Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_Buffalo]

If Christine was delusional and she killed her children because she believed this act would send them to the Celestial Kingdom, how can the belief that her under eight year old children would go to the Celestial Kingdom upon their death not be delusional?

Because the belief was not the proximate cause, and because the belief does not in and of itself compel or even suggest such an action. This woman obviously had mental issues antecedent to, and independent of, that belief. The belief merely provided a lens for focusing her mental problems. Any number of beliefs could act as such a lens.

If not on the basis of thisfalse and fatal belief, on what basis did you conclude that Christine was delusional?

That she murdered her children and claimed that a religious outlook that unilaterally condemns murder compelled her to do it. This is not difficult.

She sacrificed her own salvation to guarantee salvation for her children. I don't think you can parse out the part about children being guaranteed salvation from the rest of her delusion.

[Guest]

If Christine was delusional and she killed her children because she believed this act would send them to the Celestial Kingdom, how can the belief that her under eight year old children would go to the Celestial Kingdom upon their death not be delusional?

Because the belief was not the proximate cause, and because the belief does not in and of itself compel or even suggest such an action. This woman obviously had mental issues antecedent to, and independent of, that belief. The belief merely provided a lens for focusing her mental problems. Any number of beliefs could act as such a lens.

If not on the basis of this false and fatal belief, on what basis did you conclude that Christine was delusional?

That she murdered her children and claimed that a religious outlook that unilaterally condemns murder compelled her to do it. This is not difficult.

You must be forgetting the scriptural story of Laban's murder at the hands of Nephi in the Book of Mormon and Brigham Young's ordering of the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

[_maklelan]

You must be forgetting the scriptural story of Laban's murder at the hands of Nephi in the Book of Mormon and Brigham Young's ordering of the the Mountain Meadow Massacre killings.

The religious outlook still unilaterally condemns it. First, the evidence pretty clearly shows that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. Next, Laban's murder was not the result of a conventional belief, but a direct command that compelled the quite reluctant Nephi to act. Are you saying this woman felt like she had been individually and specifically commanded by God in this instance to murder her children?

[_Drifting]

Laban's murder was not the result of a conventional belief, but a direct command that compelled the quite reluctant Nephi to act.

'direct command' = voices in Nephi's head/feeling in his tummy

Why don't defence lawyers use this argument any more when defending murderers?

[_maklelan]

'direct command' = voices in Nephi's head/feeling in his tummy

Why don't defence lawyers use this argument any more when defending murderers?

Because it's not a valid legal defense. This thread isn't about defending Nephi's murder of Laban.

[_DrW]

You must be forgetting the scriptural story of Laban's murder at the hands of Nephi in the Book of Mormon and Brigham Young's ordering of the the Mountain Meadow Massacre killings.

The religious outlook still unilaterally condemns it. First, the evidence pretty clearly shows that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. Next, Laban's murder was not the result of a conventional belief, but a direct command that compelled the quite reluctant Nephi to act. Are you saying this woman felt like she had been individually and specifically commanded by God in this instance to murder her children?

In fact, my friend, it makes no difference if the LDS religion condemns murder or not.

The LDS religion specifically states that children who die under the age of eight will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. And as Buffalo pointed out, the young mother who killed her children was able to take the implications of this belief to their logical conclusion, realize that she had the opportunity to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the souls of her children, and had the courage to take the action indicated by this teaching / belief.

It is a situation analogous to the Adam and Eve myth. They were commanded not to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. They were also told that to gain knowledge of good and evil they must eat of the fruit.

The young woman taught that she should not kill her children, but also told that, if she were to do so before they were eight, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom. She was also told that thd Celestial Kingdom was glorious beyond all imagination and conferred upon one the right to live with God.

The Church gave her a clear choice with well-defined outcomes. She did what she thought was best for her troubled family.

[_maklelan]

In fact, my friend, it makes no difference if the LDS religion condemns murder or not.

Of course not. Only your assertions matter.

The LDS religion specifically states that children who die under the age of eight will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. And as Buffalo pointed out, the young mother who killed her children was able to take the implications of this belief to their logical conclusion, realize that she had the opportunity to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the souls of her children, and had the courage to take the action indicated by this teaching / belief.

That's not that belief's logical conclusion. It is a possible conclusion, but it's idiocy to say it's a logical one, especially given the fact that it entirely conflicts with the broader soteriological and moral outlook of the religion.

It is a situation analogous to the Adam and Eve myth. They were commanded not to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. They were also told that to gain knowledge of good and evil they must eat of the fruit.

No, that's not analogous, and the two statements came from two different people: God and the serpent. The two conflicting commandments that they had to deal with were the commandment not to eat the fruit and the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Even there, though, there's an enormous difference between choosing between two conflicting imperatives and choosing to murder your children in order to guarantee their exaltation.

The young woman taught that she should not kill her children, but also told that, if she were to do so before they were eight, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

When was she taught that if she killed her children, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom? It sounds like you're taking an inference that she made on her own and attributing it to the church.

She was also told that thd Celestial Kingdom was glorious beyond all imagination and conferred upon one the right to live with God.

She would have also known that her children would have been deprived of the presence of their mother in the eternities, which is in total conflict with the gospel plan.

The Church gave her a clear choice with well-defined outcomes. She did what she thought was best for her troubled family.

What the hell is wrong with you? What kind of sick person has to conjure up such a perverse premise just to feel better about their worldview?

[_Doctor Scratch]

You cut me deep that time, Scratch.

Is there some privileged information or context here that the rest of us are missing?

Is it just me?

Maklelan doesn't believe in the claims of the Church. He's an Internet Mormon, in other words. You can take virtually any example you like--any of the standard, orthodox Mormon beliefs that might be called "delusional"--and Maklelan will find some way to rationalize it or spin it such that it no longer seems strange.

[_DrW]

When was she taught that if she killed her children, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom? It sounds like you're taking an inference that she made on her own and attributing it to the church.

Are you now going to tell me that you are not aware of the LDS Gospel principle that children who die before the age of accountability will inherit the Celestial Kingdom? If you are that uninformed regarding the principles of the gospel, what are you doing as an apologist?

The Church gave her a clear choice with well-defined outcomes. She did what she thought was best for her troubled family.

What the hell is wrong with you? What kind of sick person has to conjure up such a perverse premise just to feel better about their worldview?

I ask you the same question regarding the unfounded, twisted and ad hoc teachings and doctrine of the LDS Church. She was the one who specifically cited this bizarre LDS doctrine as a motivation for her act. There is certainly no evidence that she was lead to her decision by the Golden Rule.

[_hatersinmyward]

The thing about Scientology is the deeper you get involved the more whacked out things you hear. As opposed to Mormonism where they start teaching you the crazy s*** from the beginning.