Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About BlueDreams

  • Birthday 05/17/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Under the mountains
  • Interests
    People, art, politics, diet, social issues, living and breathing, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

3,897 profile views

BlueDreams's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. If it’s any consolation, it only slightly takes an edge off. The mental fuzz, particularly on bad sleep days, persists. Mate cocido is between tea and coffee in amount of caffeine. And I’ve definitely had it during my daughter’s first 2 years of life to stay more awake. But that’s about as much as it did for me: I stayed awake. it’s like catching a river with a bathtub in terms of helping with chronic sleep deprivation. Other things do it better….excercise, a nap….okay actually sleep does it best 😅 I don’t run well without sleep. Some people can keep going like that with few noticeable effects minus the bags and lethargy. I don’t, I start deteriorating quickly. So i just found tricks to sleep more. Careful Bed sharing saved me the first year…I wasn’t really tired from sleep deprivation much during then. When it became obvious she needed to get out of our bed that’s when it really started kicking in. But it became clear to my husband and me that I couldn’t handle it long term. So he took over most night duties. From time to time it catches up with him and I try to take over for a night or two. I definitely remember how potent the switch over was for my mental stamina. And that’s what’s keeping my mind more alert. not my cocido, as much as I love that drink. with luv, BD
  2. I have a few scatter shot thoughts tied to is. First, I think it’s important to remember that the WOW is specifically meant for the modern era. Don’t get me wrong I think parts of it are universally fairly applicable. I’d be hard pressed to find an era when tobacco was generally good for ingestion or smoking, for example. But I think some of the point you bring up will also be tied to the context it’s been given. In places like China, tea has been a solid cultural phenomenon for millennia. That is true. So has alcohol in so many cultures. But the practices in other communities of major tea drinkers (ex. Britain) are a comparatively recent practice of bonding. And how they’ve grown and changed as an industry has rapidly altered as well. this doesn’t take away the fact that they are/were forms of community bonding/ritual. It just fits that assertions of goodness for some may not outweigh the cost for others. Particularly to a divine and all loving God who values each child. And some of these costs are because of “conspiring men” less concerned about ritual and connect but maximum profits at all costs. Tea during JS’ time is an excellent example. Yes, it became highly popular in the UK insomuch that it became integrated into cultural norms. But this phenomenon caused monetary destabilization and conflicts, fostered global exploitation of certain populations to meet demands for not only tea but sugar, and inevitably facilitated the opium epidemic in China. Even with just focusing on the social aspect, this would still fit what I meant by a source of social bonding that doesn’t necessarily take in the concerns of all in its implementation. note, there are still things that are commonly enjoyed in LDS circles that don’t fit the WOW and may fit in the similar concern from a straight read and focus on communal health (both physically and socially). Chocolate and sugar come to mind. Excessive meat and ultra processed food consumption would be another. Several of these also have developed culture and ritual around them. It doesn’t necessarily justify the social, environmental, and health costs on others. (Also noting here that I definitely still eat chocolate, for example, even though I think there’s serious problems with the industry, moral injustice in access, and environmental concerns tied to excessive scope and use) with luv, BD
  3. For the record, I drink caffeine. Specifically a drink/herbal tea called mate cocido mix with cocao powder served maybe with some sort of milk (usually almond). I drink it for only two reasons. Migraine management and a few times when I really really need a pick me up. I know with migraines caffeine can become a double edged sword, so I only have it when it's apparent I'm getting a migraine or at risk to. As a general rule I'm fairly averse to just about anything that can become an unnecessary or addictive habit. I couldn't fully tell you why. This said I do find problems in the underlying assumptions these discussions some times have around the WOW. Namely.. 