Religious Trauma Syndrome

[Calm]

What about the portion I quoted concerning the cycle of abuse?

You must conform to a mental test of “believing” in an external, unseen source for salvation, and maintain this state of belief until death. You cannot ever stop sinning altogether, so you must continue to confess and be forgiven, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven.

I don't see how that matches anything in the LDS faith either, at least doctrinal and in practice. Any LDS can, if they are willing to rely on a bit of hope and trust and effort learn if they are going to make it to heaven pretty early on....it's not that hard to do so. And just to heaven isn't that hard, though if one wants to strive for higher things, then just like in mortality more is asked of one to accomplish greatness.

Someone may be interpreting what is going on in their religious life along these terms, but then what is needed for healing is not to blame the institution for the ills but better to look at what caused the individual to twist the faith's teaching in such a way. And I have seen great healing come about when these mistakes are correct and a person turns to the true faith from the previous warped version he was worshipping before.

===

Claiming a syndrome mimics the symptoms of disorders is a inappropriate short cut to legitimacy. Once one had made the connection (as far as I can see so far out of the blue), the legitimacy of those disorders adds to the legitimacy of the new one and one has such a host of symptoms to choose from it is likely possible than any man or woman walking down the street has a few of them.

Establishing an actual disorder requires demonstrating that such symptoms are common in a religious setting, that there are not requirements for a syndrome that are violated (and not just sweep these violations under the rug as is done when attempts to demonstrate LDS are brainwashed cult members). It needs to be placed in a coherent, cohesive form and developed that way, not like some one has ruffled through a list of symptoms in the DSM-IV, looking for the most appealing ones.

In a way, this is countercultism being bitten back for many of their attempts to create as a mental disorder new religious faiths, individuals constructing lists based not on how well they met a well grounded and well researched criteria, but more often on how much they disagreed theologically speaking and then forcefitting practices into the abuse collection.

So now atheists/agnostics are going to be doing it to religious faiths in general, surprise, surprise, now that the fundamentalist countercult has opened the door.

Edited June 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Considering the vast research literature out there on how religious individuals tend to be healthier and happier in generall, I would have though serious therapists would be very careful to avoid damaging what might be the best means for healing and health we have.

[sunstoned]

Because up to this point, the poster's actions have justified the comparison.

You lament that my comparisons have made "elevated discussion" impossible, but have said nothing about the inherent incivility of a conversation that begins (in essence) "religious belief is the province of fools and is intrinsically abusive".

For all the complaining about how "mean-spirited" I am, not one word has been offered in defense of broad-brushed and bigoted attacks against religion as a whole.

You and Valentinus are determined to crucify me for my alleged incivility- but have offered nothing to justify your own incivility.

One other thing of particular note: I have consistently attacked the tenor and implications of Valentinus' arguments.

You and the others are whinging about me, personally.

So who then is engaged in ad hominem?

I don't know how you could read anything from what is written in this thread that would give you the idea that you are being "crucified". It was not the intent of my post to do any such thing. If you have issues with the article referenced in the OP, then address those issues. Don't attach the messenger. That is all I'm asking.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know how you could read anything from what is written in this thread that would give you the idea that you are being "crucified". It was not the intent of my post to do any such thing. If you have issues with the article referenced in the OP, then address those issues. Don't attach the messenger. That is all I'm asking.

The severely poor assumption being made is that I endorse what was said in the article and mean to accuse all or even specific religion(s) of being damaging or abusive.

My post #5 was not a direct or back handed attack against the LDS church, also poorly assumed, for contributing to the described Cycle of Abuse. Rather, my question was whether or not the poster to whom I was responding has ever personally or indirectly made a connection between the church and the cycle of abuse.

[Calm]

1) If trends are studied within both religious groups and people who have left religious groups because of some sort of trauma, how should a psychologist provide therapeutic treatment or how should a psychiatrist diagnose/treat trauma experienced?

One needs more detail than that to draw any conclusions, such as what the trends show and.

2) What are substantive reasons for treatment of trauma stemming from a religious based experience? First one needs to ensure it was the religious aspect that caused the trauma (and not for example, family dynamics) and that religion was not just the environment it took place or the mode of expression chose for a behaviour that could have latched on to anything (such as having delusions focused on religious icon).

