"Preserving religious freedom in the mental health profession"

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

We are talking about mental health, not law or courts. 

Well, you seem to be missing my point; let me spell it out for you - The court regularly identifies experts in various fields (including mental health) for the purpose of assisting the court in resolving matters which may include some element for which expert insight is needed.  While I am not in the mental health arena, I am aware of the courts frequently designating mental health experts, many of whom do not hold doctoral level degrees.  I use the court as an example for two reasons: 1) because it's an area with which I am familiar; and 2) the court can act as a proxy for us in helping us as laymen differentiate between experts and non-experts.  In short, expertise is more than the academic degree held.  The academic degree is a contributing factor, but is hardly the only one.

[MormonVideoGame]

55 minutes ago, ttribe said:

While I am not in the mental health arena, I am aware of the courts frequently designating mental health experts, many of whom do not hold doctoral level degrees.  

perhaps because the experts are not neccesary in some cases. 

55 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 The court regularly identifies experts in various fields (including mental health) for the purpose of assisting the court in resolving matters which may include some element for which expert insight is needed.  

Courts are not perfect, not even close. 

55 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, you seem to be missing my point; let me spell it out for you 

I understand. You can define "expert" in many ways. For me an expert in mental health is

Quote

What about an MD, PhD with a specialization or an area of research. What about actively publishing research papers

If I ever need therapy, I would go to a therapist with a PhD in psychology. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Judd]

2 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

perhaps because the experts are not neccesary in some cases. 

Courts are not perfect, not even close. 

I understand. You can define "expert" in many ways. For me an expert is

 

You've interjected the concept of 'expert' into this discussion but I'm having a hard time understanding its relevance, if you could help us out, as it wasn't brought up by BD.

[MiserereNobis]

You can find actively publishing experts with PhDs, etc, that have opposing viewpoints.

In fact, that is the story of academics... the publishing PhDs don't agree with each other and are hashing it out in articles.  In fact, you can find professors with a huge list of published articles that disagree with what most others are saying.

I guess I don't see what your point is, MVG.  It just seems like you're trying to pick a silly fight.

Edited June 22, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MormonVideoGame]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You can find actively publishing experts with PhDs, etc, that have opposing viewpoints.

We agree. 

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I don't see what your point is, MVG.  It just seems like you're trying to pick a silly fight.

I am not. I am just skeptical about some comments. Please read the previous page. 

Quote

I am NOT saying there is an overwhelming consensus, but most of the experts I read say the opposite of what you say. 

You earlier told me therapists disagree with each other,  they disagree yes or no? Why does AASECT only attract liberal therapists? Isn't AASECT the leading 50 year old national body of sex therapists? Doesn't AASECT promote evidence-based therapy? 

I do. However, I seen more research and evidence for the positions that you disagree with. 

No, I have no reason to deny evidence or good research. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. I already told you why I am a little skeptical. 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Judd]

7 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

We agree. 

 

I am not. I am just skeptical about some comments. Please read the previous page. 

 

When I originally read through this thread it was not clear exactly what BD said that you feel other mental health 'experts' disagree with. Could you clarify as the above does not mention what it is but just references it. 

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

perhaps because the experts are not neccesary in some cases. 

Courts are not perfect, not even close. 

I understand. You can define "expert" in many ways. For me an expert in mental health is

If I ever need therapy, I would go to a therapist with a PhD in psychology. 

[thesometimesaint]

Your choice, but in California an LCSW has at least a Master Degree.

[sjdawg]

On 6/19/2017 at 8:50 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

So your ethics, then, would forbid you from being selective about whom you would take on as a client? What about Elder Wickman's concern that LDS Family Services folks might be forbidden to require a bishop's referral before providing treatment?

 

Would that be so awful?   What if an LDS person would like to seek counselling from someone who understands their belief system without their Bishop's knowledge or involvement?   Why is a Bishop's referral necessary?  What qualifications does a Bishop have that entitle him to successfully determine who should or shouldn't receive treatment?   

[Judd]

7 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Would that be so awful?   What if an LDS person would like to seek counselling from someone who understands their belief system without their Bishop's knowledge or involvement?   Why is a Bishop's referral necessary?  What qualifications does a Bishop have that entitle him to successfully determine who should or shouldn't receive treatment?   

