Addiction is offensive to God?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Same here.  I have greatly benefitted over the years from being able to interact in ways that would never occur elsewhere.

Ain't that the truth!! 

[BlueDreams]

34 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The Twelve Steps in the Book of Mormon.

1: We admitted that we were powerless over lust, that our lives had become unmanageable.
Even so, I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance…your own nothingness…and humble yourselves in the depths of humility. (Mosiah 4:11)

2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
And this is the means by which salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this… Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things…believe that he has all wisdom and all power…believe that man doth not comprehend all the things the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:8-9)

3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him.
But if ye will turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart, and put your trust in him,… he will, according to his own will and pleasure, deliver you out of bondage. (Mos. 7:33)

4: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Yeah, and I did remember all my sins and iniquities…yeah, I saw that I had rebelled against my God (Alma 36:13)
I am encompassed about because the of the temptations and sins which do easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins. (2 Nephi 4:18-19)

(Notice that the reason Alma repents after seeing the angel, and that Laman and Lemuel do not, is that Alma goes through a searching and fearless moral inventory, and Laman and Lemuel offer up fear, resentment, and grievance, blaming everyone but themselves.  Zeezrom, without the angel, performs a "searching fearless moral inventory."  It is not the angel, but the fourth step that is decisive.)

5: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being, the exact nature of our wrongs.
And whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he hath committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him he shall forgive, and I will forgive him also. (Mosiah 26:29)

[Notice that the point of confession is not to inflict shame, but to remove it.  The is a recovery book called Healing the Shame that Binds You by John Bradshaw, showing that shame is an active component in addiction.  He distinguishes between toxic shame that says, " I am defective," and healthy shame that says, " I am human, am prone to make mistakes, and need boundaries."  Addicts have a core belief that if anyone saw who they really are, they would be rejected.  And there are valid grounds for that fear.  12 Step groups, and ideally, the Gospel, provides a social environment in which confession occurs in a setting that reduces shame.)

6: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
“Oh God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God;…wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee…” (Alma 22:18)

7: Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.
Oh Lord wilt thou redeem my soul?... Wilt thou make me that I shake at the appearance of sin? (2 Nephi 4:31)
I give unto men weakness that they may humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves… and have faith in me…I will make weak things become strong unto them. (Ether 12:27)

8: Made a list of all the persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
“And they traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla… zealously striving to repair all the injury they had done to the church, confessing all their sins…” (Mosiah 27:35)

9: Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
“return unto them and acknowledge your faults and the wrong which ye have done.” (Alma 39:13)

10: Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off. (2 Nephi 10:20)

11: Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for his will for us and the power to carry it out.
But this was not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Alma 17:3)

12:  Having had a spiritual awakening because of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
And we have suffered all manner of afflictions, and all this, that perhaps we might be the means of saving some soul, and we supposed that our joy would be full if perhaps we could be the means of saving some. (Alma 26:30)

While I have run across claims that 12 step recovery is not effective, having actually done it, and also seen the effects of recovery in lives of many other people, and how recovery also affected the lives of their loves ones, I have a more positive outlook.  Plus, having been to many recovery meetings over many years, I have also noticed that the difference between those who struggle and stumble and those who succeed is very clear.  12 Step Recovery is not a pill you take that happens to you as a passive recipient, but a deliberate journey on which one must embark.  Those who do not make the personal effort required do not make progress.

Addiction is a disease, not a moral failing.  But recognizing the disease as such requires taking the responsibility for appropriate action, rather than denying responsibility on grounds that "this is just the way I am."  The disease consists of brain damage that causes increased craving, and ways of impaired thinking in service of addiction that cause impeded judgement.  Twelve step recovery addresses both aspects of the disease with appropriate actions.  The boundaries and accountability, if embraced, lead to sobriety, which gives the body a chance to heal from the chemical dependencies, whether injected or generated internally through behavior.  The stories shared, the study of addiction and recovery and conceptual reframing, the personal models of "if they can do it, I can do it," which gives alternatives to "I've tried to quit and can't, this is just the way I am" and dismantling grievance narratives, all lead to improved thinking. This healing causes real changes in the neural pathways in the brain.  Because the disease involves both thinking and feeling, it is appropriate that addiction recovery quite literally involves the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

The brain operates with natural chemicals that are similar in nature and effects to morphine and other opiates.  So calling behavioral addictions, including grievance addiction and perfectionism,  is not just a metaphor, or label but apt diagnosis calling for appropriate response, rather than self-justification, grievance, and enabling.   Because addiction is a disease, it no more appropriate to treat it with shaming or imprisonment than it would be to insult or ostrisize a broken leg or a case of COVID.

