'm not a fan of diagnosing/pathologizing historical figures on shaky evidence and don't recommend that conclusion, but it is plausible. But Smith's having delusions doesn't mean followers who believe him do.

[_DrW]

1) I don't think it's true that Warren Jeffs would be pronounced delusional upon having read his revelations. I'm sure you can find some kangaroo court psychiatrist to do that, as those have thoroughly infected the US justice system. But I don't think it is clear that Jeffs' revelations should be considered delusional and I'd be shocked if you got 70% agreement among clinicians to think that.

Have you read his "revelations". If you are a psychology professional, I would really be interested to hear how you would avoid labeling as delusional an individual who wrote and sent out to the the Salt Lake Trib and the Utah A. G. office more than 80 "revelations" in 2011. These revelations typically were signed under something like the following closure statement:

We, the undersigned, testify these are verily the Words of Jesus Christour Holy Lord, , who speaketh truth only; and as He speaks, so shall He fulfill, unto salvation for the obedient; and the sorrow of all blessings of eternal life lost for they who heed not our Lord Jesus Christ; who do not receive, by obeying His holy will, our Lord as their Redeemer. Amen.

Why would the writing of more than 80 such "revelations" in a year, sometimes written at a rate of several per day, claiming that the author was recording the very words of Jesus Christ, and having passages such as the one below, coming from a man who was in prison for multiple sexual assualts against under age females (for which no remorse has been expressed), not put this individual into the "delusional" category?

34. Heed my word. Cause my servant {Warren Jeffs} to go free.

35. Let all peoples know I have spoken, and am soon to fulfill my Word upon nations, peoples, and governing authorities.

36. Now receive and give heed to my will, lest full powers of the order of cleansing all wickedness from thy borders of all peoples cometh as a whirlwind, suddenly, to humble all to know thy God speaketh and fulfilleth His word.

Amen.

2) A religious leader can be delusional while his/her followers believe him for non-delusional reasons. It is almost certainly the case that mental illness has played a role in the shamans of some religions. It's plausible on a pious fraud theory that J. Smith has biopolar disorder with psychotic features. I'm not a fan of diagnosing/pathologizing historical figures on shaky evidence and don't recommend that conclusion, but it is plausible. But Smith's having delusions doesn't mean followers who believe him do.

Delusion: a persistent false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

What part of the above definition of delusion does not apply to educated people who believe that Joseph Smith translated an Egyptian Breathing Permit of Hor to obtain the Book of Abraham, or that Joseph Smith did not engage in polygamy, or that Adam and Eve were real historical people, let alone that they lived in a Garden of Eden that was located in Daviss County, MO?

[_EAllusion]

Have you read his "revelations".

Some, yeah.

Why would the writing of more than 80 such "revelations" in a year, sometimes written at a rate of several per day, claiming that the author was recording the very words of Jesus Christ, and having passages such as the one below, coming from a man who was in prison for multiple sexual assualts against under age females (for which no remorse has been expressed), not put this individual into the "delusional" category?

He's a prophet in an established religion that expects its prophets to write revelations in the name of Jesus. That militates against him writing revelations being a sign of clinical delusion. If the Pope thinks he can pronounce to the universal Church of the creator of the universe a dogmatic teaching on how people should be behave, it doesn't make him mentally ill. It means he recognizes that he's the Pope. This is why idiosyncratic religions of one draw a lot of suspicion of some form of delusion but established religions do not.

What part of the above definition of delusion does not apply to educated people who believe that Joseph Smith translated an Egyptian Breathing Permit of Hor to obtain the Book of Abraham, or that Joseph Smith did not engage in polygamy, or that Adam and Eve were real historical people, let alone that they lived in a Garden of Eden that was located in Daviss County, MO?

I already talked about this up thread. There is a lay sense of delusion where it just means belief in somethign despite clear reason to not hold that belief. But when we talk about delusion in the psychological sense, we're honing in a more particular disordered cognitive process. Unreasonable things you might think because of your surrounding culture aren't typically arrived at through that. People can be wrong and rather obviously so without being delusional in the clinical sense. This can get fuzzy, but the distinction is there for a reason. In your opening post you talked about religious views typically being given an "exception" for delusion, but I don't think you quite understand why.

[_EAllusion]

If you want to know where this gets complicated, it's when someone's disordered cognition expresses itself through the lens of a culturally accepted religion. For instance, there are inevitably people in the LDS faith who have experienced delusional thoughts/hallucinations that have led them to think they were receiving revelations from God. However, the faith itself teaches that it isn't an unreasonable to expect revelations from God from time to time. Remember, having a delusional thought or hallucination isn't terribly uncommon and doesn't rise to the level of mental illness until it sufficiently disrupts your global functioning. So when do you describe a person who is insisting that they received a direct revelation from God has having delusional thoughts or hallucinations?

That's a hard question. The hallucination part is easier because, while LDS might dispute this, if you are hearing the voice of God, you aren't actually hearing the voiceo of God. That's a nonveridical perception that meets the definition of hallucination. It it'll take some clever questioning to tease apart the delusion part of the equation. The idea that God picked you to reveal some important information to is grandiose thinking, but is it delusional grandiose thinking? It's hard to say without more information - the sort of information that is hard to get without crawling inside your head.

