Scrupulosity

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Obedience for obedience sake is about "obedience" being a principle of righteousness in and of itself.

Obedience for obedience sake means something has no other benefit than demonstrating or strengthening obedience, imo. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You keep insinuating that making the choice to be a worthy temple recommend holder is not a choice of right and wrong for me...and that is my point.  It is not an either or for me.   I am “simply concerned about choosing right versus wrong”, which is precisely why I am a temple recommend holder.  Again, that may not jive with your morals, but I’d appreciate it if you begin acknowledging that your morals are not mine and stop projecting your morals onto me as if they are absolute and universal.
 

If you are susceptible to mental illness, then even the stress and demands of going to school or work could be a recipe to trigger that mental illness.  Should we blame the institution of education and the demands of the workplace for their rigorous expectations?  Should we seek to change the institutions and remove any and all rigorous expectations (which help to build and edify most people without mental illness), or should we instead seek to heal and treat the mental illness?  Which seems more reasonable to you?

The church and its moral code are not the problem, though it may be a trigger for some, but if we were to blame and vilify all triggers for people with mental illness, then there would be no good institutions in the world who might expect things from us.

 

I have not said anything about your morals. I am comparing personal estimation of right versus wrong to the church's specific instructions and expectations about right and wrong. Those are two different concepts. Just because they can sometimes align does not make them the same thing.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure a secular form of the "obedience for obedience sake" principle is foundational to your everyday life. Something would be wrong with you if you didn't observe it. And if there happens to be something wrong with you (I'm not suggesting there is!), you might have pathological feelings of guilt, fear, anxiety, etc. associated with excessive observance of practical habits that are otherwise justified by science.

I didn't say that obedience for obedience sake is exclusive to the church. And ftr neither did I limit scrupulosity to that a definition.

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Contribute, sure. Produce, no. That’s like saying dirt produces flowers. It can help them grow, but you need a seed for that to even have a chance. Simply having fairly limited expectations (the temple questions are not that elaborate) is not sufficient to produce a mental disorder like OCD manifested as scrupulosity. You would need something far more extreme and preferably traumatizing to get to a point that you would see an organization leading to mental disorders. (These would be trauma based ones...which mean the anxiety behaviors would really just be manifestation of trauma). Think more cult-like groups or ones into extreme punishment or ostracism as a means of behavioral control. 
 

with luv,

BD 

The very-involved rules don't always produce scrupulosity, but they can. They can help generate trauma, btw.

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The very-involved rules don't always produce scrupulosity, but they can. They can help generate trauma, btw.

I am curious as to what you think could be done about this?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not a contest. The very-involved rules of the church can contribute to and even produce a disordered obsession with "righteousness rules" which then interferes with a person's ability to function. 

 

That is the thing. The Church does not have a huge laundry list of absolute do’s and don’ts. Some create such lists but at that point if you are going to do it any religion will allow you to do that. Hell, any philosophy will allow you to do that.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Obedience for obedience sake means something has no other benefit than demonstrating or strengthening obedience, imo. 

Which church rules change if we cannot see any benefit to them? Say I pay my tithing but under certain circumstances see no benefit or perhaps even see harm. The expectation to obey is still there.

 

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I am curious as to what you think could be done about this?

Being aware of it is a start. 

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is the thing. The Church does not have a huge laundry list of absolute do’s and don’ts. Some create such lists but at that point if you are going to do it any religion will allow you to do that. Hell, any philosophy will allow you to do that.

It does have a very involved system of rules. So we disagree on that. I don't think every ideology is equally vulnerable to contributing to or producing scrupulosity.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The very-involved rules don't always produce scrupulosity, but they can. They can help generate trauma, btw.

So is the problem in your estimation “very-involved rules”?  Should we just scrap institutional rules and expectations? Is that really the problem, or is it possible that comorbid mental illness conditions are the source of the problem, with the rules being a trigger?

38 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 They can help generate trauma, btw.

Is it the rules, or an unhealthy perception and attitude toward the rules precipitated by other comorbid factors which generates the trauma in some?

 

[Vanguard]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Being aware of it is a start. 