3) Of the exhausted and comparative list of disorders provided, is there real reason to claim that RTS is the equivalent to any? That is what needs to be demonstrated before adding it to the list and not just that it shares some symptoms, but is a stand alone complex.

4) Concerning the portion discussing Cycle of Abuse, is the author merely projecting a supposed 'abuse' by simply renaming a 'normal' faith type situation as such? It seems both a simplified and overcomplexed attempt to turn what is a common and desirable experience of personal growth in nonfaith situations into an undesirable state in faith situtions---there should be no risk or doubt apparently when it comes to faith. Asking someone to do so is abusive....apply this to marriage or any other relationship and what one sees as supportive, growth inspiring relationships being presented as abusive, soul corrosion.

5) Is there substantive evidence to be suppplied that could be applied to specific cases within the LDS faith where trauma, other than sexual trauma, is experienced and should be treated by behavioral health professionals? When I was taking some clinical psych classes, we discussed cases but there were none where the religion itself was more than the vehicle medium for the expression of a disorder. If so, then it is most effective to treat the actual disorder, it could turn into a huge obstacle to healing to turn religion into a cause of a disorder when it was a tool of the disorder.

It looks like to me this is another attempt to create victims for political/agenda purpose, not with the intent to help them.

[Damien the Leper]

Selek,

From your response to me:

I'll note (just for the record) that you still haven't acknowledged any of the criticisms of Winell's rant (save one).

I did a google search of criticisms against her work. The entire first page of Google practically sings her praises especially concerning her book Leaving the Fold.

If you have any information on criticisms against her articles by other professionals I would gladly read it.

[selek1]

I did a google search of criticisms against her work. The entire first page of Google practically sings her praises especially concerning her book Leaving the Fold.

So...truth is now determined by who has the best tags in a random search engine?

In point of fact, I did exactly the same thing. Well 90% the links on the first ten pages are either owned by the good doctor herself or by outfits shilling her books. The others come from avowed athiest groups with an outspoken hostility to religion (and who thus share an ideological affinity for her conclusions regardless of science).

In point of fact, I couldn't find a single reference to her that linked back to one of four sites shilling her argument.

What does it say about someone who's only presence on the internet comes from either her own pocketbook or her ideological fellow travellers?

If you have any information on criticisms against her articles by other professionals I would gladly read it.

I'll do some digging- but neither my time nor patience in doing your homework are inexhaustible.

In the interim, why don't you address the criticisms that have been offered here before demanding a PhD level dissertation?

Edited June 18, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

So...truth is now determined by who has the best tags in a random search engine?

I'll do some digging- but neither my time nor patience in doing your homework are inexhaustible.

In the interim, why don't you address the criticisms that have been offered here before demanding a PhD level dissertation?

Selek, come off of the offensive. I simply stated that I wasn't finding anything on the net to provide to this thread concerning criticisms against Winell's position.

[Calm]

You must conform-----or what, we are constantly hearing about those brought up in the faith without ever having believe it and never being given any significant punishment for being a nonconformist; and then there are the believing nonconformers where some few may step in and label them as heretics, but in my person experience the usual result is a 'smile and 'that's interesting'----- to a mental test ------who applies the mental test and how is it measure? All the measures I've seen are self-reported so am unsure how this could be claimed as abusive----- of “believing” in an external, unseen source-----so many of the most beautiful things we believe in lack objective evidence, such as love, beauty, liberty, brotherhood, charity, often these are the very things that give the most value and joy in life, to view a reliance on such as abusive would be abusive in itself, imo----- for salvation-----we must place our hopes and dreams (short or long term or even eternal) in the hands of others and we are willing to do so because we have faith and love in them, a man not willing to that risk will lead a pretty empty life full of material things but not much more-----and maintain this state of belief until death.-----and if our belief is one of joy and anticipation of glories to come that adds value to our lives in the here and now, how is this a bad thing? You cannot ever stop sinning altogether,------for most people true commitment will bring a change of heart and behaviour that will not be perfect but will bring one closer to one's goal and have its own reward of living a happier, healthier life along the way----- so you must continue to confess and be forgiven----isn't it glorious that we have been given a mechanism that allows us to recover and learn from our mistakes rather than being trapped in hopelessness for even the smallest of thing because we can not repent and purge the impurities of sin from our soul, instead out of love, we can go to God, confess to him and seek forgiveness from him and he will grant it and we can put aside that burden and carry on better, braver and wiser than before-------, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven.----the criteria for salvation and even exaltation is clearly explained to us and not only can we see for ourselves if we are heading in the right direction, but the Lord has given us signs and instructions for more than enough feedback if we are willing to go looking for it in our temples, in our discussions with our families, in our discussions with our God.

