Scrupulosity

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Exactly!  That has been my point - focus our attention on the suffering individual.

Misunderstanding the etiology of the disorder will never help them fully heal. 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A corollary to that question is whether a healthy individual would take the Church’s claims and promises seriously in the first place.

I'm assuming this is a joke, but if not, we all know that both healthy and unhealthy individuals take the Church’s claims and promises seriously in the first place.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Those expectations didn't simply spring into existence, did they?  Where do you think they might have come from?

I dont know, maybe you could help me out.  Where does it say that a mission president is always inspired in all things which proceeds from his mouth?  I can show you were we have been taught to not simply accept everyhing we are taught as inspired, even from a prophet.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

my sentiment exactly

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I dont know, maybe you could help me out.  Where does it say that a mission president is always inspired in all things which proceeds from his mouth?  I can show you were we have been taught to not simply accept everyhing we are taught as inspired, even from a prophet.

Oh, stop the gaslighting.  You know as well as I do that the emphasis on following the (allegedly) inspired counsel of your leaders transcends virtually every effort to say otherwise.  How many times have we been told to go along even if our leader is wrong?  How many times have people been brought into disciplinary councils for openly disagreeing with leadership?  Besides, we are talking about a room full of 19-21 year olds who hang on every word of leadership.  How about instead of blaming the kids for listening, we blame the leader for being an idiot?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

my sentiment exactly

 

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

If I'm convinced of anything based on this most recent exchange, it's that trying to convince a true believer to engage in an exercise of introspection on even the potential for harm in the way the church goes about its business is largely a futile effort.  We have multiple people reporting on their experiences here and they are dismissed as "predisposed to mental illness."  Hey, @Analytics, @jkwilliams, @Meadowchik - we have finally gotten to the "root" of the problem!  We really are just broken.  It was all us from the get go. All that therapy to unwind learned toxic patterns of thinking from our lives was just wasted time and money.  If we weren't already "predisposed to mental illness" none of this would have happened!  Glory, hallelujah, amen!

Taking my own advice.  I'm out.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Oh, stop the gaslighting.  You know as well as I do that the emphasis on following the (allegedly) inspired counsel of your leaders transcends virtually every effort to say otherwise.  How many times have we been told to go along even if our leader is wrong?  How many times have people been brought into disciplinary councils for openly disagreeing with leadership?  Besides, we are talking about a room full of 19-21 year olds who hang on every word of leadership.  How about instead of blaming the kids for listening, we blame the leader for being an idiot?

“gaslighting” has turned into such a cliche, I dont even know what people mean by it anymore.  

I am fine with blaming mission presidents with being idiots at times.  Mine certainly was.  I have never felt like I need to believe everything taught by my leaders is inspired, and I grew up in the church, so I honestly cant relate.  If there are microcultures in the church which teach this, they neec to be corrected.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Don't play that game.  I wouldn't have said a damn thing if I hadn't experienced my own periods of serious and dangerous (to me) mental illness.

But it is a fun game.

[mtomm]

On 4/27/2021 at 12:35 PM, JAHS said:

Scrupulosity
"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."

I wonder how many have left the church because of this "disorder".  I have known so many who have tried so hard to live the letter of the law and because of that and the guilt they feel they decide to give up and leave the church as the lady in this article did:

From Mormon missionary to Lutheran pastor

"Katie Langston didn’t know much about Lutheranism when she enrolled in a Lutheran seminary. She only knew that Mormonism, the religion of her childhood, had become wrapped up with both joy and pain, and that the pain had started to be more prominent.

We were a very devout family, very conservative,” Langston told RNS.

The term she uses is “quasi-fundamentalist”—not in the sense that they practiced polygamy, which “fundamentalist” has become code for in Mormon circles, but in the classic sense of interpreting scripture and the counsel of general authorities in a very literal, black-and-white way.

It was a loving childhood, but Langston often experienced crippling anxiety. “I was a very sensitive kid and had a ton of religious anxiety that would later be diagnosed as scrupulosity, a religious form of OCD,”

 In the memoir she recounts her struggles to stay “clean” as a Mormon youth, engaging in repeated patterns of doing something the Church viewed as wrong and then praying desperately for forgiveness. “Please forgive me of all my sins,” she would beg—through her childhood, her mission to Bulgaria and into her adult life.