Ok, so in a world where there is awareness, what's the next step?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It does have a very involved system of rules. So we disagree on that. I don't think every ideology is equally vulnerable to contributing to or producing scrupulosity.

It really doesn’t. Our unofficial “Talmuds” might but I don’t read those. Now there are people who really don’t like some of the rules (there are a few I am not fond of) but quantity is not a real issue.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't say that obedience for obedience sake is exclusive to the church. And ftr neither did I limit scrupulosity to that a definition.

Yes, but it was said to characterize the Church's temple recommend questions as uniquely triggering from other societal rules that are governed by the same principle. I'm not understanding the second statement -- I gather you are using "scrupulosity" in a more general, generic way (?).

Why do you take the temple recommend questions to be very involved? They are simple, yes/no types of questions navigated by the respondent. These are personal commitments developed in response to Church invitations to draw closer to Christ. Reframing them as expectations (and reacting accordingly for better or worse, i.e., “I will try and comply in good faith,” or “Don’t tell me what to do!”) undermines the intended method and the promised spiritual benefit, or at least indicates a hopefully temporary bump in spiritual development.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It does have a very involved system of rules. So we disagree on that. I don't think every ideology is equally vulnerable to contributing to or producing scrupulosity.

So given that some see the rules as involved and impositional and others not, something else must trigger the scrupulosity.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The very-involved rules don't always produce scrupulosity, but they can. They can help generate trauma, btw.

How people implement them (ie. the local community or church group) and past trauma can generate trauma responses from those vulnerable to triggers. The rules themselves in their current manifestations are extremely unlikely to do so. So unlikely that I can't say I've seen a case where "the rules," in and of themselves, created trauma in someone not already struggling with previous trauma. BTW, I see several of the changes the church has made by cutting the fat and discouraging local areas from micromanaging by adding extra rules as a means to try and address this concern. 

 

And simply stating they are "very-involved" does not make them "very-involved." I'm not even sure what your working definition or litmus for very-involved is. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Which church rules change if we cannot see any benefit to them? Say I pay my tithing but under certain circumstances see no benefit or perhaps even see harm. The expectation to obey is still there.

 

It isn’t if we personally see no benefit in it, but if justification for a rule is simply because it is expected, imo.
 

I see it as more likely occurrence with local groups than global and less likely actual policies, but rather interpretations and motivations for imposing a rule. I think there is too much inertia and pushback from a global community on rules that can’t be explained as beneficial to last very long.  Rules that have massive variation on whether they are applied or not should be looked at closely imo.

The one I saw in my own life was a stake leader telling my husband to cut his beard as a test of my obedience (I asked if he could keep it and he responded “and if I asked him to cut it?”)

I think for global rules, examples would be the beard rule for men who are not missionaries (a trademark look for missionaries makes sense for public recognition, but just not having a beard without the rest of the requirements does not create a unique look in regular membership) and for women the one pierced ear is okay, but not two comes close to being obedience for obedience’s sake.  It seems more based on expectations than benefits to the person or community.  Two holes are not inherently ostentatious, it is the earrings with that many holes that draws attention and that could happen with one earring, pierced or not.  One more hole doesn’t distort the ear. If the issue is damaging the body as a temple, then one hole would be bad as well.  The only non-obedience value that can be claimed that I can think of is limiting to one earring may be more emotionally justifiable than not allowing 3 if allowing 2 or 4 if allowing 3. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Contribute, sure. Produce, no. That’s like saying dirt produces flowers. It can help them grow, but you need a seed for that to even have a chance. Simply having fairly limited expectations (the temple questions are not that elaborate) is not sufficient to produce a mental disorder like OCD manifested as scrupulosity. You would need something far more extreme and preferably traumatizing to get to a point that you would see an organization leading to mental disorders. (These would be trauma based ones...which mean the anxiety behaviors would really just be manifestation of trauma). Think more cult-like groups or ones into extreme punishment or ostracism as a means of behavioral control. 
 

with luv,

BD 

I recall some trauma-inducing rituals involving extreme punishment, and as Tim mentioned, those of us who have left have experienced ostracism. So, there's a spectrum of contributing factors. 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I recall some trauma-inducing rituals involving extreme punishment, and as Tim mentioned, those of us who have left have experienced ostracism. So, there's a spectrum of contributing factors. 

