Addiction Recovery Groups In Your Stake-How Are They Run?

[Duncan]

In our stake right now apparently attendance at the addiction recovery group mtg. is sagging (which could mean few have an addiction to deal with) but the counsel is to have ward council members attend the meeting to get a sense of what it is so they can refer people to it. I think that is highly inappropriate to do, just to go to watch how it all is and who attends etc. I was wondering how that meeting is working or run in your stake? 

[PtolemyGlenn]

What addictions do they handle?

[Duncan]

What addictions do they handle?

 

 

probable the usual stuff, smoking, drinking, I had a friend who used to go who had was addicted to eating, etc.

[Avatar4321]

Why is it wrong to familiarize ward council members with the program?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Avatar4321

[drums12]

In areas with significant LDS populations, there are general ARP meetings (for alcohol, drugs, etc) and addiction-specific meetings.  I live in the greater Boise, Idaho area.  There are several general meetings, but those with the highest attendance, by far, are the Pornography Addiction meetings.  I've been to several over the years where there were usually 25-30 brothers there.  There are also family support groups that meet in an adjacent room to these meetings.  Usually these are the spouses of the addicts.   There are now porn addiction groups that are for women only, as this isn't just a male issue and women are struggling in ever increasing numbers.

[Nevo]

In our stake right now apparently attendance at the addiction recovery group mtg. is sagging (which could mean few have an addiction to deal with) but the counsel is to have ward council members attend the meeting to get a sense of what it is so they can refer people to it. I think that is highly inappropriate to do, just to go to watch how it all is and who attends etc. I was wondering how that meeting is working or run in your stake? 

 

I'm with you. That's a terrible idea.

[stemelbow]

I don't have the foggiest idea how they are run or if they are even run, to be honest. I dont' know that it's such a bad idea to have people go and find out what they are. If they are useful and helping people, then I don't know how that would present a problem.

Oh, slow me...I just figured it out.

Is it a problem because by so doing they run into people they know? I guess that's unfortunate, but good information should be shared, I'd think. If it's good for one of us, it might be good for more of us, no?

[Duncan]

Why is it wrong to familiarize ward council members with the program?

 

familiarizing oneself with the program can be done with an evening of just the group leaders telling what goes on, that is fine, but I think it's inappropriate to have  ward council members attend the mtgs with people in recovery

[rongo]

Our stake pushes it as a "must experience" for everybody, whether you have addictions or not ("the principles taught are applicable to everything and everybody," etc.). There's been a real push to define everybody as being "co-dependent" or suffering from "co-dependency" (the buzzphrase is that those who claim they aren't "co-dependent" are suffering from it the most), but when I've asked the Addiction Recovery missionary couples what co-dependency is, they can't define it, other than everybody has it.

 

Personally, I find the "support group" approach to be be a harmful de-emphasis on personal self-reliance.

Edited November 26, 2014 by rongo

[drums12]

Our stake pushes it as a "must experience" for everybody, whether you have addictions or not ("the principles taught are applicable to everything and everybody," etc.). There's been a real push to define everybody as being "co-dependent" or suffering from "co-dependency" (the buzzphrase is that those who claim they aren't "co-dependent" are suffering from it the most), but when I've asked the Addiction Recovery missionary couples what co-dependency is, they can't define it, other than everybody has it.

 

Personally, I find the "support group" approach to be be a harmful de-emphasis on personal self-reliance.

Personally, I find your belief in "self-reliance" to be a false god that we aren't taught in the scriptures.  

[cinepro]

Personally, I find your belief in "self-reliance" to be a false god that we aren't taught in the scriptures.  

 

Well someone is teaching it.

[drums12]

Well someone is teaching it.

Temporal self reliance is important.  Spiritual self-reliance is a misnomer, IMO.

[pogi]

Our stake pushes it as a "must experience" for everybody, whether you have addictions or not ("the principles taught are applicable to everything and everybody," etc.). There's been a real push to define everybody as being "co-dependent" or suffering from "co-dependency" (the buzzphrase is that those who claim they aren't "co-dependent" are suffering from it the most), but when I've asked the Addiction Recovery missionary couples what co-dependency is, they can't define it, other than everybody has it.

 

Personally, I find the "support group" approach to be be a harmful de-emphasis on personal self-reliance.

OK, to say that everybody is co-dependent is a stretch. 