A handful of reasons, among others:

- It's subsidized by the church and limited in its size and capacity.

- It's used as a resource for bishops to assist them in meeting the needs of their congregations (the church is being criticized on the other end of this for not deferring enough to 'professionals' and this is one of the ways they address this need).

- Most mental health agencies that are subsidized are done so for a specific purpose(s) and institute their own criteria for how they distribute those resources.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Would that be so awful?   What if an LDS person would like to seek counselling from someone who understands their belief system without their Bishop's knowledge or involvement?   Why is a Bishop's referral necessary?  What qualifications does a Bishop have that entitle him to successfully determine who should or shouldn't receive treatment?   

I shall incorporate Judd's excellent response to this as my own by reference.

[MormonVideoGame]

7 hours ago, sjdawg said:

 What qualifications does a Bishop have that entitle him to successfully determine who should or shouldn't receive treatment?   

He is suppose to have the spirit of revelation and discernment. 

15 minutes ago, Judd said:

- It's used as a resource for bishops to assist them in meeting the needs of their congregations (the church is being criticized on the other end of this for not deferring enough to 'professionals' and this is one of the ways they address this need).

well many of them don't, especially in poor countries. Some of them would rather perform an exorcism priesthood blessing, no seriously. That includes LDS missionaries. 

10 hours ago, Judd said:

When I originally read through this thread it was not clear exactly what BD said that you feel other mental health 'experts' disagree with. Could you clarify as the above does not mention what it is but just references it. 

I read a mental health expert that disagrees with, "...Done right, religion can be a powerful ally in the therapy world".

I myself don't neccesarly disagree, but I thought it was best to keep religion out of professional therapy except in special circunstancies. 

In other threads she has said stuff that the experts I read disagree with. 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Judd]

18 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

He is suppose to have the spirit of revelation and discernment. 

well many of them don't, especially in poor countries. Some of them would rather perform an exorcism priesthood blessing, no seriously. That includes LDS missionaries. 

I read a mental health expert that disagrees with, "...Done right, religion can be a powerful ally in the therapy world".

I myself don't neccesarly disagree, but I thought it was best to keep religion out of professional therapy except in special circunstancies. 

In other threads she has said stuff that the experts I read disagree with. 

 

Which experts do you read that say keep religion out of therapy? What's the definition they're using for "religion" and "keeping it out"? The therapist doesn't bring their own religion into therapy in a way that is inconsistent with the patient's own beliefs, but often religious framework is present and exploring the patient's values, be they religious or otherwise, facilitates being able to assist them in squaring numerous things out.

Her saying that when done right religion can be a powerful ally is not controversial at all.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I read a mental health expert that disagrees with, "...Done right, religion can be a powerful ally in the therapy world".

I myself don't neccesarly disagree, but I thought it was best to keep religion out of professional therapy except in special circunstancies. 

Wow, you found a single mental health expert who disagrees...shocking!  That is what all of this fuss is over?  You made it sound like there was a preponderance of experts who disagree with her.

I am just curious what this mental health expert says, CFR.  By mental health expert, I am using your definition of "an MD, PhD with a specialization who actively publishes research papers."  I did a quick google search, "should religion be discussed in therapy", and could not find a single view in the first couple pages that disagrees with what BD has said.

P.S. Don't carry other threads into this one!

[MormonVideoGame]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am just curious what this mental health expert says, CFR.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201211/has-your-therapist-tried-save-you

He is a PhD with years of experience. He publishes peer-reviewed articles. 

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wow, you found a single mental health expert who disagrees...shocking!  That is what all of this fuss is over?  

I don't neccesarily disagree, I am simply skeptical. What makes me more skepical? see other threads. 

That is why I was asking her about credentials. 

57 minutes ago, Judd said:

Her saying that when done right religion can be a powerful ally is not controversial at all.

