Life span on the decline.

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps most of all, it provides hope and optimism. 

In my opinion, I would edit this to add "It should provide hope and optimism." In my opinion, what should happen and what does happen is not the same.  The church may be improving but it has a long way to go. It should help members develop their faith in God and help them have spiritual experiences to inspire change that will lead to a healthier life but I've seen too often, leaders can berate, and destroy and lead to issues with worthlessness and suicidal thoughts. This is my opinion based on personal observations and experiences. Bishops are not trained counselors and some do not deal with mental health issues well. Some, have no idea the harm they do. I have also seen others that do well. They are loving, kind and Christlike. I would love to have a study on done activity outcomes based on how Bishop's deal with issues during the repentance process. Same with mission presidents and the dreaded honor code office. I would love to see a comprehensive study on activity outcomes from those who have been sexually assaulted. I don't think we have enough non-anecdotal data sets to analyze. 

I do think the Bishop's role is too complex for some to navigate. They are a judge in zion and also need to provide pastoral care. Some focus more on one of these roles and forget the other.

Edited November 30, 2018 by bsjkki

[poptart]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In my opinion, I would edit this to add "It should provide hope and optimism." In my opinion, what should happen and what does happen is not the same.  The church may be improving but it has a long way to go. It should help members develop their faith in God and help them have spiritual experiences to inspire change that will lead to a healthier life but I've seen too often, leaders can berate, and destroy and lead to issues with worthlessness and suicidal thoughts. This is my opinion based on personal observations and experiences. Bishops are not trained counselors and some do not deal with mental health issues well. Some, have no idea the harm they do. I have also seen others that do well. They are loving, kind and Christlike. I would love to have a study on done activity outcomes based on how Bishop's deal with issues during the repentance process. Same with mission presidents and the dreaded honor code office. I would love to see a comprehensive study on activity outcomes from those who have been sexually assaulted. I don't think we have enough non-anecdotal data sets to analyze. 

I do think the Bishop's role is too complex for some to navigate. They are a judge in zion and also need to provide pastoral care. Some focus more on one of these roles and forget the other.

Here's the thing, most of the people in the LDS church are volunteer.  These people have their own lives, their own families and concerns.  I'd be wondering if the big whigs in SLC could do something that the rank and file could not.  Unless you're willing to do like the Catholic Church and have paid professionals I think it's a bit unfair to expect that much from members and the bishop.  Then again, what do I know.

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, poptart said:

Here's the thing, most of the people in the LDS church are volunteer.  These people have their own lives, their own families and concerns.  I'd be wondering if the big whigs in SLC could do something that the rank and file could not.  Unless you're willing to do like the Catholic Church and have paid professionals I think it's a bit unfair to expect that much from members and the bishop.  Then again, what do I know.

I agree. We should all understand the limited abilities Bishops have. Do not expect them to be trained counselors. Do not expect them to have all the answers. Do not expect them to be perfect. Do expect them to make mistakes. This is a healthy way to view their role. They are very busy and and have many administrative tasks and full-time jobs. 

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I agree. We should all understand the limited abilities Bishops have. Do not expect them to be trained counselors. Do not expect them to have all the answers. Do not expect them to be perfect. Do expect them to make mistakes. This is a healthy way to view their role. They are very busy and and have many administrative tasks and full-time jobs. 

Bingo.  I'd hope those who are more resource fortunate would be willing to step up to the plate and do more.  I know in the states the prosperity gospel is a thing but normal Christianity still holds out the idea that blessings, wealth and everything else you have is Gods, you're just the steward. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

Perhaps most of all, it provides hope and optimism. 

In my opinion, I would edit this to add "It should provide hope and optimism." In my opinion, what should happen and what does happen is not the same.  

An unnecessary gloss, I think.  The exception should not swallow the rule.

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

The church may be improving but it has a long way to go.

Oh, I agree with you there.  But I have serious doubts that people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin, and so on are facilitating improvement in the Church, or even that they are actually interested in such an endeavor.

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

It should help members develop their faith in God and help them have spiritual experiences to inspire change that will lead to a healthier life but I've seen too often, leaders can berate, and destroy and lead to issues with worthlessness and suicidal thoughts. This is my opinion based on personal observations and experiences.