It took a toll. “It reached a point in adulthood when I felt as if life was not worth living, to be honest. Around that time, I had a profound experience of God’s grace that I struggled to make sense of within a Mormon context. I battled with that for the better part of a decade.”
______________________________________________________

Was she affected by the example of her parents? Was this just part of her personality? Can members with this same kind of OCD personality still thrive as members of the Church?

 

I have not read everyone's comments but I will say that I am married to a man who suffers from this. I didn't know it had a name and I'm sure he doesn't either. Wow. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Taking my own advice.  I'm out.

I think others recognize that I am capable of introspection and calling out the church and its leaders when I see genuine fault.  peace out.  

I honestly think the problem here is that you are conflating your own personal experience in the church with a mental disorder that you know nothing about (experientially).

Edited April 29, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, stop the gaslighting.  You know as well as I do that the emphasis on following the (allegedly) inspired counsel of your leaders transcends virtually every effort to say otherwise.  How many times have we been told to go along even if our leader is wrong?  How many times have people been brought into disciplinary councils for openly disagreeing with leadership?  Besides, we are talking about a room full of 19-21 year olds who hang on every word of leadership.  How about instead of blaming the kids for listening, we blame the leader for being an idiot?

I will say said leader was an idiot.

15 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I have not read everyone's comments but I will say that I am married to a man who suffers from this. I didn't know it had a name and I'm sure he doesn't either. Wow. 

I both love and hate these kinds of epiphanies in my own life.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

  We have multiple people reporting on their experiences here and they are dismissed as "predisposed to mental illness."  Hey, @Analytics, @jkwilliams, @Meadowchik - we have finally gotten to the "root" of the problem!  We really are just broken

Did any of you get diagnosed as OCD?  Because I think we may be talking about two different things.  Chronic depression is fundamentally different than acute depression.  Same with anxiety.  I am guessing...having studied, but never really interacted with anyone with OCD, that there is a distinction between an actual chronic OCD and more milder obsessive behaviours that don’t rate disorder.

I think Bluedreams, myself, and other believers are thinking about the disorder type while it is possible others are thinking of the more mild, though troubling obsessive behaviour.

 

Added:  While there are likely many who experience Scrupulosity in the Church, before making claims about the Church structure, etc causing such itself, I think we need more than anecdotal evidence and instead see statistical research showing such is higher within the Church than without it just as we should require stats for making claims about ex members...the whole ‘they can leave the Church but they can’t leave it alone’ really bugs me because it ignores those who do leave it alone, ignores the difference between short term activity while ties are being cut vs long term, ignores the variable that keep a person tied to the Church even after resigning or otherwise terminating membership officially or unofficially, primarily family, but friends and community as well possibly.  Making claims about exmormons in general needs stats and not anecdotes just like anything else claimed for group behaviour. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I have not read everyone's comments but I will say that I am married to a man who suffers from this. I didn't know it had a name and I'm sure he doesn't either. Wow. 

pathologically dysfunctional?

[mtomm]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

pathologically dysfunctional?

Yes. Over the years he has learned to cope with it and he takes medication so he doesn't spend so much time in the bishop's office confessing sin that doesn't need to be confessed,  but his dysfunction is only rooted in religious guilt.

He is textbook:

 

Quote

What is Scrupulosity? A form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) involving religious or moral obsessions. Scrupulous individuals are overly concerned that something they thought or did might be a sin or other violation of religious or moral doctrine.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by mtomm

[pogi]

Just now, mtomm said:

Yes. Over the years he has learned to cope with it and he takes medication so he doesn't spend so much time in the bishop's office confessing sin that doesn't need to be confessed,  but his dysfunction is only rooted in religious guilt.

Im sorry to hear that.  Hopefully identifying the problem can help guide you in finding effective treatment for the underlying issues.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did any of you get diagnosed as OCD?  Because I think we may be talking about two different things. 

I agree, he seems to be conflating 2 different things and making it all personal when we are not talking about him nor his experience.

If I had to guess, think it is triggering for him to see us defend the church while suggesting the root issue is likely with the individual.  He probably heard this a lot and it may be a knee jerk reaction for him to get defensive, making it hard to accept that it actually may be true in this particular case.

Edited April 29, 2021 by pogi

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree, he seems to be conflating 2 different things and making it all personal when we are not talking about him nor his experience.