1.) the focus on individual health/benefits (or lack) 2.) The use of science to bolster or deconstruct the WOW On the first i think it's a bit reductionist to the purpose of the WOW. It isn't simply about individual benefit, but community concerns. It's not necessarily for everyone equally, but somewhat like herd immunity for the larger community by reducing the concerns for the "weak and weakest of all saints." it was also for concerns about "conspiring men" and their "designs" in the last day.Which means on the individual level any side can be right about the argument. Individual benefits aren't really mentioned as the the main purpose but rather part of many types of blessing one can receive by following it. Yes, in one way or another following the WOW will likely benefit most anyone who follows it, health wise. And yes most people can also be fairly healthy and happy with moderation of many of the 'no' items attributed to the WOW (namely coffee, tea, wine/beer as the major ones usually mentioned). It doesn't mean the WoW is right or wrong because I personally benefit for living it and another is personally benefiting from not. We as a society are most comfortable thinking about what's good for most is good enough or what's good for me is right. God's way (at least the version ascribed in the LDS scriptures) is far more communal and focused on all coming together in one, being seen, and cared for by the whole under God. For each person to have the capacity to grow in a divine manner. To do so can be hindered by temporal matters. Not for every body at all times or equally applicable on all points. It's mentioned as to those weakest among us. Which to me just means those with the greatest vulnerabilities at any given time. Because the truth is is no one knows when they will fit in the category of "weak" or "weakest of all." To me, at least, that's what the Wow initially points to....communal reasons and the security/growth of the whole as the main driver for giving it. My point on 1 probably already indicates why 2 also doesn't make sense. Because this is showing not just the health constructs of a specific food, drink, or substance... but the social contexts in which they take place. That's far harder to simply prove or disprove. So interesting....caffeine can be ineffective. It hasn't for me most the time I've had it to some degree. But it doesn't really speak one way or another for the WoW as a whole. With luv, BD
  4. I do too as much as possible and live in the US. But it wasn’t easy to say the least and I don’t live in a food desert. It entails looking at every label on earth, learning the names of all sugar additives, relearning how to cook desserts, retraining your body to recognize reduced forms of sweetness, a willingness/time to cook basically every meal, etc. And when I purposely reduced sugar, I was already a healthy eater, I don’t have a strong sweet tooth, and I already cooked a lot. This is a massive change for a lot of people and I understand when people struggle to do so. with luv, BD
  5. It’s extremely rare that I a) get to one of these topics before there’s like 8 pgs to slog through and I give up at pg 4 it’s and b) that I have time to write my thoughts. I still feel weird about this either way. I can get the difference a little between flowers, which haven’t represented much more than pretty decor since the 1800’s, and custom made cakes which take a lot of craft and creativity at times. But to me at some point cake is also cake, particularly if they’re fairly generic designs that -as one put it- came from a catalogue. That’s no more speech than say someone asking for two shirts from a catalogue for tshirt design that says “the bride.” What’s the difference between a custom cake and a custom dress or a custom tux? Like really. Putting figurines on top? And maybe it’s just my snobby art self coming out. But the basic cake most people are selling at a small shop are likely not works of art. Yes they take time and technique. But so does dress making and tailoring. Yes they can mean something. But so can flowers. If the couple is not asking for specific qualifiers that can count as speech, it’s just a pretty cake to me. the other thing I’ve struggled with on this is that in my profession, I assume at some point I will meet with someone I disagree with based on my values, morals, or general life choices. And I do all the time. I have at least one right now. One I had to work with drove me nuts with some of his approaches to life. Since most of these were not pertinent to my job, I did my work and bit my tongue. I still had to work with him because it’s unethical to clip my clients solely because I disagree with them on things or don’t like their way of living. And I certainly can’t clip out certain issues that people may come to me for without really good reasons (basically, lack of training in a specific psychological concern). So part of me just doesn’t get this on a professional level. The closest I can come is more in the field of artwork or craftsmanship that is commissioned and highly customized work that have specific messages that make clear or recognizable statements one doesn’t want tied to their creative work/could do damage to ones brand. With luv, BD