[_mikwut]

Here is a good working definition of delusion: a persistent false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.

Most naturalists, materialists and atheists maintain beliefs that their lives have some kind of intrinsic meaning, or that their applying personally some kind of meaning to their lives is anything but a false belief regarding themselves that is maintained despite indisputable evidence. Many atheists don't fall for this delusion and commit suicide hence the higher suicide rates among the religiously unaffiliated.

Also, maintaining a belief in any kind of meta-truth or grand truth (via science) is simply delusional for atheists, naturalists and materialists. Their seeking grand truths via a vehicle (science) that cannot answer such questions is delusional.

Ignoring swathes of personal knowledge and experience is delusional for atheists, naturalists and materialists.

Believing in moral truths is delusional for atheists, naturalists and materialists.

Believing that DrW is actually able to produce a true belief that matches his delusional beliefs about conservatives is delusional given his scientism and the premises of which that is based.

So, what part of this definition and the clinical definition below (from DSM V) does not apply to an active believing adult atheist, materialist or naturalist?

From the DSM: (B 04 Delusional Disorder)
Delusional Disorder

A. Delusions of at least 1 month’s duration. (Check)

B. Criterion A for Schizophrenia has never been met. (Check)

Note: Tactile and olfactory hallucinations may be present in Delusional Disorder if they are related to the delusional theme.

C. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired and behavior is not obviously odd or bizarre. (Check - or maybe not)

D. If mood episodes have occurred concurrently with delusions, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods. (Check)

E. The disturbance is not better accounted for by another mental disorder such as body dysmorphic disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder. (Check)

F. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.(Check)

Specify type (the following types are assigned based on the predominant delusional theme):

--Erotomanic Type: delusions that another person, usually of higher status, is in love with the individual
--Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person
--Jealous Type: delusions that the individual’s sexual partner is unfaithful
--Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way
--Somatic Type: delusions that the person has some general medical condition
Mixed Type: delusions characteristic of more than one of the above types but no one theme predominates.

In the interest of full disclosure, secular materialism, naturalism, scientism and atheism, on this board, are normally given a pass in terms of defining delusional beliefs. However, I think that the florid and demonstrably false beliefs demanded from full status members of militant, fundamentalist, radical, and intolerant atheism probably ride along on the coat tails of the mainstream atheists when it comes to this exception.

Next time someone objects to the use of the term delusional in describing atheistic beliefs, they should be prepared to explain how such beliefs are excepted from the above set of criteria and definitions.

my best, mikwut

[_DrW]

Nice try, Mikwut.

First of all, you need to keep in mind that atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, especially the anthropomorphic Mormon God, then the absence of belief in such a supernatural being would not qualify one as delusional according to the definition I have provided.

If you wish to include those with a scientistic world view in your definition of atheist, you have an even greater problem, because now you must consider that, while there is a great deal of scientific evidence against many of the truth claims of the religionist's (especially LDS truth claims), the scientistic world view is , well, based on science.

[_DrW]

If you want to know where this gets complicated, it's when someone's disordered cognition expresses itself through the lens of a culturally accepted religion. For instance, there are inevitably people in the LDS faith who have experienced delusional thoughts/hallucinations that have led them to think they were receiving revelations from God. However, the faith itself teaches that it isn't an unreasonable to expect revelations from God from time to time. Remember, having a delusional thought or hallucination isn't terribly uncommon and doesn't rise to the level of mental illness until it sufficiently disrupts your global functioning. So when you you describe a person who is insisting that they received a direct revelation from God has having delusional thoughts or hallucinations?

That's a hard question. The hallucination part is easier because, while LDS might dispute this, if you are hearing the voice of God, you aren't actually hearing the voiceo of God. That's a nonveridical perception that meets the definition of hallucination. It it'll take some clever questioning to tease apart the delusion part of the equation. The idea that God picked you to reveal some important information to is grandiose thinking, but is it delusional grandiose thinking? It's hard to say without more information - the sort of information that is hard to get without crawling inside your head.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand your criteria and definitions and don't disagree.

However, I note that the application of your definition so as to form the opinion that Warren Jeffs is not delusional, requires the definition of the FLDS Church as a "culturally acceptable religion".

The fact that Jeffs is in prison for the rest of his life for practicing this religion would indicate (to me at least) that this religion is not culturally acceptable.

[_Chap]

Hey mikwut, diagnose my delusions will you?

I lived a major religion for most of my life, and read a lot about it. I have taken the trouble to read about a few others too.

Now here are two positions that define me as, in my view, an atheist naturalist:

1. I don't any longer see any way in which uttering sentences having the form "<name of deity> wants us to do X" or "<name of deity> will punish/reward you if you do Y" or "Things are the way they are in respect of Z because <name of deity> made them that way" contributes anything useful to a discussion about what human beings should do or think. Deities in general don't seem to me to be useful or even interesting things to talk about anymore, except maybe from the anthropological point of view.

2. I find that when deity-based or non-rational methods purporting to provide true knowledge compete in a field where the methods of the natural sciences can properly be applied, it is always the natural sciences that provide the best answers.

Are either of those two positions in themselves delusional? I'd be obliged if you could deal with those before informing me what other positions you think I hold, other than those I have outlined above.