Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_MCB]

folie a mille

Vague enough to be non-controversial.

Excellent thread!!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hello Doctor Scratch,

I think it is incorrect, wrong. I don't think it is delusional or crazy as in pathological mental illness. If someone wants the rhetorical force of those adjectives, simply divorce them from the DSM or professional types of diagnoses.

mikwut

I don't really think much was gained by including the DSM material in the OP, and as EAllusion has already pointed out, the criteria weren't really applied in the correct way. That said, I wonder if a more interesting question here is this: if a Mormon fully believes every last "problematic" doctrine of the Church, would this person somehow seem "delusional"? I ask because I would guess that most Mormons don't actually believe a good percentage of the doctrines.

[_Chap]

Chap, (repeating this because you seem to have missed it)

You know what, never mind, response is sure - there are positions I disagree with, strongly disagree with and even don't take very seriously but still take time to refute. If someone else takes them seriously there is reason to offer effort.

Do you have anything more substantive regarding my posts? If not good day.

mikwut

OK mikwut, you are welcome to the last word if it is important to you.

... whoops!

[_MCB]

if a Mormon fully believes every last "problematic" doctrine of the Church, would this person somehow seem "delusional"? definitely


I ask because I would guess that most Mormons don't actually believe a good percentage of the doctrines.

Thank God!!

[_mikwut]

Doctor,

I wonder if a more interesting question here is this: if a Mormon fully believes every last "problematic" doctrine of the Church, would this person somehow seem "delusional"? I ask because I would guess that most Mormons don't actually believe a good percentage of the doctrines.

So are true believers, or fundamentalist literal believers delusional? No. Their wrong to.

regards, mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor,

I wonder if a more interesting question here is this: if a Mormon fully believes every last "problematic" doctrine of the Church, would this person somehow seem "delusional"? I ask because I would guess that most Mormons don't actually believe a good percentage of the doctrines.

So are true believers, or fundamentalist literal believers delusional? No. Their wrong to.

regards, mikwut

"Their wrong to"? What does that mean, exactly? And I put "delusional" in scare quotes deliberately. I don't think we need to start parsing through the DSM criteria to get at the gist of what DrW's OP was saying, which is that many of the hardcore Mormon doctrines are downright nutty.

In any case, yes: suppose we imagine a super-fundamentalist TBM--someone who believes that Zelph was a real person, that blood atonement was a God-given teaching, and that masturbation will cause homosexuality. You say that this person is merely "wrong," but what does that mean? "Wrong" in what sense?

[_harmony]

In any case, yes: suppose we imagine a super-fundamentalist TBM--someone who believes that Zelph was a real person, that blood atonement was a God-given teaching, and that masturbation will cause homosexuality. You say that this person is merely "wrong," but what does that mean? "Wrong" in what sense?

Wrong in that none of that is doctrinal.

Good grief. Find some better examples, Scratch.

[Guest]

Thank you, EAllusion, for attempting to bring reason to this discussion. This attempt to paint all Mormons as delusional is a good example of why therapists need years of training. Ludicrous, simply ludicrous.

Although EAllusion is making great headway, I would say that he has not quite yet made his case with regard to the example of Warren Jeffs.

In order to agree with his up-thread opinion of Warren Jeffs as not delusional, by his own definitions and criteria, one would have to consider the FLDS Church as a socially acceptable ("culturally acceptable") religion. The fact that society has put Jeffs is in prison for the rest of his life for practicing this religion puts its status as socially acceptable in serious doubt.

Also, Harmony, please note that the OP and the title of the thread indicate that believing Mormons simply meet the definition of delusional that I provided. If you do not feel that this is the case, then please provide evidence to back your position or at least explain which criteria of the definition are not met.

[_mikwut]

Doctor,

"Their wrong to"? What does that mean, exactly?

Really? What does They are incorrect mean? Seriously?

And I put "delusional" in scare quotes deliberately. I don't think we need to start parsing through the DSM criteria to get at the gist of what DrW's OP was saying, which is that many of the hardcore Mormon doctrines are downright nutty.

They are found within a framework of thought, premises, perceptions and experience that qualify there warrant. I don't accept them but that doesn't make them nutty by simple virtue of viewing them from a completely different worldview. Your only expressing your own personal dislike for the worldview. Are your trying to remove the DSM from the OP but still retain some objectively valid measure for non-pathological nuttiness. I think that's called opinion.

n any case, yes: suppose we imagine a super-fundamentalist TBM--someone who believes that Zelph was a real person, that blood atonement was a God-given teaching, and that masturbation will cause homosexuality. You say that this person is merely "wrong," but what does that mean? "Wrong" in what sense?

Historically, revelatory, and causally or empirically.

regards, mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor,

"Their wrong to"? What does that mean, exactly?

Really? What does They are incorrect mean? Seriously?

You didn't write "they are incorrect." You wrote, "Their wrong to."

And I put "delusional" in scare quotes deliberately. I don't think we need to start parsing through the DSM criteria to get at the gist of what DrW's OP was saying, which is that many of the hardcore Mormon doctrines are downright nutty.

They are found within a framework of thought, premises, perceptions and experience that qualify there warrant. I don't accept them but that doesn't make them nutty by simple virtue of viewing them from a completely different worldview. Your only expressing your own personal dislike for the worldview. Are your trying to remove the DSM from the OP but still retain some objectively valid measure for non-pathological nuttiness. I think that's called opinion.

What do you think are the "warrants"--or good reasons--for believing something like blood atonement? Or that murdering your own kids will send them to the Celestial Kingdom? And you are indeed right: in my opinion beliefs like that are "nutty."

Regardless, I doubt that you'll ever arrive at an "objectively valid" means of measuring this sort of thing. Probably, at best we'll get something that's inter-subjective--sort of like what you see when sociologists of religion try to assess how much tension there is between New Religious Movements and "apostates." In that specific instance, the sociologists argue that the level of tension has to do with how "marginal" or "cut off" from the mainstream the NRM is. So, my question is: Would something similar apply in this case? I.e., if belief in blood atonement, polygamy, or ixnay on the asturbationmay are way off from the mainstream, can we label them "wack"?

I guess what I'm asking you mikwut, is this: Do you think any Mormon beliefs are flat-out "nutty"? Maybe you do think so but don't want to say, because you think it's impolite?

n any case, yes: suppose we imagine a super-fundamentalist TBM--someone who believes that Zelph was a real person, that blood atonement was a God-given teaching, and that masturbation will cause homosexuality. You say that this person is merely "wrong," but what does that mean? "Wrong" in what sense?

Historically, revelatory, and causally or empirically.

regards, mikwut

Huh? "Revelatory" wrong? "Causally" wrong? You said above that there are legitimate, world-view-based warrants for this stuff. What do you think those "warrants" are?