FWIW,

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

i like your post, though there's definitely parts I disagree with. 

12 steps for some of my clients have been wonderful and helpful. It reduces their shame by seeing people who are struggling, gives them a place for social support and accountability, and gives them structure to a problem that seems completely out of control and all over the place. I've attended a few meetings and could feel and see the goodness in it. I've taught the steps for a special class once. And I've helped my clients work some of the steps when they've brought them in. They're good principles, period. 

I also could see the limitations. For each client that it's helped, there's another it doesn't do much or is the wrong fit. And it's not because they're not trying...they're still seeing me, working through their problems and problematic behaviors. For one, addictions and compulsive behaviors are not created equally. There are people that step one absolutely applies. Their lives have become completely unmanageable, they have completely shot their impulse control, any emotion can lead them to their outlet of choice. There's others who don't fit and the disease/addiction model is actually helping to maintain their shame and keep them stuck in their behaviors. I had a client once who was the perfect example of this. They assumed they had a porn addiction, their bishops referred them to addiction service based on the self-diagnosis, they even spent serious money on an intensive porn/sex addiction program. It did nothing. I talked to them, explored their use/patterns and was the first voice that said they didn't have an addiction...they had interpersonal needs that needed filling and porn was an easy bandaid. Once they did that and lost the stigma of powerless addiction over their head, they realized that if they took the time to take care of themselves and their true needs the porn naturally started to shluff off.  They weren't a one off.

If I had one major problem with this part of Nelson's talk, it's the use of the word addiction on every last unhealthy compulsive behavior. It can lead to using addiction treatment  models, particularly ones that focus on it as a disease, for anything we struggle stopping. There are forms of addiction that I do whole-heartedly agree that it's a serious disease...where the drugs they've used may have actually caused real brain damage from the chemicals they used that even when they're sober, may leave them with permanent limitations. But there's many other compulsive behaviors that I would never describe as brain damage. More like neural pathways that have been overly reinforced while others have been neglected. Kinda like how a person may be super muscular but struggle through basic yoga cuz they don't have any flexibility. It takes time and work to rebalance neural pathways by shifting reliance on compulsions to healthy regulation. To reduce avoidance/escapism of pain for processing. This process can absolutely have overlap with recognized addictions, some of the same tools may be helpful for said addictions....but they're still not the same. And at some point the definition get's so stretched out that you could reframe any mental health and interpersonal problem as rooted in addiction. I'm not so rigid that I insist people only call what's officially recognized in the DSM as addictions. But we can't treat these all as the same.   

I don't know the definition of moral failure on this that you may be thinking of. But even if I were to call it that because someone is unhealthily relying on something to manage their mental and interpersonal pain it would come with the huge caveat that everyone is morally failing to one degree or another. Thus Jesus. Shame isn't in recognizing one's failed and have major weaknesses, it comes in assuming your failure is somehow uniquely horrible and staining, can never change enough to matter, and who you are is innately the problem. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

There are plenty of links in the chain of causality relative to addiction that offend God before one gets to the person who uses the substance.  I think He is offended by:

• The procurement of precursors for the manufacture of the substance
• The manufacture of the substance
• The distribution of the substance
• The wholesale of the substance
• The "retail" sale of the substance
• Et cetera, potentially ad infinitum

I think, also, that there are more than a few things that, while not directly related to substance use itself, are byproducts of it:

• Prostitution: Many people who use accept substances as payment, and many people who are the "bosses" of those who engage in prostitution are more than happy see their "employees" remain addicted
• Pornography: Ditto for many who are the on-screen or on-camera "talent" in pornography
• Child Abuse: Something about having a millstone hung about one's neck and being drowned in the depths of the sea comes to mind, and I'm not about to tell the Lord of the Universe that He shouldn't be offended
• Other crime: One must protect one's "turf" ... somehow (murder, robbery, extortion, etc.)
• Again, et cetera, potentially ad infinitum

That's one of the reasons why addiction is such a tough nut to crack: The responsibility for it can be parceled out in so many different directions.  I can say only, "I'm not God, and I'm glad He's as omniscient as He is."  Only He will be able to parcel out responsibility for the evil that happens in this world.  (And, while I'm not suggesting that anyone adopt the explanation that "the devil made me do it," ultimately, he's the one who is responsible for all of the evil in this world.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