My experience with leaders in the Church has been mixed, but overwhelmingly positive and good.

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Bishops are not trained counselors and some do not deal with mental health issues well.

Yes, that can be a problem.  And sometimes "mental health issues" are not necessarily self-evident.  A person engaging in misconduct (such as would perhaps get them chastised by a bishop) may be suffering from some form of mental illness.

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Some, have no idea the harm they do. I have also seen others that do well. They are loving, kind and Christlike. I would love to have a study on done activity outcomes based on how Bishop's deal with issues during the repentance process.

That would be interested (though not likely to happen).  

At the end of the day, bishops have surprisingly limited authority.  They only have as much influence over the individual as that individual allows. 

And the individual, of course, should usually be the one responsible for his own decisions and behaviors.  

And the individual's family and circle of friends and acquaintances can also have a very significant impact.

The degradation of social mores also has a significant influence. 

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Same with mission presidents and the dreaded honor code office.

I dunno.  As an attorney, I have what may be an atypical perspective on these things.  Dealing with difficult issues is part of my job description.  Dealing with complex legal disputes, allegations of wrongdoing, conflicting stories, competing interests, and so on.  People dislike my profession because dealing with disputes and misconduct and the consequences of these things is a necessary component of what we do.  Every day.  It's interesting work, but not always pleasant.  Nevertheless, the role played by attorneys is important and necessary.

So it is, I think, with bishops (and mission presidents, and the Honor Code Office).  They are called upon to deal with controversies and difficult circumstances.  Their work is also important and necessary.

I often go home and talk to my wife about the things I encounter in my work.  My wife is a very intelligent and thoughtful.  And insightful.  Nevertheless, she'd be a lousy lawyer (she'd be the first to admit that).  The following illustrates why:

My wife is a gentle and congenial and loving person.  She loves to help and sustain other people.  But she doesn't like to argue.  She doesn't like contention.  She "[doesn't] like confrontations!"  (We often joke about this, and reference Rex from Toy Story by rising our hands and wiggling our fingers, the way he wriggles his front claws in the movie while saying "I don't like confrontations!")

I am very glad that my wife is the way she is.  Society is better off with her in it.  But society also needs people who are willing to address and confront difficult issues, particularly arising out of misconduct.  So we need law enforcement, and judges and lawyers (and yes, even politicians).

In the Church, we also need to address and confront difficult issues arising out of misconduct.  We ask bishops to do this.  And stake presidents.  And BYU (as pertaining to its students).

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

I would love to see a comprehensive study on activity outcomes from those who have been sexually assaulted. I don't think we have enough non-anecdotal data sets to analyze. 

I think it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to get a sufficient and accurate and meaningful sampling.  Too many logistical/privacy issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An unnecessary gloss, I think.  The exception should not swallow the rule.

Oh, I agree with you there.  But I have serious doubts that people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin, and so on are facilitating improvement in the Church, or even that they are actually interested in such an endeavor.

My experience with leaders in the Church has been mixed, but overwhelmingly positive and good.

Yes, that can be a problem.  And sometimes "mental health issues" are not necessarily self-evident.  A person engaging in misconduct (such as would perhaps get them chastised by a bishop) may be suffering from some form of mental illness.

That would be interested (though not likely to happen).  

At the end of the day, bishops have surprisingly limited authority.  They only have as much influence over the individual as that individual allows. 

And the individual, of course, should usually be the one responsible for his own decisions and behaviors.  

And the individual's family and circle of friends and acquaintances can also have a very significant impact.

The degradation of social mores also has a significant influence. 

I dunno.  As an attorney, I have what may be an atypical perspective on these things.  Dealing with difficult issues is part of my job description.  Dealing with complex legal disputes, allegations of wrongdoing, conflicting stories, competing interests, and so on.  People dislike my profession because dealing with disputes and misconduct and the consequences of these things is a necessary component of what we do.  Every day.  It's interesting work, but not always pleasant.  Nevertheless, the role played by attorneys is important and necessary.

So it is, I think, with bishops (and mission presidents, and the Honor Code Office).  They are called upon to deal with controversies and difficult circumstances.  Their work is also important and necessary.

