Dealing with chronic pain/illness at church

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree.  She is young and bitter and resentful and hopefully will learn how to grow from the experiences.  Resentment kills you and eats at your soul, and comes out of a sense of entitlement and pride that life should be something other than the reality of what it is- pain turned to joy.

All of religion- both Eastern and Western is about transforming pain into joy- that is the central teaching of the atonement if you think about it.

Pain can be the greatest teacher if you use it properly to build your life.  It lets you know every day why we are here and how difficult life is, and demonstrates the plan of salvation every day if you but see it that way

I see it as a gift in many ways.  It can be a constant reminder of of how to turn trials into joys, if we but have the right attitude.

If pain is the greatest teacher wouldn’t that make dominatrices and torturers the true saints amongst us?

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If pain is the greatest teacher wouldn’t that make dominatrices and torturers the true saints amongst us?

.....ducking for cover from lightning strikes....

 

[will227457]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don' t think this girl was not ever going to church. I believe she was going to the best of her ability...how is anyone else able to make that judgement? Her Bishop refused her ecclesiastical endorsement to attend school. She was going to be kicked out of school because of what he thought but had no way of knowing. I think showing encouragement, love and understanding would be far more motivating then telling someone they must not be trying hard enough. Withholding an endorsement seems extreme. 

But you don't know the circumstances surrounding her bishop denying her endorsement do you? None of us do we only have one very tainted side of the story. 

Give the author a 50% discount, and you'll find the truth somewhere in there.

[rpn]

My take on this is our responsibility is to simply believe, and to do what we can to lighten the burden of others.    Yes, if one has stewardship over someone, then one may be inspired to do something else.   But generally it is just not our call to decide another's capabilities or worthiness.   Our charge is to love them wherever they are and to shine our own lights to help them on their way.

This thread strikes me as something less than discipleship in any form.   Who the heck do we think we are to decide what someone else can and cannot do?   And I wouldn't agree that "the number  of people who legitimately can be excused from Church due to pain is actually really small"  because none of us would have anyway of knowing that.

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

....One interesting thing is that the placebo effect is arguably strongest with marijuana as it has been tested.....

You mentioned back last fall that one of your local church leaders (a mortician who has some med school training) told you this.  I'm not sure if he (or you) has kept current with the Cannabis related research..... but there is quite a bit out there (including placebo controlled studies).  For a long time, human studies were limited due to legal constraints on research.  Thankfully, that is starting to change.

As someone who conducts research with Cannabis, I would argue that your quoted statement is not supported by the evidence.

-cacheman

[Kenngo1969]

"I don’t recount these instances because I want to call these people out or because these experiences are representative of my experience in the church. I recount them because people don’t understand what I mean when I say that church can be painful for people who are already in pain."

She recounts [her version of] several conversations.

But, no worries!  She's not calling anybody out!  

This is a perfect illustration of why we should be wary, not only of the one-sided accounts of discipline of disaffected, bitter, apostate ex-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also, many times of accounts of interactions with leaders and members which come from the purportedly faithful.  We would probably do well to exercise at least some caution even when faithful/striving members tell only one side of a story.  Everyone is the hero of her own story, and exercises almost complete discretion over who she, in turn, makes out to be a villain ... and who she spares that particular fate.

I have serious doubts about whether her interlocutors remember the conversations she recounts with them the same way she remembers them.  There are at least three sides to every conversation recounted after the fact: The side recounted by the person recounting the conversation after the fact, the side which would be recounted by that person's interlocutor (if we were to get that person's side of the conversation; a big "if," that), and ... the truth, which, while it may be closer to one side than to the other, usually lies somewhere in between the two accounts.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

5 hours ago, will227457 said:

I read the article, color me not impressed. While I have sympathy for those who suffer from chronic illness the young lady who writes the article somehow manages to find 6 plus hours a day for school and homework, and time to write the article. Yet going to church or church activities is a burden.  I believe that she received bad counsel from her church leaders but she need to look inward not outward.

Perfect example. Sigh.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

You raise a good point in that the opportunity cost of actions chosen and actions declined do raise the question of priority. I say this because I know members who live with excruciating pain, but who attend church regularly. It can be done, because people do it all the time. And, as you point out, members who say they can't do this or that due to pain find the wherewithal to do other things, despite the pain. 

In my experience, too, I am unimpressed with members who try to justify medical marijuana due to pain. In my experience, it has only been chronically inactive members who justify this vehemently, not active (but in pain) members. One had his back shattered but chose not to have it fused because he was told it is the beginning of the end (first fusion would last about 15 years, and the second fusion about 15 more, but then that's it. He uses ibuprofen only because he doesn't want to develop opioid dependency). Another cannot sleep well and is in extreme pain sitting or lying. Yet another manages to attend sacrament meeting despite congestive heart failure, complete kidney failure, stroke, pulmonary problems, and terminal stomach cancer (granted, he is on morphine).