There are plenty of links in the chain of causality relative to addiction that offend God before one gets to the person who uses the substance.  I think He is offended by:

• The procurement of precursors for the manufacture of the substance
• The manufacture of the substance
• The distribution of the substance
• The wholesale of the substance
• The "retail" sale of the substance
• Et cetera, potentially ad infinitum

 

Is He? I don’t know.  Sugar, sodas, pain relievers, social media, exercise, etc etc

[bluebell]

On 10/7/2023 at 9:15 AM, MiserereNobis said:

We haven't heard from him in awhile (which saddens me), but @Bernard Gui has experience with this as I remember. He had a family member that dealt with addiction and then was involved in LDS 12 step programs. Maybe he'll pop over and chime in.

Catholicism has a reputation for guilt and shame. I think I missed that because I came to it as an adult and was able to see things more clearly than if I had been a child. Thomas Merton, in his autobiography Seven Story Mountain, points out that the Sacrament of Confession is a great exemplar of God's perfect love. I know and totally see how people can view confession as a way to sin, go to the priest, say a Hail Mary and all is good and then go sin again, and how that cycle just seems wrong. But if one goes to confession with true intention, the instant absolution can be a way to be freed from shame. God forgives instantly, and will forgive again instantly, no strings attached, no punishment attached, as long as we keep coming to Him. To me, that is perfect love and forgiveness. The penance prescribed by the priest after confession, such as prayers, acts of charity, etc., are not necessary for forgiveness. Our actions do not gain forgiveness -- forgiveness is freely given by God. Penance is a way to help reorient our life. To me, this is sooo important to keep in mind. The penance does not grant us forgiveness. God grants us forgiveness, and He does so willingly, fully, and perfectly. There is nothing we can do to remove sin, except the simple yet powerful act of confession. This truth should keep us from having a "check the boxes I'll be forgiven" mentality. There are no boxes to check, there is only God's infinite love, infinite atonement, and infinite capacity to forgive as often as we confess.

A confessor (the priest who hears your confession) can be different from a spiritual director (the priest who helps guide your spiritual life). I like this. When I go to confession, it's not to have an hour long discussion about my sin. It is to confess and gain absolution and forgiveness. That's the purpose -- there's a line of people behind me also needing to confess, so we ain't spending time hashing out the minute details. At a different point in time, I can go and receive spiritual direction. This separates sin/forgiveness from ways to improve my spiritual life. I mean, obviously the two are connected, but having them separated in a practical sense really helps relieve any shame cycles. It is also helpful that I can choose my confessor and choose my spiritual director. I'm able to find a priest who works well with my spiritual path rather than having to rely solely on whatever priest happens to be assigned to my parish.

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, here, but hopefully you get the gist of how this works in my spiritual life and why I love confession, especially traditional confession in darkened wooden confessionals.

I think I accidentally downvoted this yesterday (the hazards of doing stuff while you are offroading).  I meant it as an upvote though!

[bluebell]

On 10/7/2023 at 9:16 AM, Chum said:

I'll put myself in Pogi's place and speculate: I have an understanding of humanity, repentance and of God's view of us. It's built, in no small part, from Church and prophetic teachings - particularly on later teachings. Core to my understanding is that God's view of me will never be one that causes me to hesitate to repent. Were I to know how he sees me, any worry about approaching him will evaporate.

Now we introduce the word offend into that.  Offense is the word we use to indicate love is replaced with hostility. Welcome is now rejection.

This next bit is not God's fault but it is reality and is part of this equation.  For most believers - for most Christians - for most Saints, being rejected by God makes me eligible for negative labels along with varying degrees of scorn, demonization and ostracizing. That degree ranges from unimportant to prominent to justification for passing a law that targets me.

So now I have a discontinuity. On one hand I have God's permanent state of welcoming. On the other I have God's (hopefully transient) state of rejection - and along with that, humanity's hazing campaign (often not very transient).

I think what Pogi wants is an reexamination of God's expectations of us, in the light of these non-harmonious facets. It may need to include whether some of these facets are reasonably discouraging to repentance.

.

(Maybe Pogi, probably me) It would be sweet if we wound up with some new understanding that sort of defused the whole thing - in a way that was persistently beneficial.

Using a definition of offend like you are (if I'm understanding correctly), I can understand why you see it as leading to feelings of rejection by God.  I've never defined "offend" like that so that's probably part of the reason that I've reacted differently to this part of the talk that you have.  Thanks for explaining your feelings on it.