Well, I guess we need some clarification. I basically said religion in therapy is good in "special circunstancies". Dr. Kenneth I. Pargamen wrote, "Empirical studies of many groups dealing with major life stressors such as natural disaster, illness, loss of loved ones, divorce and serious mental illness show that religion and spirituality are generally helpful to people in coping, especially people with the fewest resources facing the most uncontrollable of problems...On the other hand, some forms of religious and spiritual coping can be more problematic. Life events can shake and shatter people spiritually as well as psychologically, socially and physically. People may struggle spiritually with their understanding of God, with inner conflicts or with other people. A growing body of research has linked these spiritual struggles to higher levels of psychological distress, declines in physical health and even greater risk of mortality. Thus, it is important for psychologists and other health care providers to be aware of the dual nature of religion and spirituality; they can be vital resources for health and well-being, but they can also be sources of distress"

Right now I am changing the mind a little because I am a very open minded person, I guess I can agree that religion can be a powerful ally, but only sometimes. So I hope she clarifies. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[mfbukowski]

fergitaboubit

Edited June 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Judd]

34 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201211/has-your-therapist-tried-save-you

He is a PhD with years of experience. He publishes peer-reviewed articles. 

I don't neccesarily disagree, I am simply skeptical. What makes me more skepical? see other threads. 

That is why I was asking her about credentials. 

Well, I guess we need some clarification. I basically said religion in therapy is good in "special circunstancies". Dr. Kenneth I. Pargamen wrote, "Empirical studies of many groups dealing with major life stressors such as natural disaster, illness, loss of loved ones, divorce and serious mental illness show that religion and spirituality are generally helpful to people in coping, especially people with the fewest resources facing the most uncontrollable of problems...On the other hand, some forms of religious and spiritual coping can be more problematic. Life events can shake and shatter people spiritually as well as psychologically, socially and physically. People may struggle spiritually with their understanding of God, with inner conflicts or with other people. A growing body of research has linked these spiritual struggles to higher levels of psychological distress, declines in physical health and even greater risk of mortality. Thus, it is important for psychologists and other health care providers to be aware of the dual nature of religion and spirituality; they can be vital resources for health and well-being, but they can also be sources of distress"

Right now I am changing the mind a little because I am a very open minded person, I guess I can agree that religion can be a powerful ally, but only sometimes. So I hope she clarifies. 

You've taken some issue with some very benign comments made by BD (that were even given with qualifiers) and discounted them based on your opinion of expertise and found (what's believed to be) a counterpoint in the form of an EdD (not a PhD [I only say this because it's your own standard you've interjected]) and an organizational psychologist who founded Recovering from Religion and is touted as an "atheist activist," who is your impartial expert. Even then, he's addressing the abuses of religion when applied in therapy. I think everyone's done a fair job in explaining some of the interface between religion and therapy and I know I've at least tried to help you tease apart the difference between discussing religious issues and proselytism. All of the above quote you mentioned is in no conflict with anything that's been said.

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201211/has-your-therapist-tried-save-you

He is a PhD with years of experience. He publishes peer-reviewed articles. 

I don't neccesarily disagree, I am simply skeptical. What makes me more skepical? see other threads. 

That is why I was asking her about credentials. 

Well, I guess we need some clarification. I basically said religion in therapy is good in "special circunstancies". Dr. Kenneth I. Pargamen wrote, "Empirical studies of many groups dealing with major life stressors such as natural disaster, illness, loss of loved ones, divorce and serious mental illness show that religion and spirituality are generally helpful to people in coping, especially people with the fewest resources facing the most uncontrollable of problems...On the other hand, some forms of religious and spiritual coping can be more problematic. Life events can shake and shatter people spiritually as well as psychologically, socially and physically. People may struggle spiritually with their understanding of God, with inner conflicts or with other people. A growing body of research has linked these spiritual struggles to higher levels of psychological distress, declines in physical health and even greater risk of mortality. Thus, it is important for psychologists and other health care providers to be aware of the dual nature of religion and spirituality; they can be vital resources for health and well-being, but they can also be sources of distress"

Right now I am changing the mind a little because I am a very open minded person, I guess I can agree that religion can be a powerful ally, but only sometimes. So I hope she clarifies. 

We try to be moral ethical agents for change, so our religious views do intersect with our professional craft. Say a black person comes to me for help with dealing with his/her Mormon neighbors. I can't use my religion to tell him/her that God is punishing him/her for not being sufficiently valiant in the Premortal life.