I often go home and talk to my wife about the things I encounter in my work.  My wife is a very intelligent and thoughtful.  And insightful.  Nevertheless, she'd be a lousy lawyer (she'd be the first to admit that).  The following illustrates why:

My wife is a gentle and congenial and loving person.  She loves to help and sustain other people.  But she doesn't like to argue.  She doesn't like contention.  She "[doesn't] like confrontations!"  (We often joke about this, and reference Rex from Toy Story by rising our hands and wiggling our fingers, the way he wriggles his front claws in the movie while saying "I don't like confrontations!")

I am very glad that my wife is the way she is.  Society is better off with her in it.  But society also needs people who are willing to address and confront difficult issues, particularly arising out of misconduct.  So we need law enforcement, and judges and lawyers (and yes, even politicians).

In the Church, we also need to address and confront difficult issues arising out of misconduct.  We ask bishops to do this.  And stake presidents.  And BYU (as pertaining to its students).

I think it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to get a sufficient and accurate and meaningful sampling.  Too many logistical/privacy issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

As a lawyer you have to see the legal aspect a lot differently than I do, yet you probably understand the liability aspect of things so yeah, I agree that the church should exercise caution.  Curious, what would your ideas on this be?  Thing with addiction, homelessness, suicide and the over all decline of people is you can't sue/legislate it away, that class of person is to a degree invincible.  Can't do much to someone with no family, a drug problem and an over all hatred of people in general.  About the only thing you can do is isolate them in an institution thus limiting what harm he can do in society or do what the Chinese did to their opium addicts, execute them.

[bsjkki]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An unnecessary gloss, I think.  The exception should not swallow the rule.

Oh, I agree with you there.  But I have serious doubts that people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin, and so on are facilitating improvement in the Church, or even that they are actually interested in such an endeavor.

My experience with leaders in the Church has been mixed, but overwhelmingly positive and good.

Yes, that can be a problem.  And sometimes "mental health issues" are not necessarily self-evident.  A person engaging in misconduct (such as would perhaps get them chastised by a bishop) may be suffering from some form of mental illness.

That would be interested (though not likely to happen).  

At the end of the day, bishops have surprisingly limited authority.  They only have as much influence over the individual as that individual allows. 

And the individual, of course, should usually be the one responsible for his own decisions and behaviors.  

And the individual's family and circle of friends and acquaintances can also have a very significant impact.

The degradation of social mores also has a significant influence. 

I dunno.  As an attorney, I have what may be an atypical perspective on these things.  Dealing with difficult issues is part of my job description.  Dealing with complex legal disputes, allegations of wrongdoing, conflicting stories, competing interests, and so on.  People dislike my profession because dealing with disputes and misconduct and the consequences of these things is a necessary component of what we do.  Every day.  It's interesting work, but not always pleasant.  Nevertheless, the role played by attorneys is important and necessary.

So it is, I think, with bishops (and mission presidents, and the Honor Code Office).  They are called upon to deal with controversies and difficult circumstances.  Their work is also important and necessary.

I often go home and talk to my wife about the things I encounter in my work.  My wife is a very intelligent and thoughtful.  And insightful.  Nevertheless, she'd be a lousy lawyer (she'd be the first to admit that).  The following illustrates why:

My wife is a gentle and congenial and loving person.  She loves to help and sustain other people.  But she doesn't like to argue.  She doesn't like contention.  She "[doesn't] like confrontations!"  (We often joke about this, and reference Rex from Toy Story by rising our hands and wiggling our fingers, the way he wriggles his front claws in the movie while saying "I don't like confrontations!")

I am very glad that my wife is the way she is.  Society is better off with her in it.  But society also needs people who are willing to address and confront difficult issues, particularly arising out of misconduct.  So we need law enforcement, and judges and lawyers (and yes, even politicians).

In the Church, we also need to address and confront difficult issues arising out of misconduct.  We ask bishops to do this.  And stake presidents.  And BYU (as pertaining to its students).

I think it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to get a sufficient and accurate and meaningful sampling.  Too many logistical/privacy issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think some of issues involve the fact that we have people acting in these dual capacities at the same time. (law and order/pastoral care)  It's a fine needle to thread. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, poptart said:

As a lawyer you have to see the legal aspect a lot differently than I do, yet you probably understand the liability aspect of things so yeah, I agree that the church should exercise caution.  Curious, what would your ideas on this be? 

I think individual members need to get out there and be engaged in society.