(If Pogi wants that then I hope he clarifies. That is not how I've been reading him.  )

[pogi]

On 10/7/2023 at 8:17 AM, bluebell said:

Ok.  I'm sorry the prophet's language on the topic of addiction has caused you hurt.

Before responding more though, I want to ask, what are you hoping to get out of our conversation?  I've explained to you my perspective and some ways and reasons that it differs from yours, but I'm not looking for you to agree with me.  Are you doing the same or is your purpose in this discussion to convince people that your perspective on this topic is the correct one?

I don't want to reply before knowing what kind of discussion you are aiming for here.   

I am long past being hurt by this kind of language from church leaders.  But I do remember what it felt like and am trying to bring awareness so that this kind of language is not supported, encouraged, and repeated by members and leaders.  Most importantly I am speaking up in hopes that this kind of language is not believed and taken to heart by those who are struggling with addiction.   Their faith and supplication to God is no less than others.  It is often much greater.  Rewiring and healing the brain doesn't happen over-night.  

I am asking that anyone who currently agrees that addiction is offensive to God because their "obsession" becomes "their God", and that people turn to their addiction for solace instead of God, reconsider.  I have explained why it is both inaccurate, untrue and shaming to those who turn to God daily in their addiction.    It is not an obsession.  From the perspective of those who suffer from toxic shame as a core to their addiction, which is not a small proportion of addicts - telling shame based addicts that God is offended at their problems and struggles is NOT an effective approach.  It causes more harm than good.  That is the what I want people to understand.  

Edited October 8, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Jehosephat said:

This wasn’t directed at me, but I’d like to share my reasons for feeling passionate about this topic and sharing my viewpoints.  There is a lot of misinformation within society, our faith community, and from our leadership about addiction (and mental health challenges).  I believe becoming more informed on this topic can change hearts and minds to better support people who are suffering. 
 

Several people in this thread stated that addiction starts with a bad choice (sin). I’d like to refute this idea. 

Here are some facts: In some cases, the addiction pathway begins with a bad choice (sin)(e.g. social experimentation).  In many cases, however, it is a result of people having inadequate resources (brain structures, coping skills, support systems, etc) to cope with distressing life circumstances and chronic stress. In fact, when children experience adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) during critical phases of their development, their prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain the brain responsible for emotional regulation and impulse control (among other things)) becomes underdeveloped, and other brain areas that respond to stressful situations (I.e amygdala, limbic system) become overdeveloped. This leaves a person with greater reactivity to stressful situations with reduced capacity to manage them. As a result people can be 700-1000% more likely to turn to substances or behavioural addictions. Trauma, chronic stress, mental health challenges, genetics, epigenetics can all be at play here. So with these factors at play, is it bad choice or sin when someone seeks relief from distress in the only way they know how? This is why in my last post I said that suffering is what leads to addiction, not bad choices. To learn more about this, see here and here.  

Here are my opinions: When we view it as someone’s fault for falling into addiction, by making bad/sinful choices, it impacts our compassion. We see it as an individual person’s problem, rather than a  community problem. We fail to see the role of the institution (church) and how it could be contributing to the problem. We think that if bad choice got someone into the situation, then good choice has to get them out. We fail to see that agency is a sliding scale, and not all people have the same capacity (agency) to make ‘good’ choices.  The Saviour left the 99 to go after the one. What do we do? All too often, we condemn the one. We tell them they offend God. We don’t let them get baptized into our church. We don’t make them feel accepted and welcome in our community if they don’t meet the ideals we put on a pedestal. Speaking for myself, there are few marginalized or vulnerable people in my ward, because in my opinion, we don’t support them to feel a sense of community and belonging with us. All too often, people feel ‘less than’ and shamed by our zeal to uphold the ideal, while ignoring the human and spiritual needs of the one. 
 

My opinions might be hard for some to hear. I hope you won’t dismiss my whole post because of them. I hope that the factual info I shared about addiction is something we can consider in our mindset and approach towards people suffering in this life. 
 

Thanks kindly. 

 

 

I think you are right in that some of us are definitely pre-disposed to addiction, and some of the baggage that we gain in life makes it easier to make choices that will lead to addiction.  I also agree that blame can lead to us struggling to be compassionate in our views and responses.  That's never an ok thing.

I like how you bring up the many factors that contribute to the problem of addiction.  I think my one point of disagreement is that I believe that personal responsibility is often (probably not always but I think it comes close) one of those factors.