  6. Yes. Because I’ve seen both raise great, well-adjusted/attached kids. I’m grateful that before becoming a parent at a little older age I got to see most my friends manage several different work arrangements over the years. This includes both parents working full time, mom staying at home, dad staying at home, parents switching/overlapping work, etc. They all have great kids with differing concerns and needs. They’re all good parents. Not perfect, but good enough for their kids. It reduced the pressure for me to fit the “perfect” or “best” mould that’s usually culturally derived and focus more on what’s best for me and mine. Right now that entails focusing more on mommy-ing and doing part-time work with a job I love to keep me sane. That shifted with the pandemic when it became clear it was better for my husband to do remote work to have more time during the day to be a dad too. And it’ll likely shift again once kids get older and don’t need as much from me during the day. with luv, BD
  7. The survey is interesting....I'm not sure the end assumptions will be entirely accurate. For one it's ignoring that the Millennial generation that has similar stats, with a couple so small in difference I'd assume the difference may not be statistically significant. Since millennials at this point firmly fall out of the average age of leaving, I would assume that there's more that's happen in the shuffling process of who will "stay" or at the very least ID as a member. This is also driven home by the fact that the stats I can find on the gen. pop. for LGBTQ identifying people show almost the exact same breakdown by generation. Not to say this won't be a factor....but I would assume that older generations of LDS would have a significant difference in percentages of straight members to queer ones in other generations compared to non-lds populations. Because of this, there's likely more complexity in the interplay between sexual/gender identity and religious identity that this survey isn't fully getting at. For example the point of sexual fluidity is that sexual identity may also shift with age and experiences. Not in the way many assumed in older gens (ie. you could "choose") but more like an ebb and flow and shift. Some in the bi category especially may shift or reduce a sense of importance in their sexual identity, especially if say they end up with an opposite sex partner for life. It also ignores the importance of multiple identities and how one ends up balancing all of those out. Some may end up with the common narrative of leaving after a bit. Others, again based on older gens and their similarity in identity to largely non-lds populations, may find other balances between activity and sexual expression that work for them. But either way, that info likely wouldn't be found without probably qualitative research or at least quantitative research that have questions focused more on these assumptions. Still, again, interesting survey. With luv, BD
  8. I can completely understand why it’s been so much. I’ve luckily had a husband where this hasn’t been a big issue. He’s not very concerned about what other people think of him to begin with. And his highest priority has always been the family. When we had our baby he made it clear to the bishop he’d be stepping back a bit from his YM’s calling for the bit to be with us and when she ended up having some health concerns he stepped out entirely to help out. It’s now me with the yw’s calling (he’s a ward clerk). We give only what is needed and nothing more. I told them when it became clear my daughter would have some rough bedtimes without me that I’d only make it to a couple activities a month and could likely only go to parts of Yw camp due to work. I could take off…but I want that time for when my MIL comes in from peru to go on a family trip. to me it’s about prioritizing our stewardships and I feel the church has purposely made changes to the programs in the organization to remind people of that. In YM/YW specifically to have a team of people coordinating youth activities, Sunday schools, etc, for a reason. No one needs to be there for every activity and experience they’re having. Youth callings are definitely important…but ones family is above that in priority. I think it’s easy to forget that …and especially so for people who are a bit more people pleaser oriented. They see so much need and people thanking them for what they’ve done and likely a genuine do-gooder attitude. It’s initially so much easier to just do it all than to deal with the discomfort of saying no or the distress when it’s not what it “could be.” But it’s not just having faith that service is important. But that a team doing just a little service each is enough. That we have faith others will learn to pick up the ball or that if they won’t, our part as is is enough for the day. People come to expect a ton from just a few people in the ward, and that’s not fair or right and in the end, IMHO, reduces the opportunity for others to learn to lift as well.
