Lds Source Material On Psychology

[tyler90az]

I don't doubt it. Professors have always controlled those they teach in some manner. Early on in the history of psychology you had to smoke to study with a few of the most prominent professors.

You must have never had good professors.

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.ldsamcap.org/

I'm not sure what material you might find here, as I did not do an exhaustive search of the site ... but, happy hunting!

[EllenMaksoud]

Last year I read about an lds student in a PhD psych or social work program, who was thrown out of the program because he was unwillling to tell his professors that he would counsel those with ssa that there was nothing wrong with the lifestyle. He was perfectly willing to refer those patients to another therapist, but he did not feel that he could help them become and act on on the lifestyle. He was not allowed to finish the degree. (I may be remembering details inaccurately, as I recall there were two such stories that made the national press and one was of a different faith.)

Anyway, when it comes to professional educational experiences leading to licensing, a person of faith may need to be careful to find a program that acknowledges freedom of religion, and acknowledges something less that certainty about what is appropriate for a professional to believe and act upon.

There is a big need for cognitive behavior therapy in our world. Lots of people claim to provide it, but few actually do. It is short term therapy, research proven for teen depression, one of two proven interventions for PTSD, used successfully for a number of other issues because it simply teaches how to think in healthy ways.

I have the most experience with DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy). Your advice seems good and I will likely follow it. I took a bit of psych in the early 70's, so it is perhaps too dated.

[thesometimesaint]

I thought it was a requirement to post on internet boards.

That or masochism.

[thesometimesaint]

Last year I read about an lds student in a PhD psych or social work program, who was thrown out of the program because he was unwillling to tell his professors that he would counsel those with ssa that there was nothing wrong with the lifestyle. He was perfectly willing to refer those patients to another therapist, but he did not feel that he could help them become and act on on the lifestyle. He was not allowed to finish the degree. (I may be remembering details inaccurately, as I recall there were two such stories that made the national press and one was of a different faith.)

Anyway, when it comes to professional educational experiences leading to licensing, a person of faith may need to be careful to find a program that acknowledges freedom of religion, and acknowledges something less that certainty about what is appropriate for a professional to believe and act upon.

There is a big need for cognitive behavior therapy in our world. Lots of people claim to provide it, but few actually do. It is short term therapy, research proven for teen depression, one of two proven interventions for PTSD, used successfully for a number of other issues because it simply teaches how to think in healthy ways.

We are required to be nonjudgmental by our professional code of ethics when dealing with our patients. We are still entitled to our own opinions, and moral judgements.

SEE Social Workers Code of Ethics:

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Edited May 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[USU78]

We are required to be nonjudgmental by our professional code of ethics when dealing with our patients. We are still entitled to our own opinions, and moral judgements.

SEE Social Workers Code of Ethics:

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Unless, of course, you are willing to treat those suffering from same-sex attraction disorder with an eye to helping them overcome their affliction.

[thesometimesaint]

Unless, of course, you are willing to treat those suffering from same-sex attraction disorder with an eye to helping them overcome their affliction.

There is no such thing as same-sex attraction disorder. There are people with same sex attraction but it is not a disorder.

[USU78]

There is no such thing as same-sex attraction disorder. There are people with same sex attraction but it is not a disorder.

Today, you mean.

Yesterday it was.

[thesometimesaint]

Witches used to be burned at the stake. Not so much today.

[USU78]

Witches used to be burned at the stake. Not so much today.

False equivalency.

Plenty of science is still available today from the days when $$ actually went into research that would tend to demonstrate a non-genetic, non-chemical, non-inborn cause and its non-immutability.

Politics removed it from the list of disorders . . . just as politics kept the bathhouses open at a point when the AIDS epidemic in this here country might have been contained . . . with the same or similar cravens bowing to the same pressures from the same people.

USU "My sister-in-law was among the researchers in them there days, and had a tale or two to tell" 78

[thesometimesaint]

False equivalency.

Plenty of science is still available today from the days when $$ actually went into research that would tend to demonstrate a non-genetic, non-chemical, non-inborn cause and its non-immutability.

Politics removed it from the list of disorders . . . just as politics kept the bathhouses open at a point when the AIDS epidemic in this here country might have been contained . . . with the same or similar cravens bowing to the same pressures from the same people.

USU "My sister-in-law was among the researchers in them there days, and had a tale or two to tell" 78

You're the one that is using a post hoc rationalization. I'm merely calling you on it.

We don't now-a-days put a lot of $$ into research into finding out why some people have blue eyes, and some have brown eyes either. It is pretty well established that neither one is a disease.

We don't know the causes of homosexuality. While there MAY be a genetic link, we haven't found one so far. I think it is a combination of social, environmental, and genetic tendencies. In a similar way that there are genetic tendencies for the male children of alcoholics to be more prone to alcoholism than the male children of non-alcoholics. To posit some type of cure is equivalent to doing surgery to remove some unknown disease.

No politics didn't remove homosexuality from the DSM. Numerous studies show that Homosexuals are no more likely to experience mental illness than the heterosexual population. The studies have been commissioned, paid for, and the conclusions supported by every professional organization that deals in mental health issues.

Some of the first public bathhouses were in Roman times. There are no indications that the Romans, even though they did use lead in the plumbing, were any more mentally ill than the Barbarians were.