I think individual members need to do all they can to put their own house in order (in terms of their own behaviors and circumstances, and those of their family members).

I think individual members and local units need to do all they can to reactivate and retain and help and socialize with new or less active members of the Church.

I think the missionary work of the Church should proceed.  People voluntarily reforming and re-shaping their behaviors and decisions and lives will be more effective than the government (or the Church) attempting to externally compel such things.

Quote

Thing with addiction, homelessness, suicide and the over all decline of people is you can't sue/legislate it away, that class of person is to a degree invincible. 

Regarding addiction and homelessness, living the the Restored Gospel would go a long way.  The Word of Wisdom would alleviate most (but not all) addiction issues.  Homelessness is often intertwined with mental illness and substance abuse.  So counseling for those who are willing to accept it (the Church can't provide mental health counseling directly, but it can facilitate such things a bit).  And job training (the Church is already working really hard on this).  

The Restored Gospel asks us to accept precepts which, if acted upon, will generally have the effect of stabilizing and improving our lives.

Quote

Can't do much to someone with no family, a drug problem and an over all hatred of people in general. 

Well, we help people who want to be helped.  But we can't force such things.

Quote

About the only thing you can do is isolate them in an institution thus limiting what harm he can do in society or do what the Chinese did to their opium addicts, execute them.

More can be done if a broader perspective is utilized, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 30, 2018 by smac97

[poptart]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think individual members need to get out there and be engaged in society.

I think individual members need to do all they can to put their own house in order (in terms of their own behaviors and circumstances, and those of their family members).

I think the missionary work of the Church should proceed.  People voluntarily reforming and re-shaping their behaviors and decisions and lives will be more effective than the government (or the Church) attempting to externally compel such things.

Regarding addiction and homelessness, living the the Restored Gospel would go a long way.  The Word of Wisdom would alleviate most (but not all) addiction issues.  Homelessness is often intertwined with mental illness and substance abuse.  So counseling for those who are willing to accept it (the Church can't provide mental health counseling directly, but it can facilitate such things a bit).  And job training (the Church is already working really hard on this).  

The Restored Gospel asks us to accept precepts which, if acted upon, will generally have the effect of stabilizing and improving our lives.

Well, we help people who want to be helped.  But we can't force such things.

More can be done if a broader perspective is utilized, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow, i like you.  You probably do just these things IRL, wish I had met more people like you when I was going through the hell I did. 

Bonus points if you can guess who one of my favorite Christians was, hint hint look at the icon.

Edited November 30, 2018 by poptart

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think some of issues involve the fact that we have people acting in these dual capacities at the same time. (law and order/pastoral care)  It's a fine needle to thread. 

Yes.  I have a friend, who is a lawyer and was previously a bishop, who confided that there were a number of times when he took an overly-lawyer-ish approach to people he was working with in a pastoral capacity.  But he also said thre were many times when his legal training (and the analytical reasoning skills that can go with it) was very helpful in his pastoral efforts.

I have a brother who has lived overseas in very poor areas for many years.  And a brother-in-law who is a pediatrician.  And a sister who has traveled extensively and is an excellent teacher.  And a brother-in-law who quite talented in business and in hands-on stuff.  And so on.  All of these people bring with them the skill sets they have developed in life, and to some extent adapt those skills when serving in the Church.  Mistakes will be made, of course, but soundness in motive and integrity and faith are paramount and can overcome such errors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

Means nothing if they're a mental mess with no social support.  Can shower them with praise all you like, with out material support it means nothing and considering the lack of families many have nowadays it's only going to get worse.

I am not talking about "showering people with praise".  That is not how you address toxic shame or how you help someone to view themselves as God sees them in the context of D&C 18:10.

There is no simple fix.   Many of the problems are cultural and generational family issues. Throwing money at people with toxic shame issues is not going to solve anything either.  It needs to be a holistic approach of individuals taking into consideration mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being.  A lot has been written about toxic shame by the likes of John Bradshaw - but at it's core it is a problem of belief/perspective of self.  It is a lie that we need to shine light on.  One of the first things that needs to be done is creating a simple awareness of the core issues.  I don't think that we are culturally aware of toxic- shame.  Treatment needs to be on an individual and family unit basis, but preventive awareness is what will protect our future generations.  We need to know what it is, what causes it, and how to prevent it.  It's a tall order when most people don't even know what it is.     

Edited November 30, 2018 by pogi

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, poptart said:

Wow, i like you.  You probably do just these things IRL, wish I had met more people like you when I was going through the hell I did. 

Well, thanks.  I have a plethora of flaws and weaknesses.  No humblebragging or anything.  I make mistakes all the time.  This is one of the principal reasons I am grateful to be a member of the Church.  The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has made me a better person than I would have otherwise been.  And it makes me aspire to improve every day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

What to do? In my opinion it starts by treating the homeless and the poor like human beings. On a one-to-one basis look them in the eye have a conversation don't just hand out a dollar and move on. We have done a lot of cruising in our sailboat and in the USA we get along better with the homeless then with the locals. All the institutional help is a great thing but getting personal helps too. In my humble opinion.

[Rich Hansen]

I have been reading the cover story "Staying Alive" in the most current issue of the Economist magazine.

The article states that the US suicide rate is up 18% since 2000, while the global suicide rate has fallen 29% during the same period.

According the magazine, the US rate increase is.........."largely amid white, middle-aged, poorly educated men in areas that were left behind by booms and crushed by busts".

Outside the US, the decline is due to various factors including urbanization in developing countries, greater social stability and greater freedom for women as to whom they marry.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, poptart said:

Bonus points if you can guess who one of my favorite Christians was, hint hint look at the icon.

That would, I think, be Saint Eustace / Eustathius (Placidas before his baptism)?

Ah!  The wonders of Google!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

If I was to diagnose the core issue here, I would without hesitation say that toxic shame is at the epicenter of this affliction.  That is the epidemic that is afflicting our nation at ever increasing rates.  If that core issue could be addressed in our society, we would all but eradicate most of these problems. 

That is the core of addiction, that is at the core of low self-worth leading to poor self-care and/or suicide.

What is creating the toxic shame in greater amounts than before?

[USU78]

9 hours ago, poptart said:

Aaaaaand here we go...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-lifeexpectancy/life-expectancy-declines-seen-in-us-and-other-high-income-countries-idUSKCN1L723R

Not another illegal immigration thread. 😈

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well, this thread is depressing. Time to end it all.

Latter Day Saints who are active and keep the word of wisdom have a longer life expectancy.

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I agree. We should all understand the limited abilities Bishops have. Do not expect them to be trained counselors. Do not expect them to have all the answers. Do not expect them to be perfect. Do expect them to make mistakes. This is a healthy way to view their role. They are very busy and and have many administrative tasks and full-time jobs. 

If you’ve noticed our prophets and apostles have been encouraging us to be self reliant spiritually to ease the burdens on bishops 

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Latter Day Saints who are active and keep the word of wisdom have a longer life expectancy.

Considering how kind this world is is that really an advantage?

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is creating the toxic shame in greater amounts than before?

In my estimation, I think social media is one of the major culprits.  For one, I think it has led to less human interaction and increased isolation (a HUGE problem leading to greater mental health issues); secondly, I think people are not as likely to filter their words on-line and can be more harsh; and finally it is a space for people to compare themselves against the exaggerated and hyper-filtered life-styles of other people on-line, causing some to feel inadequate.  I see perfectionism on the rise as a result - a sure sign of toxic shame!   

Another problem I see is what seems to be a more black and white mind-set in politics, religion/secularism.  Fundamentalism and black/white thinking is a perfect recipe for toxic shame, because it sets up unrealistic expectations of self and others.  The reality is that people are much more complex and nuanced. Brotherly kindness and civility is in serious condition. 

Culturally, there is a problem with confusing self-worth with net-worth, so when there is greater socio-economic divide and a weakening of the middle class, many used-to-be middle classer's loose some of their identity as they fall lower in social class.  There is a huge problem with tying our self-worth to wealth, appearances, IQ, social status, etc.etc. 

Physically, I think we are less healthy then we have ever been with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. ever on the rise with influx of fast food and other poor diet choices.  This can have serious consequences on emotional/mental health, especially when self-worth is tied to image and health. We have become a culture of convenience which has negative consequences in spirituality too, I think.  I see the spirituality of our nation suffering greatly.  People are disconnected from each other, from themselves, and from God, ever in search of the exterior world, instant gratification, and less satiating things.   