One size fits all isn't an accurate portrayal of the experience of pain.  Where the pain is, what type of pain it  is, where it is located can have huge effect on the experience of pain.  People also have different pain thresholds, what may be transmitted to the brain as minor pain to one person may be transmitted as major pain to another.  Chronic pain that stays at the same level is often easier to handle than pain that comes and goes.  For example, I never remember a day in my life that I have not had a headache.  I can get pretty major ones and still function.  On the other hand, whatever happened to my tailbone...sitting for 20 minutes or longer on a bad seat puts me in hellish pain.  The burning in my feet is prett constant and can be ignored easily.  Otoh, when it transfers to needles being jabbed into me up and down my legs...you will see me writhing on the floor though the level of pain I would judge about the same.  It is where it strikes and how it affects the muscles when it hits that matters most at this point.

There is also the issue of cost.  If all I had to do is get to church each week, no brainer, could be there every week.  When it takes two or three days to recover and I have a mother and daughter with much worse health issues depending on me, I have to consider what the rest of my week is going to be like.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don' t think this girl was not ever going to church. I believe she was going to the best of her ability...how is anyone else able to make that judgement? Her Bishop refused her ecclesiastical endorsement to attend school. She was going to be kicked out of school because of what he thought but had no way of knowing. I think showing encouragement, love and understanding would be far more motivating then telling someone they must not be trying hard enough. Withholding an endorsement seems extreme. 

To suggest Church attendance is more important than getting good grades ignores the fact that to survive this woman needs a good paying job with decent health care benefits and with her health issues she is already at a disadvantage in being hired.  She also probably has a shortened career life so she needs to make good money while she can.  She has to demonstrate she is above average and will meet the requirements set for her and potential employers are not going to be looking at her church attendance as evidence.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, will227457 said:

But you don't know the circumstances surrounding her bishop denying her endorsement do you? None of us do we only have one very tainted side of the story. 

Give the author a 50% discount, and you'll find the truth somewhere in there.

We know the SP overruled it.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, cacheman said:

As someone who conducts research with Cannabis, I would argue that your quoted statement is not supported by the evidence.

Right..."research" 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Chronic pain creates special circumstances.  And while people struggling with it should be encouraged to do all they can, they ultimately must be trusted to be telling the truth.  If they are malingering (and yes, that can happen), then they will need to work through that on their own.

My son has occasionally referenced his medical issues when he has given talks in our ward or borne his testimony.  That helps.  Judgmentalism is, in part, a sin of ignorance.  We presume to judge others when we do not really know them or their circumstances.  By providing some contextual information about his circumstances to our ward, our ward's members have been utterly supportive and loving.  No judgmentalisms at all.  This in turn has helped my son during difficult times.  We have also lived in our ward for 12 years, so that helps a lot too.  Many in the ward have known my son for most of his life, and have interacted with him in primary, scouting, Young Men's, etc. 

There can be situations where a particular person ends up malingering.  Using claims of illness to avoid going to Church.  That can happen, but there is really very little that anyone else should say about such things.  The bishop (and perhaps the RS president or a very close friend or family member) may be in a position to assess this situation and speak to the person privately about it.  Otherwise, however, our job as Latter-day Saints should be to love others and offer them encouragement and support.

Out of points

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right..."research" 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It sounds like the only responsible position the church could take here would be to say, "We take no position on prescribed medications, other than to say they should not be used recreationally. Follow the advice of your physician on medical matters."

One of the problems that Elder Schweizer and Elder Clayton pointed out was that "physician advice" is not created equal. The Brethren are concerned about the ease and loose standards for "legally" procuring marijuana that varies widely between different jurisdictions. In other words, just because one can legally buy and use it should not be the standard by which the Church must govern itself. If that were the case, then the Church would have to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, a position the Church obviously rejects. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

One of the problems that Elder Schweizer and Elder Clayton pointed out was that "physician advice" is not created equal. The Brethren are concerned about the ease and loose standards for "legally" procuring marijuana that varies widely between different jurisdictions. In other words, just because one can legally buy and use it should not be the standard by which the Church must govern itself. If that were the case, then the Church would have to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, a position the Church obviously rejects. 

The church will be making a big mistake if it tries to insert itself between members and their doctors, no matter how fallible the latter are. This isn't the Christian Scientist church. It seems the difficulty lies in their perception of marijuana. Members of the church can and frequently do take much "harder" prescription drugs, including medications that are similar to cocaine or heroin. Marijuana has great potential to help fight the opioid epidemic.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

The church will be making a big mistake if it tries to insert itself between members and their doctors, no matter how fallible the latter are. This isn't the Christian Scientist church. It seems the difficulty lies in their perception of marijuana. Members of the church can and frequently do take much "harder" prescription drugs, including medications that are similar to cocaine or heroin. Marijuana has great potential to help fight the opioid epidemic.

Until it comes out with any statement at all, I don't know that it will (other than what we were told in September). Man, will the fur fly when the statement does come out! It will either not go far enough, or will go too far. I don't think many will be happy with it, one way or another. 