 

Self-reliance does not mean that we should be entirely independent islands unto ourselves.  In fact, we are taught to be completely dependent on the Lord.  We are also taught to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, we are taught to lift up the down trodden.  We have a VERY social theology.  Part of the benefit of church is that it acts as a support group.  We are all sinners who are there for each other to lift each other up and offer support where needed.

 

Anybody who know anything about addiction recovery understands that the support group does not do the work for the individual.  They are simply there to give and receive support through the process and work of recovery.  Support groups are NOT a de-emphasis on self-reliance, they are a proven mechanism to better "self-reliance", which is kind of a misnomer in the context of the gospel.  There is no such thing as an individual who does not need support. 

[pogi]

Temporal self reliance is important.  Spiritual self-reliance is a misnomer, IMO.

 

I would suggest that even temporal self-reliance is a misnomer.  Even entrepreneurs and business owners cannot succeed without networking.  They require the support of employees, banks, and economic systems.  They require education and teaching.  They are usually dependent on other companies for services or supplies.  To be truly self-reliant temporally, we would have to become scavengers, independent of any economic system or trade.  We could not be dependent on any product for survival that we did not make ourselves using something in nature - even our clothes.  We could not use water purification pumps, but would have to boil our own water using hand made clay pots. etc, or find a clean spring.  I don't think I need to say more. 

[rongo]

Temporal self reliance is important.  Spiritual self-reliance is a misnomer, IMO.

President Packer would disagree strongly with you. This is where I'm coming from, and he and I would say that the spiritual self-reliance problems in the Church are much more serious than the welfare issues.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/08/self-reliance?lang=eng

[pogi]

President Packer would disagree strongly with you. This is where I'm coming from, and he and I would say that the spiritual self-reliance problems in the Church are much more serious than the welfare issues.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/08/self-reliance?lang=eng

 

The very fact that Packer is giving this address shows that he believes in offering some spiritual support to others.  Isn't that his calling?

 

President Packer in NO way discourages support groups or counseling in his talk.  He does not suggest that they de-emphasize "self-reliance".  

 

This is what he says:

Now, I say here that I know quite well that some counselors are apt to say, “My counseling does not rob one of his self-reliance because I use the nondirective counseling approach. I am scrupulously careful not to take a position. I merely reflect back comments and feelings of the individual so that he will make the decision totally himself. I do my counseling by nondirection and never make a value judgment.”

While I have respect for that procedure of counseling as a method, I think that if that’s all they do, nondirection, very often that’s precisely what we get from the counseling—no direction...

 

In the Church, the directive pattern of counseling is at least as respectable and decent and desirable and needed as the nondirective approach to counseling. Unfortunately, we see very little of it anymore. How sweet and refreshing for a branch president or a bishop or a counselor to say clearly to a student, “This course is right and this course is wrong. Now, you go make the decision.”

 

As you can see, he supports counseling and most assuredly addiction recovery support groups.  They offer very clear and outlined direction to the addict in the form of 12 steps, with the added benefit of social support.  It is proven highly effective and leads to greater "self-reliance" (whatever that means) in the end. 

Edited November 26, 2014 by pogi

[drums12]

Rongo,

 

I respectfully submit that until you have been in the addicts shoes, you have no idea what you're talking about.  That is all.  I tried for FIVE YEARS to be "self-reliant" and it got me further and further in my addiction.  Only when I admitted to myself, not just giving lip service in a meeting, that I was powerless, did I have relief.  Elder Packer's talk is not referring to addiction.  Furthermore, we know a lot more now than we did in 1975 about emotional/mental health, addiction, etc.  Elder Packer was referring to people who want their Bishop to be their counselor in all things. 

[rongo]

I'm not saying that President Packer is against support groups or counseling. What he had to say about "counsel-itis" is important though, and the pendulum has swung to the other extreme in our day: people with all manner of problems (not addiction only) go for counseling eternally, worlds without end. With no view towards working towards spiritual self-reliance (or even increased spiritual self-reliance or progressively better progress).

 

I have worked with people with addictions (as a bishop), and support groups play a valuable role. I don't like the emphasis that some place on *all people* "going through the addiction support group steps," including those without addictions, because it is "valuable" for them. I also don't like the AA emphasis (which carries over into the Church's twelve-step program) that one is "powerless" without the group. While President Packer's talk was a long time ago, I think there are some things that are timeless and just as --- if not more-- relevant today. I especially don't care for the line of thought that "that might be what they thought back then, but we know a lot more about ______ today."