[Judd]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We try to be moral ethical agents for change, so our religious views do intersect with our professional craft. Say a black person comes to me for help with dealing with his/her Mormon neighbors. I can't use my religion to tell him/her that God is punishing him/her for not being sufficiently valiant in the Premortal life.

Is this really a legitimate example of scenarios in your mind when you think of religion coming up in therapy?

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, Judd said:

Is this really a legitimate example of scenarios in your mind when you think of religion coming up in therapy?

Believe me I've seen worse.

[Judd]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Believe me I've seen worse.

That's not my question. Do you generalize these issues to encompass all issues of religion and therapy? Genuinely curious as you haven't responded to my other comments. 

[Daniel2]

On ‎06‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:44 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Who here said that they should? Certainly not I.

You two are creating Straw Man City here.

And you're derailing the thread, the topic of which is "Preserving Religious Freedom in the Mental Health Profession."

If you want to joust at straw men, please do it in a thread of your own creation.

 

 

Scott,

I didn't see that Sometimesaint or myself were seeking to create straw men arguments.

Not every comment in a thread is directed specifically in response to any given post.  Sometimes, related and still relevant comments are shared to give additional context around an issue that others may feel is appropriate and necessary, and not with the intent or result of "creating any straw man arguments." 

If true discussion is being welcomed, may I respectfully submit that it's probably unrealistic (not to mention unfair) for thread originators to expect that every comment must confirm exactly to how said originator would respond to the issue. 

Certainly, it's fine to ask to stay on topic and request that tangents move to other threads, but I would hope you're at least open enough to understand that others' comments may be relevant even if they aren't in direct response to what you wrote.  Sometimes, additional comments will be made that don't strike you as entirely relevant, but it seems to me that only a dictatorial mindset would seek to stifle discussion to the extent that they refuse to allow some related, and perhaps even parallel, discussion.

Just my two cents, which may or may not be worth much.

D

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, Judd said:

That's not my question. Do you generalize these issues to encompass all issues of religion and therapy? Genuinely curious as you haven't responded to my other comments. 

In very general terms religion or lack there of is of no determinate for mental health professionals. We keep our own particular personal religious, or lack thereof, beliefs to ourselves.  No particular reason.

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I am just curious what this mental health expert says, CFR.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201211/has-your-therapist-tried-save-you

He is a PhD with years of experience. He publishes peer-reviewed articles. 

 

And he is totally biased.  His latest book is "The God Virus" which argues that religion is a virus which infects otherwise healthy people...

How would you react if I pointed you to a mental health expert that argued that atheism was a mental illness that needed to be cured?  Yeah, that's the equivalent of what you are doing here.

I doubt you'll own up to your own biases, but please surprise me.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:42 PM, Daniel2 said:

Scott,

I didn't see that Sometimesaint or myself were seeking to create straw men arguments.

Not every comment in a thread is directed specifically in response to any given post.  Sometimes, related and still relevant comments are shared to give additional context around an issue that others may feel is appropriate and necessary, and not with the intent or result of "creating any straw man arguments." 

If true discussion is being welcomed, may I respectfully submit that it's probably unrealistic (not to mention unfair) for thread originators to expect that every comment must confirm exactly to how said originator would respond to the issue. 

Certainly, it's fine to ask to stay on topic and request that tangents move to other threads, but I would hope you're at least open enough to understand that others' comments may be relevant even if they aren't in direct response to what you wrote.  Sometimes, additional comments will be made that don't strike you as entirely relevant, but it seems to me that only a dictatorial mindset would seek to stifle discussion to the extent that they refuse to allow some related, and perhaps even parallel, discussion.

Just my two cents, which may or may not be worth much.

D

What I saw happening was the two of you imagining up so you could argue against improbable scenarios in which Mormons, by reason of their religion, commit harm in the mental health profession. And for what? To excuse the denial of religious freedom for Mormons and other people of faith in the profession?

You for one appeared to be using the thread topic as yet one more excuse to get in a dig at the Church for its stance on gay marriage. As though there hadn't been more than enough of such digs on this board over the years.

It just seemed to me you were taking the discussion afield from its topic in an querulous and divisive way.

I stand by my desire that you not do it in this thread. I think I'm entitled to make that request.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd