DiscussMormonism.com

This is a legacy thread that come to mind when I saw the following article yesterday:

Neuroscientist Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Apparently I am not the only one who is concerned about the mental well being of overly conservative religionists.

______________________________________________________________

The thread on the LDS aversion to marriage counseling and professional mental health care and services in general, and the anger that was expressed by some believers at my characterization of some of the Republican Presidential candidates as delusional, got me thinking about some definitions.

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.

So, what part of this definition and the clinical definition below (from DSM V) does not apply to an active believing adult member of the LDS Church?

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, religion, in general, is 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 in Mormonism and Scientology probably ride along on the coat tails of the mainstream religions when it comes to this exception.

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

Edited Feb 17 to change DSM-IV to DSM-V

DrW wrote:What part of this definition does not apply to an active believing adult member of the LDS Church?

Broadly diagnosing an entire church membership with a psychological disorder? Now this is quality anti-Mormonism.

maklelan wrote:

DrW wrote:What part of this definition does not apply to an active believing adult member of the LDS Church?

Broadly diagnosing an entire church membership with a psychological disorder? Now this is quality anti-Mormonism.

It is not a diagnosis because I am not a clinician. It is simply a set of clinical definitions provided for consideration and discussion.

Rather than call me an anti-Mormon, perhaps you could explain why these definitions do not apply.

Or you could think about it this way: I am simply trying to help out Mormons by giving them the chance to accept secular truth in the same way that baptism by Mormons of deceased agnostics or members of other religions is giving them an opportunity to accept "Mormon truth".

Seems fair - would you not agree?

Are Mormons to be considered anti-Semitic for baptizing dead Jews?

DrW wrote:It is not a diagnosis because I am not a clinician.

The fact that you're not qualified means it's not a legitimate diagnosis, but it doesn't mean you're not asserting a diagnosis.

DrW wrote:It is simply a set of clinical definitions provided for consideration and discussion.

That's not true at all. You're challenging people to show you that the diagnosis does not apply to all adult faithful members of the church.

DrW wrote:Rather than call me an anti-Mormon, perhaps you could explain why these definitions do not apply.

See, you can't go one post without asserting this diagnosis.

DrW wrote:Or you could think about it this way: I am simply trying to help out Mormons by giving them the chance to accept secular truth in the same way that baptism by Mormons of deceased agnostics or members of other religions is giving them an opportunity to accept the Mormon truth.

So you're not qualified to diagnose, and you're just throwing it out there for discussion, but your fake diagnosis of all faithful adult Mormons is "secular truth." Additionally, that unilateral diagnosis of a serious psychological disorder is no different from Mormons performing an ordinance they believe gives a deceased person an opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. I guess I underestimated the calibre of your anti-Mormonism.

DrW wrote:Seems fair - would you not agree?

Of course I would not agree with that nonsense.

DrW wrote:Are Mormons to be considered anti-Semitic for baptizing dead Jews?

Mormons don't suggest all Jews, in virtue of their beliefs, suffer from a psychological disorder. Are you honestly this much of a bigot?

maklelan wrote:Broadly diagnosing an entire church membership with a psychological disorder? Now this is quality anti-Mormonism.

Excellent point. Dr. W, would probably glance in at a High Priest's group and announce they were all in a fugue state when they were simply sleeping. Once you have ruled out other signs, signals and symptoms, your diagnosis of acute anti-mormonism would make for a most edifying article in the American Journal of Apologetic Pathology.

moksha wrote:

maklelan wrote:Broadly diagnosing an entire church membership with a psychological disorder? Now this is quality anti-Mormonism.

Excellent point. Dr. W, would probably glance in at a High Priest's group and announce they were all in a fugue state when they were simply sleeping. Once you have ruled out other signs, signals and symptoms, your diagnosis of acute anti-mormonism would make for a most edifying article in the American Journal of Apologetic Pathology.

American Journal of Apologetic Pathology.

What a name. I like it.

maklelan wrote:

DrW wrote:It is simply a set of clinical definitions provided for consideration and discussion.

That's not true at all. You're challenging people to show you that the diagnosis does not apply to all adult faithful members of the church.

I would like to see a believer take the challenge.

This is why Mitt Romney is having such a tough time with his election process. Mormonism... In all its facets... It's crazy. People don't want to elect a Mormon to the Presidency. They just don't.

I think Jeb Bush has a strong shot at the upcoming convention...

Stand by... ;)

- VRDRC

DrW wrote:It is simply a set of clinical definitions provided for consideration and discussion.

maklelan wrote:[That's not true at all. You're challenging people to show you that the diagnosis does not apply to all adult faithful members of the church.

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

DrW wrote:Rather than call me an anti-Mormon, perhaps you could explain why these definitions do not apply.

maklelan wrote:[See, you can't go one post without asserting this diagnosis.

I noticed that nowhere in your entire response did you show why these definitions do not apply to believing adult members of the LDS Church.

DrW wrote:Or you could think about it this way: I am simply trying to help out Mormons by giving them the chance to accept secular truth in the same way that baptism by Mormons of deceased agnostics or members of other religions is giving them an opportunity to accept the Mormon truth.

maklelan wrote:So you're not qualified to diagnose, and you're just throwing it out there for discussion, but your fake diagnosis of all faithful adult Mormons is "secular truth." Additionally, that unilateral diagnosis of a serious psychological disorder is no different from Mormons performing an ordinance they believe gives a deceased person an opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. I guess I underestimated the calibre of your anti-Mormonism.

It is clear from this response that you do not see the analogy. Perhaps you could consider the same set of criteria applied to Scientology.

Would you say that an individual who held a persistent and literal belief in the Galactic Lord Xenu narrative, as described by L. Ron Hubbard, was delusional according to the definitions I provided in the OP?

Here are some high points of the Xenu narrative.

Some 75 million years ago, a galactic warlord known as Xenu brought billions of his rebellious people to the planet Teegeak (brought renegade aliens to the planet Earth) in spacecraft that looked exactly like DC-8 jet aircraft without engines.

Xenu put these people in volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures teach that the spirits or essences of these renegades (known as thetans) persist and can cause harm to people yet today.

The Xenu narrative, as outlined here, is known as "Incident II" and is held as sacred in Scientology as a part of the "advanced technology" of that Church. People who wish to have these secrets revealed to them are required to pay a great deal of money for the privilege.

Just as some of the more bizarre LDS Church teachings are denied in public, ("I don't know that we teach that."), officials of the Church of Scientology publicly deny the Xenu narrative, meanwhile filing lawsuits and taking other legal action to try to keep it out of the public domain.

A published text of an L. Ron Hubbard description of the Xenu narrative can be found here.

Would you say that a person who believed in the literal truth of the Xenu narrative, in the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would qualify as delusional under the criteria provided in DSMIV?

If so, can you then explain how, according to the definitions provided, that the religious beliefs of the faithful Mormon are any less delusional than those of the practicing Scientologist?

If not, why not?

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.