If I had to guess, think it is triggering for him to see us defend the church while suggesting the root issue is likely with the individual.  He probably heard this a lot and it may be a knee jerk reaction for him to get defensive, making it hard to accept that it actually may be true in this particular case.

It's really bad form to be talking about someone who has excused himself from the thread. How about you just not?

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's really bad form to be talking about someone who has excused himself from the thread. How about you just not?

I had a feeling you would be lurking and would respond if you felt so inclined.  

It’s bad form to drop a bomb and walk off (expecting us not to respond or consider the weighty accusations, or why they were said).  So I guess we are even.

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree, he seems to be conflating 2 different things and making it all personal when we are not talking about him nor his experience.

If I had to guess, think it is triggering for him to see us defend the church while suggesting the root issue is likely with the individual.  He probably heard this a lot and it may be a knee jerk reaction for him to get defensive, making it hard to accept that it actually may be true in this particular case.

The OP seemed to be talking about something more than a clinical definition of scrupulosity.

“I wonder how many have left the church because of this "disorder".  I have known so many who have tried so hard to live the letter of the law and because of that and the guilt they feel they decide to give up and leave the church as the lady in this article did:”

I doubt he knows “so many” who have a diagnosable disorder (hence the scare quotes around the word). I took it as written as referring to members who feel guilt enough that they “give up” on the church  

I could be wrong, but that seems much different from a narrow discussion of a psychological disorder  

 

[Peacefully]

On 4/28/2021 at 1:28 PM, BlueDreams said:

Finally had a minute. 

I mentioned that those struggling with some version of scrupulosity or at least strong moral based anxiety have root causes in several areas. I see this from a UT base so I’d assume it would be a little different in other communities. But because the church conmunity and general community have a huge overlap in UT this one is hard to sus out. Often what some ascribe as “church” I would probably describe as their social community. For example they may mention their church body as all being extremely perfect and having extremely manicured lives and homes. That doesn’t describe the “church” per se but likely a church community that was fairly homogeneous and well off monetarily. I have others describe “church” as a small tight knit community that’s leery of change and outsiders and even higher education as potential sources where people could lose their testimony. Again that’s not “church” that’s a religious community in a small rural region. Some local church communities are more flexible open and easy going than others. Others are more rigid, rules based, and traditional. This is usually a mix of a reflection of their regional or class based culture and overarching societal expectations. 

 

 

likewise with family. Different religious families practice their religion differently. Most families fall somewhere in between in terms of religious practice and family dynamics. In other words they have a few unhealthy and usually several healthy dynamics going for them. The few unhealthy ones just tend to be the Achilles heel for kids with certain predispositions or concerns. When I have clients fearful of telling their religious family members their struggle in the faith, leading to a sense of isolation, with a little encouragement to share 9 times out of 10 their concerns are met up with empathy and care. though they may not be perfect in execution the person usually feels a sense of relief to realize their worst case scenarios they’d built up weren’t really there.  Most religious families are first families that love their peoples. But there are exceptions. Most the time I’m not surprised by the exceptions. They’ve told me enough about their family culture to know that their family may not take their concerns well. Some are simply not emotionally safe, super rigid and perfectionistic, and haven’t done well in the past with their children’s emotional vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t suggest they share much with them. Some are straight up abusive. All of these may use church messages to bolster their family dynamics. Obviously there are behaviors from these more caustic families the church as a whole would never approve of. But with a mix of cherry picked beliefs, regional influences, and family history these messages can be hard to shake and came be extremely emotionally and spiritually damaging. 

 

And then you get to the church as a whole. As in it’s more universal religious practices and teachings. These are still hard to divide from the regional messages to some degree but they are still there. For example I’ve never had some one who veers towards more rigid views of the faith ruminate on say Uchtdorf talks. It’s usually the aspects that best fit the cultural, familial, and personal anxiety voices/messages. Someone who assumes they need to have a lot of kids to be righteous will hone in on Anderson’s last talk for example...miss every message that indicates personal choice and circumstances and focus more on the messages that reflect cultural norms. 

It’s one of the reasons I want and like more diversity in the church in general. It’s not that that completely goes away but that there’s more balance in perspectives. So for example let’s take the expectations around ordinance rites. 