I would hope that if I were the one who left, that I would put a finer point point on these statements. "Some of us who have left..." and "The figurative symbolism in the rituals [e.g. broken body, shed blood] traumatized me."

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would hope that if I were the one who left, that I would put a finer point point on these statements. "Some of us who have left..." and "The figurative symbolism in the rituals [e.g. broken body, shed blood] traumatized me."

Sure, but my point is that one can't say there is an absence of "extreme punishment or ostracism" in Mormonism. Obviously, everyone's experience is different. 

[Analytics]

"Scrupulosity is characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive–compulsive disorder."

That reminds me of the high claims the Church makes for itself in terms of guys having the literal power and authority of God, promises of having the blessings of the spirit, promises that if you are a righteous, faithful missionary, God will lead you to the people who are out there and who are in fact desperately looking for the Church but don't know where to find it, promises of how your weekly missionary goals will be achieved, etc.

But there is a catch. All of these wonderful promises are predicated on the individual's faithfulness and obedience. If you feel depressed or a priesthood blessing doesn't work or you don't achieve your goals as a missionary or the wonderful things promised in your patriarchal blessing don't come true, it is your fault for not being faithful and obedient enough. Thus the guilt.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Analytics

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

"Scrupulosity is characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive–compulsive disorder."

That reminds me of the high claims the Church makes for itself in terms of guys having the literal power and authority of God, promises of having the blessings of the spirit, promises that if you are a righteous, faithful missionary, God will lead you to the people who are out there and who are in fact desperately looking for the Church but don't know where to find it, promises of how your weekly missionary goals will be achieved, etc.

But there is a catch. All of these wonderful promises are predicated on the individual's faithfulness and obedience. If you feel depressed or a priesthood blessing doesn't work or you don't achieve your goals as a missionary or the wonderful things promised in your patriarchal blessing don't come true, it is your fault for not being faithful and obedient enough. Thus the guilt.

Unwinding this pattern of thinking has been taking some SERIOUS effort in my case.  Dangerous stuff to mental health in that pattern.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Unwinding this pattern of thinking has been taking some SERIOUS effort in my case.  Dangerous stuff to mental health in that pattern.

Same here. 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

"Scrupulosity is characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive–compulsive disorder."

That reminds me of the high claims the Church makes for itself in terms of guys having the literal power and authority of God, the ability to perform miracles, promises of having the blessings of the spirit, promises that if you are a righteous, faithful missionary, God will lead you to the people who are out there and in fact desperately looking for it but don't know where to find it, about how your weekly goals as missionaries will be achieved, etc.

All of these wonderful promises are predicated on the individual's faithfulness and obedience. If you feel depressed or a priesthood blessing doesn't work or you don't achieve your goals as a missionary or the wonderful things promised in your patriarchal blessing don't come true, it is [i]your[/i] fault for not being faithful and obedient enough. Thus the guilt.

There is a history of some cultural expectations in some missions which may cause some stress and even unnecessary guilt.  There are also some church-wide expectations which may cause guilt.  
Guilt in and of itself is not necessarily a problem, nor a pathological disorder leading someone to become “objectively dysfunctional”, etc.  we are not talking about mere guilt, or even unnecessary guilt but a condition leading to pathological dysfunction. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by pogi

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are some cultural expectations in some missions which may cause some stress and even unnecessary guilt.  There are also some church-wide expectations which may cause guilt.  
Guilt in and of itself is not necessarily a problem, nor a pathological disorder leading someone to become “objectively dysfunctional”, etc.  we are not talking about mere guilt, or even unnecessary guilt but a condition leading to pathological dysfunction. 

I believe his point is that it readily metastasizes into dysfunction.

Edited April 29, 2021 by ttribe

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I believe his point is that it readily metastasizes into dysfunction.

I agree that it may be a trigger for some.  I would not agree that it readily metastasizes in general.  My point is that going to school or work can do the same for those who are predisposed.  I think treating the mental illness and comorbid conditions instead of absolving all expectations is the more reasonable approach.

Edited April 29, 2021 by pogi