Don't see this cycle of abuse fitting LDS either. The assumptions underlying the statements don't match LDS belief or practice. I can see hints of other faiths, but for the most part the comments look more like caricatures of them and thus pretty useless over all except perhaps in an extreme case where global statements such as these are again useless....so useless all around.

The only way this cycle of abuse is valid, imo, is if one completely dispenses with the idea of God and his interaction with man and assume instead that it is only men behind the curtain making others run through their demands like a maze. At least the way it has been presented here. So if you want to be an atheist and justify all your past troubles by blaming religion, looks like a match made in the local cafe corner.

I wonder how many would feel comfortable with a person who strongly didn't believe that SSM was a valid relationship being used as a marriage counselor for a SS couple.

It seems rather strange to me to have a agnostic/atheist telling a believer the ultimate meaning of his or her spiritual beliefs. At the very least the therapist would be missing out on a huge source of information that could impact the relationship and there is the danger of turning the person into something he does not want to be by 'ridding' him of his 'unobjective, childish, supernatural beliefs.'

Edited June 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

In the interim, why don't you address the criticisms that have been offered here before demanding a PhD level dissertation?

I conceded to what Nehor said in which I stated his response makes sense. I had no criticism of his response if that is what you are looking for.

I also addressed Jeremy's comments about the OP.

I did not address Buzzard's criticisms because it was more a drive by style that provided no academic or professional merit. It was just an observation of what Buzzard claims to have seen before.

[selek1]

I simply stated that I wasn't finding anything on the net to provide to this thread concerning criticisms against Winell's position.

I wasn't asking you to provide a rebuttal to her position.

I was asking you to acknowledge and address the criticisms of her work that have already been offered here.

While Jeremy Orbe-Smith and Nehor have offered their rebuttals, they're not the only ones who've offered substantive criticisms.

Thus far, you've focussed more on your "victimization" at my hands than on the thread you started.

Instead of ignoring or glossing over what has been said, acknowledge it and at least try to demonstrate where we're wrong or off-target.Instead of ignoring or glossing over what has been said, acknowledge it and at least try to demonstrate where we're wrong or off-target.

Why don't you begin by addressing Calmoriah's extraordinary salient points. (I've burned all of my rep points today on her responses).

You can move onto mine, afterwards.

Also, after the disappointing results from Google ( I couldn't find a single reference that wasn't to her site, to a book-or-article site, or to an anti-Christian, athiest, or anti-Mormon site), I will point out that many of the cogent exchanges between Christian theologists and secular humanists/athiests can be applied equally well to Winell's position.

They do not address her or her arguments by name, but they do apply remarkable well.

Edited June 18, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

I wasn't asking you to provide a rebuttal to her position.

I was asking you to acknowledge and address the criticisms of her work that have already been offered here.

While Jeremy Orbe-Smith and Nehor have offered their rebuttals, they're not the only ones who've offered substantive criticisms.

Thus far, you've focussed more on your "victimization" at my hands than on the thread you started.

Instead of ignoring or glossing over what has been said, acknowledge it and at least try to demonstrate where we're wrong or off-target.Instead of ignoring or glossing over what has been said, acknowledge it and at least try to demonstrate where we're wrong or off-target.

Why don't you begin by addressing Calmoriah's extraordinary salient points. (I've burned all of my rep points today on her responses).

You can move onto mine, afterwards.

Also, after the disappointing results from Google ( I couldn't find a single reference that wasn't to her site, to a book-or-article site, or to an anti-Christian, athiest, or anti-Mormon site), I will point out that many of the cogent exchanges between Christian theologists and secular humanists/athiests can be applied equally well to Winell's position.

They do not address her or her arguments by name, but they do apply remarkable well.

Selek,

I've got nothing against your arguments or Calmoriah's. I'm not debating positions and opposing opinions. I may ask questions for clarity but not much more than that. In fact I agree more with you both than I do with Winell.

[Deborah]

...but then what is needed for healing is not to blame the institution for the ills but better to look at what caused the individual to twist the faith's teaching in such a way. And I have seen great healing come about when these mistakes are correct and a person turns to the true faith from the previous warped version he was worshipping before.

Amen. We see this argument used a lot by ex-Mormons who claim they "found" Jesus after leaving the church and it makes me wonder where they'd been worshiping before "leaving" the church. Most often the ills blamed on the church can be laid directly at the feet of dysfunctional families and are certainly not a part of what the LDS church teaches.

[thesometimesaint]

In Valentinus defense I don't see him as the moral equivalent of race baiting. I do know that any belief, or none belief, taken to excess is detrimental to psychological/physical health. It is one thing to be thrown into the lion pit, and quite another to like it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Selek1, I don't think your comments to Valentinus in this thread have been at all fair or helpful.

Valentinus, I wasn't aware that you had been hospitalized, or that the opening post was in any way related; I was very much responding simply to the content of the link. With the downward turn this thread has taken, I apologize for the slightly brusque tone of my "rebuttal" earlier, especially if it contributed to selek1 considering his over-the-top condemnations of your interest in the opening link to be justified. While I still disagree with the usefulness of classifying these issues together under the umbrella term of "religious trauma" (and I think calmoriah's posts here have done a pretty good job of explaining why), I certainly didn't mean my "rebuttal" to imply that you were somehow wrong to bring the topic up.

[Damien the Leper]

Selek1, I don't think your comments to Valentinus in this thread have been at all fair or helpful.

Valentinus, I wasn't aware that you had been hospitalized, or that the opening post was in any way related; I was very much responding simply to the content of the link. With the downward turn this thread has taken, I apologize for the slightly brusque tone of my "rebuttal" earlier, especially if it contributed to selek1 considering his over-the-top condemnations of your interest in the opening link to be justified. While I still disagree with the usefulness of classifying these issues together under the umbrella term of "religious trauma" (and I think calmoriah's posts here have done a pretty good job of explaining why), I certainly didn't mean my "rebuttal" to imply that you were somehow wrong to bring the topic up.

I didn't want people to become aware as to why I brought it up because I have only been out of the hospital a little more than a week. I also ask that my hospitalization not be of any further discussion than it already has. I also recognize that I brought it up but more for the reason of explaining the reason for the OP.

I did not take away from the article that Winell was placing all those symptoms and/or disorders under a single umbrella. Do I agree with her assessment and conclusions? No, because I have no personal experience to base such an opinion on.

Actually, since the downward spiral of this thread I have been considering more closely why the psychiatrist would bring up or even suggest some sort 'trauma'. I didn't suggest in group or individual sessions that I had been in any way abused. In fact, this morning while reflecting on the matter I tampered with the idea that maybe the psych was trying to project some kind of 'victimization' I may have incurred because of religion. I cannot say that those were the intentions of the psych but I don't feel as though I can discount it either.

[The Nehor]

This thread is going places!

[TAO]

Actually, since the downward spiral of this thread I have been considering more closely why the psychiatrist would bring up or even suggest some sort 'trauma'. I didn't suggest in group or individual sessions that I had been in any way abused. In fact, this morning while reflecting on the matter I tampered with the idea that maybe the psych was trying to project some kind of 'victimization' I may have incurred because of religion. I cannot say that those were the intentions of the psych but I don't feel as though I can discount it either.

Well, it really all depends on where you want to go. You have to remember; technically you can go either way with a psychological dilemma; you can fully immerse yourself, or completely isolate yourself. The issues, I think, generally lies about reaching a 'stable space' so to say, where stable means that your ideas congeal with one another. There are multiple stable spaces all across the spectrum; it's just that sometimes, the middle areas can be 'unstable' so to say - not that it makes you less logical, only that it's a bit more... stressful, because of conflicting ideals.

Then again, I'm not quite sure if that relates to what you are talking of.

Sorry, psychology interests me =).

[Minos]

Valentinus is not the topic here, please get back on topic.