Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

And how does patting a woman on the head and treating her like she is a child, help her to be strong and in charge of her life? This is what happens when agency is denied.



Yes. Welcome to Oprahworld; to the therapeutic state in which nobody is responsible for their behavior and responsible behavior is a scarce commodity. People like Bishopric and Dancer have supported patting woman, minorities (especially Black people), young people, and themselves, on the head for decades in the service of a ethos of social control and socially or biologically deterministic explanations of the human condition. These are the people who are medicating away childhood with Ritilin, looking for genetic "causes" for bad behavior (from alcoholism to career criminality), who seek reductionistic explanations for homosexuality, and who seek solace from personal responsibility within constructs such as "cycles of abuse", the "inner child", "codependency" and other reducing concepts that preclude the use of agency in charting one's own course away from darkness and struggling for positive change outside the crib of modern pop psychology.

There is, of course, a syndrome in which, at least in extreme cases, a woman can become so conditioned through fear to her condition that she stops seeking release from that condition and accountability for the perpetrator. John Wayne Gacy was able to leave some of his child victims untied and alone in his house while he went to work and later returned. His victims were terrified and paralyzed psychologically to the point that they wouldn't even dare try to escape when he left the door open for them. This would be an extreme case, however. Most modern woman are not going to tolerate such abuse, especially with all the options available to them. A woman today can put physical marks on herself and cast her husband into jail until the case is worked through. The law is fairly anti-male in general tenor. The male is always assumed to be guilty until shown otherwise. In that climate, there is no reason not to get out when real abuse is taking place.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

charity wrote:
I think it is obvious what is happening here. The disaffected, exed, resigned, and never-mo's are threatened with the idea that there is a truth that they are going to be held accountable for living. They don't want that responsibility, and that threatens them. So they name call, they insult, they mock and ridicule.



This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.

How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?

What is "truth", Charity?

Something in a book that you "believe" is true?

Something someone told you?

Something you have a "witness" for?

Humbug.

You've been so brainwashed by spin, fantasies, and half-truths, you couldn't see the real truth if it spit in your eye.

The real "truth", if you want it, is nobody knows!

It's all guesswork, and it's all based on faith.

You can't "know" the truth, anymore than anyone else can.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

harmony wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:Disfellowshipment or even excommunication have been the traditional remedies for the unrepentant regarding sins such as this, not "cover ups". You're story is getting fishier by the second Bish.


Which is why most women in this situation do NOT go to their bishops. And why when women DO go to their bishops, they want the bishop to fix it, not to discipline their husbands.

Charity and Nehor immediately pointed out problems with your understanding of Church government.


Read the whole thread before you reply, Loran. It will save you from making a fool of yourself, and save us from having to witness it... again.

I have an extensive psychology background as well, and because of that I understand that anyone can use psychology talk to cast either aspersions or acclaim and to impugn or valorize, as one wishes.


Where did you get your PhD from? I have a Masters in Counseling Psych, and I don't consider myself to have an 'extensive' background in it. It takes a PhD to be able to say that. So I repeat: where did you get your PhD from? What was your dissertation about? What research have you authored?

I don't think the vast majority of the claims against the Church have legitimacy, and they have been so demonstrated again and again.


Which is why the church pays out millions of dollars in settlements and damages, because the claims have no validity. R-I-I-I-ght. I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in.

And in any case, this has nothing to do with the point at hand.


Then why did you bring it up?

This is nothing but tactical wordplay, and does nothing to substantiate the claims you have made thus far in this thread. You're anecdotal coming out story is, like most others I've ever read, belied by my own experience in the Church over some 40 years. It may have happened, but there is no way to check any embellishment or exaggeration in your telling of it.


It's outside my frame of reference too, but I don't discount it on that basis.



Bishop's cannot "fix" other people. No one can "fix" others. Grow up.

I have an extensive intellectual background in the study of psychology, yes. Its one of my life long interests. I'm also highly critical of its excesses and weaknesses, which are many. I have no degree in it (or one of its many forms) and do not claim to. Nor do I need one to pontificate upon the subject. Keep up the pose Harmony, your degree is probably just as real and just as legitimate as your Temple recommend.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

I am wondering why the Stake President could not foresee that this bishop would become incapacitated and that BishopRic would take his place which would lead BishopRic to question the church. Surely the gift of discerment was broken the day the SP set apart the bishop.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.

How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?

What is "truth", Charity?

Something in a book that you "believe" is true?

Something someone told you?

Something you have a "witness" for?

Humbug.

You've been so brainwashed by spin, fantasies, and half-truths, you couldn't see the real truth if it spit in your eye.

The real "truth", if you want it, is nobody knows!

It's all guesswork, and it's all based on faith.