A person who’s more black and white around it may look and sense a cultural expectation to do baptism or get the endowments or get sealed. Because that’s what’s expected and “everyone” does. They may assume no one really is presented this as a choice that they can also choose not to do without major social ire. But I’ve known other parents who are really careful to present it as a choice and an individual decision with no judgment on the kid one way or another. These parents often read the exact same verses and religious material and get different things from them. They’re also more capable of pushing back on messages or people who subscribe to more rigid (fundamentalist, authoritarian, etc) versions of the religion. So for example I know my stake presidency are very...let’s say they fit a cultural stereotype more than once (although often ironically while doing some forward thinking things...people are messy). When they get into one of these moments (like insisting the only reason we feel the spirit at home sacrament is because the prophet says we can do it right now and have permission from the bishop to do so) it’s easy for my brain to reject that as likely over-assuming policy as doctrine. I have several protective factors that have helped me do so. My family culture often entails rowdy arguments and discourse about tricky issues and also entails several member who were never or are currently not LDS. I’m used to going it alone on my personal beliefs and desires. My formative years happened in a very different community where messages that stuck out to me at church were very different from the ones I’ve heard here. And my own spiritual experiences and interpretations go against some of their assumptions. And I personally am comfortable with gray and moral relative constructions. Moral absolutism has never been my spiritual staple though I do think there are truths that are fairly consistent. The fewer protective measures they have in the arsenal the more this strain of religious experience may effect them in negative ways. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Yes. This.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The OP seemed to be talking about something more than a clinical definition of scrupulosity.

“I wonder how many have left the church because of this "disorder".  I have known so many who have tried so hard to live the letter of the law and because of that and the guilt they feel they decide to give up and leave the church as the lady in this article did:”

I doubt he knows “so many” who have a diagnosable disorder (hence the scare quotes around the word). I took it as written as referring to members who feel guilt enough that they “give up” on the church  

I could be wrong, but that seems much different from a narrow discussion of a psychological disorder  

 

If that is the case, than we have been talking past each other this whole time.  I understand “scrupulosity” to be a crippling and disabling disorder.   To me, leaving due to general guilt is not the same thing at all and shouldn’t be confused with scrupulosity.  As is usually the case in these forums, semantics rears it’s dysfunctional face.  Sorry for any confusion.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The OP seemed to be talking about something more than a clinical definition of scrupulosity.

The use of the term "disorder" turned the conversation into a clinical one for me.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Did any of you get diagnosed as OCD?  Because I think we may be talking about two different things.  Chronic depression is fundamentally different than acute depression.  Same with anxiety.  I am guessing...having studied, but never really interacted with anyone with OCD, that there is a distinction between an actual chronic OCD and more milder obsessive behaviours that don’t rate disorder.

I think Bluedreams, myself, and other believers are thinking about the disorder type while it is possible others are thinking of the more mild, though troubling obsessive behaviour.

 

Added:  While there are likely many who experience Scrupulosity in the Church, before making claims about the Church structure, etc causing such itself, I think we need more than anecdotal evidence and instead see statistical research showing such is higher within the Church than without it just as we should require stats for making claims about ex members...the whole ‘they can leave the Church but they can’t leave it alone’ really bugs me because it ignores those who do leave it alone, ignores the difference between short term activity while ties are being cut vs long term, ignores the variable that keep a person tied to the Church even after resigning or otherwise terminating membership officially or unofficially, primarily family, but friends and community as well possibly.  Making claims about exmormons in general needs stats and not anecdotes just like anything else claimed for group behaviour. 

The covenants and penalties alone explain a great deal, if you went to the temple before 1990. I wonder if those who are posting were in fact endowed before this time. I was and I see how it could mess with the mind. And with other religions that carry a great deal of power over the psyche. 

And also why some can't leave it alone. 

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, mtomm said:

Yes. Over the years he has learned to cope with it and he takes medication so he doesn't spend so much time in the bishop's office confessing sin that doesn't need to be confessed,  but his dysfunction is only rooted in religious guilt.

He is textbook:

 

 

I might have a touch of this. I remember as a child I was walking with my mom and the neighbor lady when the neighbor tripped and fell. I thought I was at fault and but had nothing to do with it. This has affected my life throughout and it bothers my husband to no end. It might be another disorder of some kind. 