  9. Yup! My ward (and stake especially) decided to open up I think around the same time UT dropped mask mandates, If I’m remembering the timeline correctly. It was definitely nearer the beginning of when vaccines were available to the general public. My stake presidency haven’t really ever taken this super seriously and the announcement included...let’s call it a nudge...To get back to physically attending. One is a doctor, which irritates me even more, because people take his lackadaisical attitude as medically authoritative....even though it runs counter to public health experts and epidemiologists actually qualified to make these calls. This has not been an easy issue for me either. I definitely don’t feel safe around people unmasked if I don’t know whether they‘ve been vax’d or not. My daughter has a genetic disorder that makes it risky for her to get covid. Because it’s very rare (her specific type of the disorder is the only one in the state). There’s no research with what the potential effect could be on her. She’s in the younger cohort who won’t have potential FDA emergency approval for vaccinations until the end of the year. A lot of our personal past “normal” won’t fully happen until then. We had our first in person guest inside our house in a year this week. And for Mother’s Day, with one side of my family, we got to visit in person for the first time in almost a year (they were all fully vaccinated). To say I think my stake’s decision is too fast and too loose would be an understatement. I’ve gone through different stages of trying to understand those who are reticent to follow basic guidelines in and out of church. At first I wondered if I would have been as strict if my daughter was “normal.” At first this worked... but at some point I know my personal self well enough that I wouldn’t have been as cavalier before becoming a mother to a special needs child either. So that stopped working. Then I went to diving into the mindsets and perspectives. This helped me understand them....but it actually fed a level of anger and hopelessness than alleviate it. Understanding and being able to map the views didn’t change the fact that I find their viewpoint and practices extremely problematic or just plain wrong. And now I’m working on practicing forgiveness. Literally reading a book on it (by Desmond Tutu...really good book). That is probably helping the most. The other two assumed for me that they had to be a little right or justified in their actions. Forgiveness does not. In fact it assumes my truth: that their insistence on “freedom” inevitably restricts mine and puts the progress we’ve made at risk and helped nudge up unnecessary deaths by a large factor in our country. But it gives a back door to empathy in that I too have likely done things that have inadvertently hurt others as well. With luv, BD
  10. Forewarning I haven’t read the thread since last night, so some of this may be repetitive to others Points. these are all in response to @Meadowchik’s posts to me but anyone’s welcome to chime in obviously I have seen what you describe. When I had some of my first ex-LDS folk - or people who were in a faith flux of some sort - I wanted to make extra sure they knew they could bring those concerns and experiences to me as their therapist, no matter my own religious affiliation. So I listened to their stories in detail. My take away from many of the ones that had similar experiences to what you described were if I had been given the exact same set of circumstances there would have been a good chance I left too. Sometimes I had similar negative experiences, but the outcomes were different because the context I found myself in at pivotal moments were very different from theirs. Those different contexts also helped shape my own personal cognitions and religious stances/attitudes. (I should note There were more straightforward stories of leaving too that usually entailed not believing in some way or fashion, or it not fitting them, as the primary reasons to exit. But these were usually not painful or traumatizing events.) Which leads me to the underlined parts. These are extremely subjective and usually built up from g to complex contexts. They are not intrinsic to simply participating or being a member of the institutional church but what their experiences led them to highlight, prioritize and Understand from it. Again many of these contexts were not their choosing at all. But it helped build up cognitive distortions that are making some of these contexts, previous and current, worse. Changing those often reduces the symptoms. Giving them a different means of interaction with their religious context changes it. In systems theories there is an assertion that changing one or two individuals in the system (the group, whatever that is) can shift the entire system at times. This can happen with those that I meet not currently out but in spiritual crisis. Changing how they interact with the crisis does change the degree of helplessness they experience, reducing their chance/experience of trauma symptoms or emotional turmoil. This doesn’t mean they’ll stay in the church. That’s not my job. But it does mean whatever choice they do make, they feel more agentic and grounded in their decisions. If they do stay they are not staying in the same paradigm of the church they had prior. In essence their church experience has shifted. Okay. For me my first question would be what is meant by worthiness by someone. I’ll use this as an example of what I mean by shift in paradigm. When this is defined by someone influence by legalistic or all/nothing thought it becomes very much what you described. When it is based grace or compassion oriented thought the idea of worthiness takes a very different tone and pattern of thought. I’ve played this with people all the time. Where their assumptions about their worthiness is tied to something rigid and outward focused while that of say a child is because they love them (ie. Intrinsic). Personally the latter is the basis of my church experience. When I am missing it in session I’ve often prayed before I enter the room to see this person I’m struggling to find value in as God sees them. It’s always a kinder version than what I am seeing in front of me. Not that it necessarily excuses the behaviors I’m seeing. Clarification question: what do you mean by the last part in bold? Also I did this backwards in response and meant to mention this more specifically. My points should not be read to assume that religious-based trauma cannot happen in an LDS setting. It most certainly can and does. So I hope that nothing I am saying is discrediting or read as discrediting your own experiences of religious trauma. What I am say is that it isn’t baked into the system. That is going to take several other factors (many still outside of direct control of those harmed) coming together at the same time. It’s the difference to me as saying abusive families exist and families abuse. This may seem a little out of order due to how I have to write them out... with luv, bd
  11. No need to apologize. I’m barely keeping up with this thread as is. I don’t frequent the board as consistently as others and so I missed the research you posted and just barely read it. I found the research interesting though not super surprising...at least on the maladaptive fear based perfectionism. I’m curious as to how they defined adaptive perfectionism and what it means to have a “faith-based approach” to it. It makes sense though it makes me wonder if I would fit into the category. I generally don’t see myself as a perfectionist, but I think that is because I interact and see that mostly from the maladaptive version due to my career. Well and my adaptive perfectionist oriented husband. I make plans and kinda wing it midway and the only thing I’ve really been perfectionistic about was dating relationships when I was younger especially. I religiously squirreled away stats and figures from research in my head as to what would guarantee me a healthy marriage. It was definitely trauma/fear-motivated. as I think I’ve at least hinted at I definitely think rigid religious beliefs definitely have a positive correlation to lower mental health and scrupulousity. My problem isn’t that but defining all of the church as a rigid religious entity. To me it’s taking only one expression of faith and religious behavior as “the church.” One that I happily don’t belong to though I’ve certainly seen it in others and in local communities I’m adjacent to. When it’s in an individual I call it checklist Jesus. As in these are the things/milestones I’ve gotta reach and do in my life in order to be “good.” That branch of thought is there in the church but it’s not the whole tree. Note that the importance of grace isn’t introduced in the article as a novel concept for LDS folk. My problem I’ve had and seen elsewhere is that the more legalistic derivatives of the church are often focused on to such an extent that it becomes the primary thing seen on the tree and other derivatives are minimized, denied, or ignored. The last research you give is actually a great example of that for me. It can be read as mentioned. That to me is a great example of Checklist Jesus. But in context that sermon to me isn’t about making a massive checklist of thoughts and behaviors and eliciting humility with a group that assumed they were basically perfect. That hubris blinded them to their faults and left to both individual and social stagnation. It also allowed them to justify their behaviors that left them stuck in varying pains and social ills. It points them to the ultimate source of capacity. Not our efforts but God’s guidance and love...grace. When that’s not balanced then there’s going to be a problem. more in a little bit... with luv, BD
  12. I'll write more later. I have a client in a couple of minutes (Ironically, focusing on complex trauma). But I had a personal example that reminded me of this discussion right after I pressed send. I thought of my masters degree which was probably one of the most stressful periods of my adult life. It would definitely fit into the high intensity high demand scenarios. At it's peak it included 12-16 hour days working, study, and dealing with other people's emotional concerns. My migraines went through the roof (I'm very migraine susceptible and they get worse with stress). And I still jokingly say it was my black hole. Everything got warped. I had 2 experiences that were especially frustrating. One was around 3-6 months where I consistently got dinged for not being "vulnerable" enough for my professors on papers or projects. The formatting was extremely difficult to explain my complex family structure and there was often an expectation as to how I should feel about my own experiences that I didn't meet up to. Which when I realized, really annoyed me becuase I realized I was actually generally vulnerable (definitely a high value owned by most therapists). The other, happening right on top of that, was my thesis....which entailed shaping my very artsy creative oriented brain to one that's very exacting and a-type and "western." I was getting pretty dang nihilistic about the value of research near the end of my masters program. I was dying on the inside and the two overlapped in a way that I at some point showed it in a very emotionally charged semester end project. But I don't know if I think about it as trauma. Stress and burn out definitely. A solid lesson that I may not fit certain learning models, absolutely. But not trauma. Out of time. With luv, BD
  13. I'm really wracking my brain here to see what you're seeing, particularly in terms of trauma. Specifically that your average joe or jane with no major mental disorders and previous unaddressed trauma would experience trauma from these things you've mentioned. In therapy we discuss big T v. little t trauma. As in big T's would be massively traumatizing events such as unexpected deaths, acts of violence, community harms, abuse etc. Little t's are things that cause usually milder versions or symptoms of trauma that are usually shorter lived. I definitely can't imagine big T's from what you mentioned. None of these "rules" meet up to that level. But I can think maybe little t traumas...maybe....depending how you define "normal." For example I sometimes have some solid PMS symptoms. They're not at the point that I would describe as full on PMDD, but they can be annoying. Sometimes when I'm like that, being near a lot of people feels like sand paper to my soul. This was particularly apparent when I was a YSA for some reason. (too many hormonal changes and weird factors since then to probably get a baseline while married). When I got like that, I did what was best and left church that day when it became apparent it wasn't going to get better. Or didn't go at all if I needed to. It held no consequence to do so. Still held callings, wasn't considered "inactive," and at most had a friend or two from the ward check up to see how I was doing. But I could see someone who is more adament about always going subjecting themselves to too much. Likewise for those who are not good at saying no to requests like callings. Which was my other problem....some of these "rules" are more like guidelines or suggestions or allow exceptions. Some are more stridently expected, at least if you want to got to the temple. But one can participate actively in the community and still have several of these missing (garments would be a biggie). But it's this last statement that I'm really struggling to wrap my head around and visualize. The closest I can think of is going to the temple for the first time. But most of that was more about how one was introduced and prepared for it (little to really vague temple prep) than the experience itself. Maybe previous temple procedures? But many of those usually entailed more personal baggage coming on out in the temple (I'm thinking initiatories for women particularly). All of those are little t traumas though. Adding several together...maybe though I would picture that maybe as stress when ones life gets out of balance than what I would describe as trauma. I can more believe that someone will experience at least emotional distress or trauma on a mission than in the every day life of an average member. It's extremely restrictive in what you can and can't do, higher degrees of stress and work loads than many are used to, and often entail dropping people into cultures and circumstances they're unfamiliar with. It's why they've been screening out missionaries with certain disorders or concerning behaviors for a while now and instead giving them opportunities like local service missions. But that's still the exception to most LDS folks lives. I could see how the expectations or "rules" in the church can fuel distress or concerns even when stripped from community and/or personal disorder. But its the use of trauma that has me hesitating. What is your definition of trauma that you are using or picturing? Also I'm not sure if fitting a person's OCD tendencies is a good thing. It just means those compulsions and unhealthy cognitions remain unaddressed. That's not a good thing and usually still brings up problems in their lives even if less pronounced. As an aside, that's generally what I've seen with people who both leave or convert to the church with an addressed concern or mental disorder. Changing the religion may relieve some problems but usually a few will remain. With luv, BD
  14. Hmm...went for a bike ride....gardened...read something inspirational...and had a quiet day with the fam and came back to 3+ pages of rapid fire responses. I read most of them (I’m sure I missed some) and I agree with @Calm in the sense that I’m somewhat wondering at this point if we’re talking more past each other than anything. I get all of you are talking from your own experiences of trauma, depression/anxiety, or at least harmful experiences within church settings. Personally I’m mostly talking about a specific disorder which is a subset of a fairly severe disorder that is not exactly like anxiety or depression, though o ok it may entail experiences of both at some point. Depression and anxiety and even PTSD all are more prevalent than OCD and scrupulosity. Because of that and their broader definitions, causes for them are far more broad as well. Though most disorders show some family inheritance, OCD (and therefore scrupulosity) shows strong genetic predispositions. Note I’m not blaming the individual for this anymore than I would say someone who’s deaf caused their deafness. Most likely it wasn’t something