More power to her. My expertize is more along the lines of the application of the research than in the actual research process. However I do know how to read, and understand them. My sister is the lead research chemist at a Ivy League school. I know enough chemistry to have a basic understanding of what she is talking about when she talks about her research.

[USU78]

You're the one that is using a post hoc rationalization. I'm merely calling you on it.

We don't now-a-days put a lot of $$ into research into finding out why some people have blue eyes, and some have brown eyes either. It is pretty well established that neither one is a disease.

One is entirely benign (other than on days with a lot of glare). The other is malignant in its effects upon a significant population, costs a whole lot of money to manage, and presents a significant risk to society. These things are not remotely alike.

We don't know the causes of homosexuality. While there MAY be a genetic link, we haven't found one so far. I think it is a combination of social, environmental, and genetic tendencies. In a similar way that there are genetic tendencies for the male children of alcoholics to be more prone to alcoholism than the male children of non-alcoholics. To posit some type of cure is equivalent to doing surgery to remove some unknown disease.

Who said anything remotely like that? Behavior modification works. Nearly all behaviors are learned; nearly all behaviors can be unlearned.

No politics didn't remove homosexuality from the DSM. Numerous studies show that Homosexuals are no more likely to experience mental illness than the heterosexual population. The studies have been commissioned, paid for, and the conclusions supported by every professional organization that deals in mental health issues.

Of course it did. Everybody knows about the vote, shortly after the riots in New York, and the threats that went before. Politics. In any event, if we were to put together the list of horribles associated with homosexual acting-out, but not tell an uninterested observer that the common cause of the target "audience," they would conclude a malignant syndrome was present. Only politics prevents us from admitting it is a disease.

of the first public bathhouses were in Roman times. There are no indications that the Romans, even though they did use lead in the plumbing, were any more mentally ill than the Barbarians were.

Let's not be coy here. We're plainly talking about the big ones in California, which catered almost exclusively to homosexual males, and which provided a friendly location away from prying eyes for indiscriminate homosexual acting out. The SF mayor specifically and the CA public health officials generally admitted shutting them down was a sine qua non to controlling the epidemic, yet did nothing when there was the slightest pushback from the patrons and their homophile allies. Did you never look at And the Band Played On?

More power to her. My expertize is more along the lines of the application of the research than in the actual research process. However I do know how to read, and understand them. My sister is the lead research chemist at a Ivy League school. I know enough chemistry to have a basic understanding of what she is talking about when she talks about her research.

Yep. She was able to replicate the studies that showed that homosexual behavior [the only thing really measurable, after all] increased upon imposition of a dearth of (a) females; (b) living space; (c ) food.

[thesometimesaint]

One is entirely benign (other than on days with a lot of glare). The other is malignant in its effects upon a significant population, costs a whole lot of money to manage, and presents a significant risk to society. These things are not remotely alike.

Who said anything remotely like that? Behavior modification works. Nearly all behaviors are learned; nearly all behaviors can be unlearned.

Of course it did. Everybody knows about the vote, shortly after the riots in New York, and the threats that went before. Politics. In any event, if we were to put together the list of horribles associated with homosexual acting-out, but not tell an uninterested observer that the common cause of the target "audience," they would conclude a malignant syndrome was present. Only politics prevents us from admitting it is a disease.

Let's not be coy here. We're plainly talking about the big ones in California, which catered almost exclusively to homosexual males, and which provided a friendly location away from prying eyes for indiscriminate homosexual acting out. The SF mayor specifically and the CA public health officials generally admitted shutting them down was a sine qua non to controlling the epidemic, yet did nothing when there was the slightest pushback from the patrons and their homophile allies. Did you never look at And the Band Played On?

Yep. She was able to replicate the studies that showed that homosexual behavior [the only thing really measurable, after all] increased upon imposition of a dearth of (a) females; (b) living space; (c ) food.

Whether homosexuality is a malignancy is a religious idea, and has nothing to do with psychology. Yours is still a post hoc rationalization.

The oppression of people always costs a lot of money. Stop the oppression and those costs go away.

There are no real risks of homosexuality to society that aren't present in heterosexuals.

Sure behavioral modification works. There is no known behavior modification technique, that doesn't involve gross violations of human rights and professional ethics, that changes sexual orientation. Can I counsel you out of being a heterosexual?

You can't unlearn anything unless you want to undergo brain surgery or have a significant brain disease/trauma. The information is still there. All you have done is override that information with newer information.

By your logic the Rosewood Massacre proved that blacks have mental illness far beyond whites. When Martin Luther King lead marches for civil rights that police violently broke up that some how proved blacks were mentally ill.

Much like John Snow's London of the 1850's. Yes in California, bath houses became a contributing factor in the spread of the AIDS virus. Never said it wasn't. The AIDS virus is spread by sexual contact, shared IV needles for drug use, and blood transfusions(before we developed a way to detect the virus). What homosexuals weren't is the source for the disease. We don't know the source, though it is quite common in the monkey population in Africa. In every country on earth, except the US(The US hetero population is quickly catching up, or has already caught up) the AIDS virus was/is spread primarily by heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is not a disease any more than having blue eyes rather than brown eyes is a disease. If we suddenly started discriminating against blue eyed people sure some political hack would claim having blue eyes is a disease, and if you oppose his idea you are just being political.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Those things weren't the result of homosexuality, but were present before homosexuality was established.