[BlueDreams]

 Hmm...went for a bike ride....gardened...read something inspirational...and had a quiet day with the fam and came back to 3+ pages of rapid fire responses. I read most of them (I’m sure I missed some) and I agree with @Calm in the sense that I’m somewhat wondering at this point if we’re talking more past each other than anything. I get all of you are talking from your own experiences of trauma, depression/anxiety, or at least harmful experiences within church settings. Personally I’m mostly talking about a specific disorder which is a subset of a fairly severe disorder that is not exactly like anxiety or depression, though o  ok it may entail experiences of both at some point. Depression and anxiety and even PTSD all are more prevalent than OCD and scrupulosity. Because of that and their broader definitions, causes for them are far more broad as well. Though most disorders show some family inheritance, OCD (and therefore scrupulosity) shows strong genetic predispositions. Note I’m not blaming the individual for this anymore than I would say someone who’s deaf caused their deafness. Most likely it wasn’t something they had much say for it happening to them. What they obsess about, in this case morals, is likely due to proximity more so than cause. Somewhat like a magnet pulls up nails from the ground when near it. The nail didn’t cause the magnet to pull it up and the magnet isn’t at fault for having certain properties that attracts nails. There’s just elements in the environment that Having OCD is more likely to grab onto and become obsessive about than someone more neurotypical would. So when i hear the church could lead to this it doesn’t compute. It’s like saying the church could fuel or even cause schizophrenia because they believe in visions and people with schizophrenia in the church have had religious delusions. that’s not what’s happening. 
 

that said from what I could find, those in “very strict religious cultures” are more likely to exhibit scrupulous/moral OCD symptoms. This brings up the next set of arguments. Does the church fit the definition of very strict religious culture? That’s more amorphous and subjective to our personal biases and experiences. For some here we do. For others here not so much. Personally as a whole, if I went with super loose to super strict, I’d put us probably in the middle but leaning toward strict. And this would vary from individual church units and groups. Some of these that I’ve heard of come off almost as foreign to me because they are well outside my personal experience and are extremely strict/rigid in religious interpretations. Some periods of time or specific callings may have very strict/added expectations (young adult missions would be an example). But this isn’t the entirety of church experience and not really representative either. They may also be transient, such as being a temple worker (which also have stricter expectations in behavior and dress but largely only in the temple). Personally I liked that the woman described it as “fundamentalist.” This defines her personal religious context in an overarching church body that may not fit others contexts. I would assume that pure numbers would be slightly higher than the gen pop but lower than more strict faiths such as JW’s, Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist evangelicals, etc. 

 

And the last thing I’m seeing us miscommunicate on is what is even meant by “the Church.” Many have pointed to their own experiences, which have also left many feeling discounted or mowed over by the “true believers.” Which again I don’t think is really what the ones I’ve seen here mean to do. The problem with using individual experiences is they’re individual and varied. For example, I heard an account of two bishops in regard to a case of rape. The one bishop over the woman who was raped was phenomenal. He did everything that I would hope a bishop would do for someone in this situation. The other bishop over the perpetrator did not and epically failed IMHO. Which one in their responses, counsel, and judgment are “the church?” Just the negative one, just the positive one, just the parts that fall fully into actual institutional policy, just the parts that are blindspots in institutional policy, or something else all together? I was personally pulling out most of the local community, cultural, and individual factors for the bare doctrine and basic policy when talking about “the church.” But that may not be the right take either. It may be accurate to pull out branches of thought or experiences and give them name, such as the woman did by describing her experience as a fundamentalist Mormon experience. One that’s just not mine and that at best brush up against from time to time in my religious practice. 
 

lastly @ttribeif you are still reading, I want to apologize if anything I’ve said has irritated or upset you. Sincerely so. I get from the response that this likely strikes close to home in some ways that I likely don’t see. I would state to the one question you had for me that I would note that several comments throughout have felt to me that more blame was being placed on the church for mental illness than I personally think is warranted. I have my own backstory of small peeve (I wouldn’t even call it a pet one) when a simple narrative is given that places blame on “the church” with little to no nuance or depth past common cultural frustrations being shared. If I’m wrong and that is not what most meant then that’s just fine. As I mentioned from the looks of the last few pages it looks like we in general are missing something in what the other is saying which is reinforcing our own frustrations with the “other side.” I respect your choice to bow out and respect your choice to answer if you’d like. 

 

 

***note: I wrote most of this in pieces over the last hour or so. I’m seeing others already made some of the same points. 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by BlueDreams