I could say more, but I'll stop there for now.

 

[SteveO]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

What is creating the toxic shame in greater amounts than before?

https://youtu.be/1uNIID5R4pM

Here's the youtube link, the transcript follows below:

 

This is one of the most urgent problems for civilized man. He has created civilization to give himself security. Security for what? For boredom? His chief problem seems to be that most human beings need a certain amount of challenge, of external stimulus, to stop them from sinking into the blank stare and blank consciousness of the idiot.” (Colin Wilson, New Pathways in Psychology)

For most of human history leisure was a rare luxury. Toiling from dawn to dusk just to survive was the lot of almost all men, women and children up until a few hundred years ago. The English geologist Sir Charles Lyell wrote that in the 1840s America was a “country where all, whether rich or poor, were laboring from morning till night, without ever indulging in a holiday.” (Sir Charles Lyell) With the onset of the Second Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century and the rapid intensification of the division of labour that accompanied it, there occurred a “Leisure Revolution”. Not only did this period of rapid industrial development drive many from the farmlands into large cities in search of work, but the regimented hours associated with industrial work left the masses – for the first time in the modern era – with scheduled free time to direct their own activities.

Well over 100 years have passed since this leisure revolution, and the fruits of civilization have become more plentiful, and leisure, more bountiful. Perhaps more than at any point in the history of civilization, the average individual today is free from the daily struggle for survival. But with this newfound freedom a crucial question confronts each of us: that being, what are we free for? In other words, how are we going to use the time we have that is not devoted to the necessities of life?

Few contemplate this question. Rather, as with many important questions regarding how to live, most people sink into conformity and implicitly assume their free time is best spent resting, relaxing, and passively consuming. And as a result, such lives assume a common mold and follow a course analogous to the one described by the 20th century philosopher Richard Taylor.

“Most people are, in the most ordinary sense, very limited. They pass their time, day after day, in idle, passive pursuits, just looking at things – at games, television, whatever. Or they fill the hours talking, mostly about nothing of significance – of comings and goings, of who is doing what, of the weather, of things forgotten almost as soon as they are mentioned. They have no aspirations for themselves beyond getting through another day doing more or less what they did yesterday. They walk across the stage of life, leaving everything about as it was when they entered, achieving nothing, aspiring to nothing, having never a profound or even original thought…This is what is common, usual, typical, indeed normal. Relatively few rise above such a plodding existence.” (Richard Taylor, Restoring Pride)

Some may argue there is nothing wrong with this type of “normal” existence. Modern life can be high paced and stressful, and with mental health problems on the rise, perhaps what is needed is more time spent resting and relaxing. The prolific 20th century English writer Colin Wilson, however, disagreed with this sentiment. Too much inactivity, rather than promoting mental health, tends to breed unhappiness and a plethora of psychological problems.

Wilson came to this conclusion early in his life. In his autobiography “Dreaming to Some Purpose”, he notes that as an adolescent he struggled with bouts of depression and sympathized with the “wisdom” contained in the Book of Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Wilson, however, had an astute mind and was intent on discovering why he always felt so gloomy. He began to observe that his bouts of depression were typically preceded by prolonged periods of passivity. When he did not occupy his days with interesting tasks, challenges, and problems to solve, he discovered that depressive moods would soon wash over him, fog his perceptions, and cause him to become a pessimist of the human condition. The idle mind is the devil’s workshop. Or as Wilson writes:

“Boredom, passivity, stagnation: these are the beginning of mental illness, which propagates itself like the scum on a stagnant pond.” (Colin Wilson, New Pathways in Psychology)

If Wilson’s discovery of the connection between passivity and mental illness has merit, then we are confronted with the following options. We can waste our leisure in idle pursuits, leave our untapped potentials untouched, and render ourselves prone to mental illness. Or we can strive to spend the majority of our free time creating, exploring, learning, doing – challenging our capacities and improving our talents. While the latter option entails perseverance, struggle, and the sacrifice of short-term pleasures and comfort, the pay off – mental health and personal growth – is worth the effort.