You can't "know" the truth, anymore than anyone else can.




Now, this post began thus:

This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.


This was followed by one of the most arrogant, vacuous, nihilistic rants I've yet seen on this board. And in all this it doesn't dawn on our intrepid voyager to the very limits of philosophical depth that he has done exactly what he claimed Charity was doing to him. "How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?"

Well ozmec, how dare you?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Coggins7 wrote:
This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.


How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?

What is "truth", Charity?

Something in a book that you "believe" is true?

Something someone told you?

Something you have a "witness" for?

Humbug.

You've been so brainwashed by spin, fantasies, and half-truths, you couldn't see the real truth if it spit in your eye.

The real "truth", if you want it, is nobody knows!

It's all guesswork, and it's all based on faith.

You can't "know" the truth, anymore than anyone else can.




Now, this post began thus:

This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.


This was followed by one of the most arrogant, vacuous, nihilistic rants I've yet seen on this board. And in all this it doesn't dawn on our intrepid voyager to the very limits of philosophical depth that he has done exactly what he claimed Charity was doing to him. "How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?"

Well ozmec, how dare you?[/quote]

Why even bother?

Coggins is Charity on steroids.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

harmony wrote:
Coggins7 wrote: Abuse of one's family by a Priesthood holder, and especially sexual or physical abuses of any kind, are grounds for putative excommunication.


And this alone is one very real reason why these women do NOT want to go to the police. They don't want their husbands jailed. This is why it takes so long for them to go to their bishops! They don't want their husbands excommunicated. What they want is for their husbands to stop the abuse, to follow the prophet, to live up to their temple covenants

Get a grip, Loran. These women will bear the burden of being a divorcee, of having an ex'ed husband, of having a husband in jail, of having the father of their children be a pariah (and she also by extention... we all know what wards are like) in her community. What she wants is for her husband to be what she was led to believe he was when she married him: a man worthy to take her to the CK! And she wants her bishop to counsel/shame/make him be a worthy LDS man. (a vain hope, but still... it's there).


Exactly! I could have written that post, Harmony. In all four of these cases, the men were respected church leaders...they just had a "little problem."

I'm not interested in "proving" to anyone what happened. In fact, my OP was about what triggered the questioning -- it was just what happened in my life that created some questions. It seems some here want this to be a MAD board...you know, CFR anything that challenges Mormonism.

Whatever.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Yeah, the cognitive behavioral universe, not the Freudianone. Rogerianism doesn't work, you know.



Good Grief! My first marriage counselor, during my first marriage, was a Rogerian Client Centered therapist. This guy was an aging hippie, half bald, with sandals, beads, black light posters, the works. It cost a good deal of money, and all this guy did was sit there for 50 minutes and stare at us. Every now and then he would feed back (reflect) to us some of the things we were saying with slightly different wording, while adding some clarifying comments now and then. He only made one actually proactive comment--actually gave some advice or insight--once.

Rogerian therapy is precisely what I have in mind when I speak of some of modern psychology's "excesses" and "weaknesses". The Third Wave came and went with some interesting insights and concepts (I've always liked Maslow's idea that we should study the self actualized people; the healthy people, as much as we study the sick and not concentrate so much on psychopathology), but it spawned some awful progeny in its wake (like "Repressed Memory Syndrome, the idea of Codependency, the disease model of addiction, the "Inner Child", concepts of psychology as struggles for power (Dr. Susan Forward etc.) and others). Rogers went off the diving board into an empty pool early on.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Coggins is Charity on steroids.



No, Charity is Coggins on Uranium 235.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Coggins7 wrote:
Yeah, the cognitive behavioral universe, not the Freudianone. Rogerianism doesn't work, you know.



Good Grief! My first marriage counselor, during my first marriage, was a Rogerian Client Centered therapist. This guy was an aging hippie, half bald, with sandals, beads, black light posters, the works. It cost a good deal of money, and all this guy did was sit there for 50 minutes and stare at us. Every now and then he would feed back (reflect) to us some of the things we were saying with slightly different wording, while adding some clarifying comments now and then. He only made one actually proactive comment--actually gave some advice or insight--once.

Rogerian therapy is precisely what I have in mind when I speak of some of modern psychology's "excesses" and "weaknesses". The Third Wave came and went with some interesting insights and concepts (I've always liked Maslow's idea that we should study the self actualized people; the healthy people, as much as we study the sick and not concentrate so much on psychopathology), but it spawned some awful progeny in its wake (like "Repressed Memory Syndrome, the idea of Codependency, the disease model of addiction, the "Inner Child", concepts of psychology as struggles for power (Dr. Susan Forward etc.) and others). Rogers went off the diving board into an empty pool early on.


What's wrong with an aging hippie? ;-)
Post Reply