[pogi]

I have worked with people with addictions (as a bishop), and support groups play a valuable role. I don't like the emphasis that some place on *all people* "going through the addiction support group steps," including those without addictions, because it is "valuable" for them. 

 

I'm glad to see that you do see value in it.  According to a social worker that I know who works for LDS family services, the Church is making a push for LDS family services to educate Bishops better about the support groups and that they have not found a good way to do it yet.  As evidenced by your posts, it is severely needed. 

 

If you have ever read the manual, you would quickly recognize that the steps are indeed beneficial to all sinners.  Can you please point out one step, after reading the manual, that would not be valuable to all members?  Which step is it exactly that leads to devastating spiritual dependence on others?

 

 I also don't like the AA emphasis (which carries over into the Church's twelve-step program) that one is "powerless" without the group. 

 

 That is not what the twelve step program teaches.  It does not say that we are powerless without the group.  You can do the 12 steps without the group, but as with most things in life we are more successful when we have a network of support.  The problem with addicts is that they have isolated themselves from all support.  They have severed all ties with reality in support of their addiction.  They think they can do it on their own, but are blind fools until they admit otherwise.  It usually takes most addicts (drums and myself can attest) years before we acknowledge that complete surrender is the only way out.  Many have to hit rock-bottom first.  The 12 steps teaches that we should turn to God above all others for support.  We are powerless without Him, stuck in the bonds and chains of hell.  Our ego is not comfortable with the vulnerability of surrender.  But ultimately, that's what it takes to have a mighty change of heart and healing.

Edited November 26, 2014 by pogi

[Duncan]

I emailed the ARP people and got a response. They say that this iniative to have ward council members attend is not from Church HQ and sounds like a local thing.

[pogi]

I emailed the ARP people and got a response. They say that this iniative to have ward council members attend is not from Church HQ and sounds like a local thing.

 

Ya, I don't know how I feel about that one yet.  I can see the benefit in it.  The more members (and bishops especially) that are familiarized with the program, the better.  The palpable and life-changing spirit of those meetings is something that can only be understood through attendance.  

 

On the other hand, I can see how it might be a deterrent for some, in that it kind of threatens the anonymity of it.  It is scary enough to go worrying that you might see someone you know who is in the same boat you are.  You get over that pretty quickly, but it would still be terrifying for first timers.   

 

The best way to go about it would be to have special groups, where all involved have voluntarily joined that group knowing that the ward council would be in attendance.  I would attend that meeting in a heart beat.

[Jeanne]

Just curious...I am of the baby boomer age and was wondering how long the church has had this kind of help for others.  My mother could have used their services..not for addiction but just for help in marriage etc. 

 

Does and LDS here think it helps to go outside the LDS  for help in these issues?

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

[Duncan]

Just curious...I am of the baby boomer age and was wondering how long the church has had this kind of help for others.  My mother could have used their services..not for addiction but just for help in marriage etc. 

 

Does and LDS here think it helps to go outside the LDS  for help in these issues?

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

 

 

yep, to me, good Bishops are shepherds and not veterinarians and so they basically say hey, I am not qualified to help you with these issues but I know someone who is aka LDS Social Services-Other Bishops try to counsel people and get in way over there heads and can really bug up stuff

Edited November 27, 2014 by Duncan

[Calm]

Just curious...I am of the baby boomer age and was wondering how long the church has had this kind of help for others.  My mother could have used their services..not for addiction but just for help in marriage etc. 

 

Does and LDS here think it helps to go outside the LDS  for help in these issues?

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

LDS Social Services (or Family Services) has been around for a long time.  I remember being in college and knowing about it so 30+ years ago at least.  However, it has not always been as widely available or as professionally run as it is now.

 

http://www.providentliving.org/lds-family-services?lang=eng

 

Found some info:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Family_Services

 

In 1919 the organization was created as the Relief Society Social Service Department by Amy B. Lyman, an official in the church's Relief Society. In 1969, the organization was renamed Unified Social Services. In 1973, the organization became a corporation separate from the church's Relief Society and renamed LDS Social Services; in 1995, the name was changed to LDS Family Services. In June 2014, the The Salt Lake Tribune reported that LDS Family Services was discontinuing its adoption services, citing that fewer pregnant single women were giving up their babies.^[1]

 

Edited November 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

Does and LDS here think it helps to go outside the LDS  for help in these issues?

 

Absolutely.  I have found help in lots of sources outside of LDS programs.