“The mentally healthy individual”, writes Wilson. “is he who habitually calls upon fairly deep levels of vital reserves. An individual whose mind is allowed to become dormant – so that only the surface is disturbed – begins to suffer from ‘circulation problems’. Neurosis is the feeling of being cut off from your own powers.” (Colin Wilson, New Pathways in Psychology)

But what if Wilson’s discovery of the connection between passivity and depression is not applicable to all, but only to a minority, who like Wilson, possess an unusually strong creative urge? Maybe for some people passivity does not breed the suffering it did for Wilson. Would this mean that the struggle to spend our free time engaged in creative activity is a waste of time and energy?

In his book Restoring Pride Richard Taylor provides a cogent argument for why the struggle to produce and create is always worth the effort, for as he explains, it increases our possibilities of being able to attain the rare state of pride. Taylor defines pride as “the justified love of oneself”, and notes that while many people claim to love themselves, more often than not their “self-love” is not pride but narcissism or an arrogant shield to protect their underlying insecurity and self-hate. To be truly proud, Taylor explains, one must “have the kind of love that is justified by the kind of person you are.” (Richard Taylor, Restoring Pride) That is, you must cultivate an extraordinary skill in a specific domain and thus attain personal excellence of the kind that sets you apart from others.

The idea that some people are superior to others offends the modern taste, for as Taylor points out, many have confused equal rights with equal worth. Just because every individual has natural rights and should be treated equally before the law does not mean that every individual possesses the same worth. For the Ancient Greeks this was self-evident. They recognized that while most dedicate their life to fitting in with the herd, a relative few cultivate an uncommon virtue or skill, produce a work of exceptional worth, or proceed upon a path in the pursuit of personal greatness irrespective of the applause or opinions of others. And as Taylor notes, it is these latter individuals – the superior ones – who alone can love themselves in a manner not based on false pretences.

Therefore, the next time we find ourselves with leisure and the freedom to direct our own activities, rather than reflexively reaching for the remote, engaging in passive activities on the internet, or socializing about superficial subjects, we should ask ourselves if the comfort and pleasure these activities provide is worth the cost. For even if our passivity does not plant within us the seeds of pessimism and depression, then it most certainly is decreasing our worth as a human being, and minimizing our chances of ever being able to achieve the self-love that accompanies genuine pride. Or as Taylor explains:

“Some people, no doubt, are born, and destined, to be common, to live out their lives to no significant purpose, but that is relatively rare…Most people have the power to be creative, and some have it in a god-like degree…But many people – perhaps even most – are content with the passing pleasures and satisfactions of the animal side of our nature. Indeed, many people will account their lives to be successful if they get through them with only minimal pain, with pleasant divergence from moment to moment and day-to-day, and the general approval of those around them. And this, notwithstanding that they often have within them the ability to do something which perhaps no other human being has ever done. Merely to do what others have done is often safe, and comfortable; but to do something truly original, and do it well, whether it is appreciated by others or not – that is what being human is really all about, and it is alone what justifies the self-love that is pride.” (Richard Taylor, Restoring Pride)

 

This is why, in my opinion, there is so much unhappiness among my generation.  I think legitimate clinical depression is far more rare than is currently being diagnosed.  People have to realize their choices are going to change their lives far more quickly and effectively than downing cocktails of psych pills.

[The Nehor]

So you are saying that if, through the expenditure of enough time, I get my MMO character to the top of perfection I will finally find self-worth?

[SteveO]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are saying that if, through the expenditure of enough time, I get my MMO character to the top of perfection I will finally find self-worth?

Only if that eventually comes to be one of the more desirable marriage traits women want to find in men...

so...

Edited December 1, 2018 by SteveO

[california boy]

On 11/30/2018 at 11:36 AM, bsjkki said:

I agree. We should all understand the limited abilities Bishops have. Do not expect them to be trained counselors. Do not expect them to have all the answers. Do not expect them to be perfect. Do expect them to make mistakes. This is a healthy way to view their role. They are very busy and and have many administrative tasks and full-time jobs. 

I agree, but sometimes bishops claim their words come from God Himself.  They use their office as some kind of pulpit to push their own beliefs and prejudices.  Sometimes they get totally defensive if someone questions their counsel.  This is when it becomes problematic and can cause real harm.  They don't speak for God.  They should encourage members to pray for answers and rely on their faith.  I have no problem when they offer advice, but it should stay at just being advice, not some edict from God.