I really wish with these red letter, hot button issues of our time, that the Brethren would seek to put revelatory things together, instead of carefully-crafted, committee-drafted, Kirton McConkie-vetted policy statements. I know that revelation is not on demand, at our behest, but we are at a crossroads at this interesting time, where God's word regarding some fundamental things are sorely needed. And I'm not sure that much of the corporate, carefully-crafted, and focus group/survey-tested statements we get are more than that, in a lot of cases. 

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

One of the problems that Elder Schweizer and Elder Clayton pointed out was that "physician advice" is not created equal. The Brethren are concerned about the ease and loose standards for "legally" procuring marijuana that varies widely between different jurisdictions. In other words, just because one can legally buy and use it should not be the standard by which the Church must govern itself. If that were the case, then the Church would have to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, a position the Church obviously rejects. 

One could say that about the loose standards in medical advice with any legal drug like opioids, which have much greater potential for abuse and negative side effects. 

Our physicians NEED safer tools to treat pain to combat the opioid epidemic.  High dose NSAIDs can cause ulcers, so we don't have any really good, safe alternatives. 

The standard should be this: Don't abuse drugs - legal or not.  Teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves.  We need to get out of the micromanagement of the WoW by commanding in all things. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by pogi

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

The standard should be this: Don't abuse drugs - legal or not.  Teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves.  We need to get out of the micromanagement of the WoW by commanding in all things. 

I agree, but that standard puts us back where we started: if someone is abusing a drug (opioid or marijuana or whatever) in the eyes of a priesthood leader, but he insists that it was legally procured and that he isn't abusing it because he really needs it . . . then the priesthood leader is evil for making a judge in Israel judgment call with respect to temple worthiness.

[will227457]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

To suggest Church attendance is more important than getting good grades ignores the fact that to survive this woman needs a good paying job with decent health care benefits and with her health issues she is already at a disadvantage in being hired.  She also probably has a shortened career life so she needs to make good money while she can.  She has to demonstrate she is above average and will meet the requirements set for her and potential employers are not going to be looking at her church attendance as evidence.

I don't think anyone suggested that getting good grades or a good paying job should be ignored in deference to church attendance, don't project.  We all make choices in life and the tone of the article come off as very "whoa is me" and not very introspective, kind of like your previous post. See below.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

One size fits all isn't an accurate portrayal of the experience of pain.  Where the pain is, what type of pain it  is, where it is located can have huge effect on the experience of pain.  People also have different pain thresholds, what may be transmitted to the brain as minor pain to one person may be transmitted as major pain to another.  Chronic pain that stays at the same level is often easier to handle than pain that comes and goes.  For example, I never remember a day in my life that I have not had a headache.  I can get pretty major ones and still function.  On the other hand, whatever happened to my tailbone...sitting for 20 minutes or longer on a bad seat puts me in hellish pain.  The burning in my feet is prett constant and can be ignored easily.  Otoh, when it transfers to needles being jabbed into me up and down my legs...you will see me writhing on the floor though the level of pain I would judge about the same.  It is where it strikes and how it affects the muscles when it hits that matters most at this point.

There is also the issue of cost.  If all I had to do is get to church each week, no brainer, could be there every week.  When it takes two or three days to recover and I have a mother and daughter with much worse health issues depending on me, I have to consider what the rest of my week is going to be like.

 

[will227457]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

We know the SP overruled it.

Of course we do, she told us he did. What we don't know is to why the bishop objected other than her version of events which you must admit are colored by her experiences.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree, but that standard puts us back where we started: if someone is abusing a drug (opioid or marijuana or whatever) in the eyes of a priesthood leader, but he insists that it was legally procured and that he isn't abusing it because he really needs it . . . then the priesthood leader is evil for making a judge in Israel judgment call with respect to temple worthiness.

If it is legal and prescribed, there is no reason to tell leaders, imo.

[Calm]

Just now, will227457 said:

Of course we do, she told us he did. What we don't know is to why the bishop objected other than her version of events which you must admit are colored by her experiences.

Details on the why sure...but we can tell that while the bishop believe those details whatever they were should keep her out, the SP did not judge the details as making her unworthy.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If it is legal and prescribed, there is no reason to tell leaders, imo.

What if the Church does come out with a statement? Should people just keep it to themselves because it's "legal and prescribed" then? Or should they be honest in their interview?

[rongo]

Just now, Calm said:

Details on the why sure...but we can tell that while the bishop believe those details whatever they were should keep her out, the SP did not judge the details as making her unworthy.

There are many different motivations for a SP to override a bishop, and they don't all include that he strongly disagreed with him. Sometimes it's a matter of trying to placate a member. In a perfect world, everyone would always be firm, but that isn't human nature, and it's complicated sometimes. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, will227457 said:

not very introspective, kind of like your previous post...

 

 

You are totally clueless.