kllindley

Those exceptions were well before my time, so thanks for the additional information.

That's exactly it. Thanks!

Just the calling before the next General Conference. I would have been 9 when Elder Holland was called.

Wow! Isn't this rather contrary to tradition? Not that there anything wrong with that. Just an observation.

Sounds like you've made up your mind. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intentions.

In reading my response, I did want to clarify one thing. When in say my approach is congruent with how I interpret President Nelson's comments, I don't mean that I would phrase things exactly like he did or employ a primarily spiritual approach. I just mean that the way I treat addiction and compulsive behavior focuses on disrupting behavioral patterns and meeting nonnegotiable needs in a healthy and proactive way. Not spiritual actions unless unmet spiritual needs are driving a compulsive behavior.* I don't ever use religion or spirituality except in asking a client how it impacts their life and the situation we are working on. If they want to incorporate religion/spirituality (and my LDS clients are by no means the only ones who do), I am comfortable exploring with them how religion and spirituality help them or contribute to their presenting concern. The answer is usually both at the same time. I do focus a lot on valued action, which requires exploring what clients' values are, but this is not really a religious process. In fact, one of the steps in values exploration work is identifying the values we have had imposed on us or been pressured to live up to. We then work to help the client let go of those values if they are not personally valued by the client. *For example loneliness and social isolation drives a lot of addictive behavior. The action I would encourage here is not praying or reading scriptures, but developing meaningful and authentic interpersonal relationships. If a person identifies unmet needs around physical well-being, we might work on developing habits of exercise, proper nutrition, and good sleep. The only time I would consider encouraging religious/spiritual actions is if the person identifies something like a lack of desired connection to a higher power or neglect of their spiritual well-being as a trigger for craving the addictive behavior. In that case we might identify private or public religious/spiritual actions they can take to meet that need.

I think there absolutely are conditions that impede ability to act in particular ways. Generally, I see freedom as a continuum. IN every decision there is an element of (genetic, environmental, biological, etc.) determination and an element of free will. Some decisions are much more (entirely?) determined and others much more (entirely?) freely chosen. I believe that Christ's atonement enables Him to perfectly understand the degree of each, and only hold me accountable for the portion that is in my control. Ultimately, my personal view is that only decision where we truly have agency is our ability to choose to soften ourselves to the influence of the Holy Ghost and accept Christ's atonement. Most of the time, I can strive (fight) to act in Harmony with his will. But to me, "strive" implies that I will not always, or even most times, be successful. So, even when I may act in a way that is relatively determined, I still retain an element of agency. Not necessarily in that action itself, but in whether I seek repentance afterward or harden myself in justification. Whether I acknowledge my reliance upon Christ or deny the gift of His atonement. Personally, this keen awareness that I don't know the degree of determination and freedom in my own life, let alone anyone else's, helps me avoid falling into a trap of judging others.

The discrepancy I'm talking about is in the neuroimaging. There are without question, similarities in substance addictions and compulsive behaviors. The bigger question is are those similarities really at the root of what substance addiction is? Are there meaningful ways where the differences in neuroimaging research between the two might signal a deeper distinction between the two? https://leadingsaints.org/practical-steps-in-overcoming-pornography/ There is without question measurable changes to the brain in compulsive behaviors and substance addiction. The bigger question is whether those changes actually support a disease model of addiction. https://youtu.be/T–8C143hvY A number of researchers (especially outside the US) believe those changes are not substantially different from the changes we see in other learning, including religiosity, love, and learning an instrument. https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/why-addiction-isnt-disease-instead-result-deep-learning There is a serious bias on American addiction research to favor a disease model. Our medical system requires a diagnosis to recieve treatment and have it paid for by insurance. That makes the addiction treatment industry very motivated to have a disease to treat. Those who try to research other models find they are cut out of funding. If there was an LDS addiction professional I would refer people to, it would be Cameron Staley. https://cameronstaley.com/resources/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too https://www.insider.com/guides/health/mental-health/porn-addiction

I'm a little unsure what you are asking. If you mean would I approach President Nelson's words differently with a member vs. non-member, I mean, naturally. A non-member is very unlikely to bring them up. And I would not even bring them up to a believing Latter-day Saint. If that person brought them up I would explore their response and whether they find it helpful. If they told me they were hurt by his words, I might explore whether there was a different way to interpret them than the way that was hurtful. If you mean is my approach to President Nelson's words here different than treatment, no. My overall approach to addictions and compulsive behaviors is fully compatible with how I understood President Nelson's words. If your question was something else, I'd be happy to answer any clarification.

Predominantly non-LDS, but not exclusively.

I think it's worth addressing the idea of responsibility. We can promote people taking responsibility for their situation and their behaviors without blaming or shaming. One saying that I use fairly often in therapy (credit to Wendy Ulrich for the idea): "Healing requires that we take responsibility for things we are not responsible for." Or as a popular meme says "Trauma is not your fault, but healing is your responsibility." That responsibility is not something we can usefully impose on someone, rather it is something the individual must take for themselves. Another way of conceptualizing this is to distinguish between responsibility as blam/fault and response-ability. Blame does nothing to help healing. Understanding clearly all the factors contributing to problems, including our own actions, can definitely help. But ultimately, the question is what we do now. Addiction or behavioral compulsions do at some point override conscious acting. However, that is hardly a permanent state. For most of the time an individual has great freedom to make other decisions incompatible with the addiction. This might be entering treatment, proactively meeting the unmet needs that drive the behavior, take other actions to reduce exposure to triggers, etc. That is the kind of response-ability I promote and encourage people to take.

They often are not, you are correct. That is why I love the Word of Wisdom. It helps prevent so much suffering. That is why I think comments like President Nelson's have the potential to be helpful. If anything, I would have wanted him to expand on that more. To say: "If you are suffering, please seek help before you turn to unhealthy behaviors in your attempts to cope." I don't disagree with this at all. I don't believe the answer is to minimize personal responsibility.

I disagree with the idea of trying to convince people not to listen to or believe a prophet. I don't disagree with these statements, but I do disagree with the idea of that what President Nelson said is somehow contrary to them. Encouraging spiritual and professional help sure doesn't seem to me to indicate that he thinks that rewiring is an overnight process. I disagree with the need to reconsider the idea that people turn to addiction to deal with underlying emotional and mental health problems rather than using other, more healthy coping skills. I don't know how that is so controversial. *<ETA>: I do think there is a risk that some people will take this comment to mean that the only acceptable alternative to addition is turning to God for solace (i.e. praying, fasting, etc. etc.) I believe that turning to God for solace means seeking his guidance on how to respond to unmet needs. I believe that personal revelation from God is the best source of guidance. Often that revelation comes through professionals or studying "every good book." The fact that President Nelson encourages professional assistance, gives me confidence he means more than increasing personal religious practices. </> To be accurate, President Nelson did not say that addiction is "offensive" to God. He said that addiction "offends" God. In other words we are the ones sinning against him. We are the offender. Isn't everyone a sinner? As I said, I don't love the phrasing that addiction offends God. But the idea of offending God is used repeatedly in abient andif ingratitude offends God, can't behaviors that alienate us from his spirit also offend him? To further be accurate, he used lower case "god." This also is not unprecedented in scripture. I have no qualms about describing my compulsive behaviors as being a god to me as I frequently turned to those behaviors to deal with unpleasant experiences rather than better skills. That isn't remotely shaming to me. It offers hope for recovery. I think "obsession" is as inaccurate and non clinical as addiction. Would you not agree that pornography and other addictions/compulsive behaviors are "an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind." Again, the wording was not that God is offended, but that our behavior offends Him. This is not an inconsequential semantic difference in my mind. Many (though admittedly not all) definitions of Offend are fitting: "to break a law, religious commandment, etc.; commit a sin or crime," "to be displeasing to." If people are being hurt by their interpretation of what President Nelson said, I find it a much better approach to help them understand how he might have meant something else rather than trying to convince them not to believe him. It almost seems like some people are seeking reasons to be offended at a Prophet's words.

Fair enough. I hope my experiences and perspectives are also helpful.

Though to be fair, a person could get help with the underlying social and emotional issues that may contribute to addiction or compulsive behaviors before they ever experiment with the substances or behaviors. I don't think it helps the conversation at all to attack his viewpoint as myopic or tainted with excessive religiosity. A lot of suffering could be prevented by early mental health interventions that teach effective coping skills. One might say that arguing against that is tainted by excessive anti-religious myopia.

Personally, I don't think we can state that President Nelson's words are damaging. We are barely a week out. How do you propose we measure and evaluate the impact of his words? When do we make that determination? Immediately after? 3 months? Six months? A year? What number of people would qualify as significant? "Might" may very well be the best word to talk about the impact of President Nelson's talk.

I just saw this post and will respond. Is there a specific post, the one to Bluebell beginning: "He was speaking..."?

Have you considered that we may be very familiar with Dr. Hilton's work and find it lacking in scientific rigor? He has dismissed or ignored the more recent research that fails to demonstrate similarities between people who identify as pornography addicts and those with substance addictions. I believe he means well, but I cannot get on board with his conclusions. This is a lot like people who preferred the opinions of primary care doctors on YouTube over virologists on COVID.

Great points!

At least you merit a response from him. I guess it really doesn't matter even if a person has also had personal experiences with compulsive behaviors (addiction as he would call it in the non-clinical sense). FWIW, as someone with both professional and personal experience, I generally agree with you and have appreciated your comments on this thread.

Hard, but I believe it. Elder Maxwell taught beautifully about "educating our desires." In this sense, I differentiate desire from urge or craving. Desire is something we can shape. Much the same way thoughts can be both automatic and intentional. The fact that some thoughts occur automatically doesn't absolve us of responsibility for those thought we consciously cultivate or choose.

In reality, the 12 step approach is terribly out of favor in addiction treatment. It simply is not supported by outcomes research. There is some utility to a 12 step group as an add-on support in the relapse prevention stage of treatment. But even then, research suggests the social element of meetings may be the effective variable rather than the specific methodology of the 12 steps.

This is a point I was going to make as well. Good catch!

I initially cringed when I heard this. However, on reflection I could see that there was some wisdom in it. While I don't want to minimize or deny your experience, I am assuming that by posting here you are open to discussion. In revisiting that paragraph of the talk, I don't see the same shaming you do. In fact, I think it greatly reduces the stigma of pornography addiction. I mean, he puts it in the same moral standing as anger, food, and gaming (I admit there are other more serious issues in there, but I think it equally reduces the stigma of those addictions). He multiple times describes addictions as interfering with agency, which strongly suggests he is withholding blame. President Nelson does appear to use the addiction and obsession interchangeably. If he was speaking in a clinical context, I would be much more critical. In a lay sense, obsession seems somewhat accurate in communicating the intense preoccupation associated with these behaviors. Truthfully, I think the term obsession is closer to best-practices than addiction when discussing any of these behavioral issues other than drugs and alcohol. While there is reasonable disagreement about differing perspectives, I have a strong preference for a compulsive behavior model of behavior over an addiction model. Regarding God being offended, I don't live that phrasing, but it's not like it's unscriptural. It seems like it means something other than when we are encouraged to choose not to be offended. Maybe the most profound insight he shared was why these behaviors are problematic in a spiritual sense. By acknowledging the role of seeking solace in these behaviors, he also points to a meaningful strategy for overcoming them. In all, as a mental health professional specializing in addictions and compulsive behaviors, I didn't have a problem with it.

I think that is a very insightful and likely explanation.