they had much say for it happening to them. What they obsess about, in this case morals, is likely due to proximity more so than cause. Somewhat like a magnet pulls up nails from the ground when near it. The nail didn’t cause the magnet to pull it up and the magnet isn’t at fault for having certain properties that attracts nails. There’s just elements in the environment that Having OCD is more likely to grab onto and become obsessive about than someone more neurotypical would. So when i hear the church could lead to this it doesn’t compute. It’s like saying the church could fuel or even cause schizophrenia because they believe in visions and people with schizophrenia in the church have had religious delusions. that’s not what’s happening. that said from what I could find, those in “very strict religious cultures” are more likely to exhibit scrupulous/moral OCD symptoms. This brings up the next set of arguments. Does the church fit the definition of very strict religious culture? That’s more amorphous and subjective to our personal biases and experiences. For some here we do. For others here not so much. Personally as a whole, if I went with super loose to super strict, I’d put us probably in the middle but leaning toward strict. And this would vary from individual church units and groups. Some of these that I’ve heard of come off almost as foreign to me because they are well outside my personal experience and are extremely strict/rigid in religious interpretations. Some periods of time or specific callings may have very strict/added expectations (young adult missions would be an example). But this isn’t the entirety of church experience and not really representative either. They may also be transient, such as being a temple worker (which also have stricter expectations in behavior and dress but largely only in the temple). Personally I liked that the woman described it as “fundamentalist.” This defines her personal religious context in an overarching church body that may not fit others contexts. I would assume that pure numbers would be slightly higher than the gen pop but lower than more strict faiths such as JW’s, Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist evangelicals, etc. And the last thing I’m seeing us miscommunicate on is what is even meant by “the Church.” Many have pointed to their own experiences, which have also left many feeling discounted or mowed over by the “true believers.” Which again I don’t think is really what the ones I’ve seen here mean to do. The problem with using individual experiences is they’re individual and varied. For example, I heard an account of two bishops in regard to a case of rape. The one bishop over the woman who was raped was phenomenal. He did everything that I would hope a bishop would do for someone in this situation. The other bishop over the perpetrator did not and epically failed IMHO. Which one in their responses, counsel, and judgment are “the church?” Just the negative one, just the positive one, just the parts that fall fully into actual institutional policy, just the parts that are blindspots in institutional policy, or something else all together? I was personally pulling out most of the local community, cultural, and individual factors for the bare doctrine and basic policy when talking about “the church.” But that may not be the right take either. It may be accurate to pull out branches of thought or experiences and give them name, such as the woman did by describing her experience as a fundamentalist Mormon experience. One that’s just not mine and that at best brush up against from time to time in my religious practice. lastly @ttribeif you are still reading, I want to apologize if anything I’ve said has irritated or upset you. Sincerely so. I get from the response that this likely strikes close to home in some ways that I likely don’t see. I would state to the one question you had for me that I would note that several comments throughout have felt to me that more blame was being placed on the church for mental illness than I personally think is warranted. I have my own backstory of small peeve (I wouldn’t even call it a pet one) when a simple narrative is given that places blame on “the church” with little to no nuance or depth past common cultural frustrations being shared. If I’m wrong and that is not what most meant then that’s just fine. As I mentioned from the looks of the last few pages it looks like we in general are missing something in what the other is saying which is reinforcing our own frustrations with the “other side.” I respect your choice to bow out and respect your choice to answer if you’d like. ***note: I wrote most of this in pieces over the last hour or so. I’m seeing others already made some of the same points. With luv, BD
  15. I’m assuming you mean the temple pre-1990? Which even if I fully agree that would be “extreme” (can’t say one way or another since at that time I was 2) at this point would exclude most of the adult population under 50. Ironically rates of anxiety disorders (ocd is anxiety related) have been increasing nation-wide since then. Do you have something in mind post that time in mind? Just to be clear, I do not think that church experiences are scot free from problems or concerns that can feed people’s psychological disorders. My problem is insisting it as a global entity (not a local manifestation) is a/the primary cause. I simply haven’t seen that as a therapist. I have never seen a case that simplistically straight-forward ever. with luv, BD
  • Create New...