I see the prophet as speaking to those of us who need to hear "this is not ok, this is impacting your relationship with God and hurting you" because I do think sometimes that absolutely needs to be heard and acknowledged in order to heal. 

How can that message be given without causing hurt to those it doesn't apply to or who don't need to hear it?

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Nevertheless I am free to make a suggestion.  I don't believe he is a prophet.  But he is a leader of millions of Latter-day Saints who hang on his words as if he were a prophet and what he says impacts them.  For good or ill.

Of course!  I was just using an example to explain why I didn't know how relevant your suggestions are.  Because contingent in my question is the belief that is a prophet of God and has a divine responsibility to call people to repentance at times.

Edited October 8, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

😊 could be said of anyone who asserts anything about God. 

Maybe!

I was thinking about someone who said something like "I don't know if Gary exists but if he does he definitely loves chocolate".  

That seems different to me than saying "I believe that Gary exists because of my personal experiences with Him, and it's those personal experiences that lead me to believe he definitely loves chocolate."

Both statements could ultimately be wrong--maybe Gary actually hates chocolate--but the statements, from my perspective, are not the same because one is based on input outside of the person who made it and one isn't.

Edited October 8, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am long past being hurt by this kind of language from church leaders.  But I do remember and am trying to bring awareness so that this kind of language is not supported, encouraged, and repeated by members and leaders.  Most importantly I am speaking up in hopes that this kind of language is not believed and taken to heart by those who are struggling with addiction. 

I am asking that anyone who currently agrees that addiction is offensive to God because their "obsession" becomes "their God", and that people turn to their addiction for solace instead of God, reconsider.  I have explained why it is both inaccurate, untrue and shaming to those who turn to God daily in their addiction.    It is not an obsession.  From the perspective of those who suffer from toxic shame as a core to their addiction, which is not a small proportion of addicts - telling shame based addicts that God is offended at their problems and struggles is NOT an effective approach.  It causes more harm than good.  That is the what I want people to understand.  

Thank you very much for explaining. 

We are obviously coming at this from two different points of view.  Since I don't see the value in repeating ourselves back and forth to each other in an attempt to convince the other that our point of view is actually right and theirs is wrong, it seems like the best way forward is to agree to disagree.   

[pogi]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

i like your post, though there's definitely parts I disagree with. 

12 steps for some of my clients have been wonderful and helpful. It reduces their shame by seeing people who are struggling, gives them a place for social support and accountability, and gives them structure to a problem that seems completely out of control and all over the place. I've attended a few meetings and could feel and see the goodness in it. I've taught the steps for a special class once. And I've helped my clients work some of the steps when they've brought them in. They're good principles, period. 

I also could see the limitations. For each client that it's helped, there's another it doesn't do much or is the wrong fit. And it's not because they're not trying...they're still seeing me, working through their problems and problematic behaviors. For one, addictions and compulsive behaviors are not created equally. There are people that step one absolutely applies. Their lives have become completely unmanageable, they have completely shot their impulse control, any emotion can lead them to their outlet of choice. There's others who don't fit and the disease/addiction model is actually helping to maintain their shame and keep them stuck in their behaviors. I had a client once who was the perfect example of this. They assumed they had a porn addiction, their bishops referred them to addiction service based on the self-diagnosis, they even spent serious money on an intensive porn/sex addiction program. It did nothing. I talked to them, explored their use/patterns and was the first voice that said they didn't have an addiction...they had interpersonal needs that needed filling and porn was an easy bandaid. Once they did that and lost the stigma of powerless addiction over their head, they realized that if they took the time to take care of themselves and their true needs the porn naturally started to shluff off.  They weren't a one off.

If I had one major problem with this part of Nelson's talk, it's the use of the word addiction on every last unhealthy compulsive behavior. It can lead to using addiction treatment  models, particularly ones that focus on it as a disease, for anything we struggle stopping. There are forms of addiction that I do whole-heartedly agree that it's a serious disease...where the drugs they've used may have actually caused real brain damage from the chemicals they used that even when they're sober, may leave them with permanent limitations. But there's many other compulsive behaviors that I would never describe as brain damage. More like neural pathways that have been overly reinforced while others have been neglected. Kinda like how a person may be super muscular but struggle through basic yoga cuz they don't have any flexibility. It takes time and work to rebalance neural pathways by shifting reliance on compulsions to healthy regulation. To reduce avoidance/escapism of pain for processing. This process can absolutely have overlap with recognized addictions, some of the same tools may be helpful for said addictions....but they're still not the same. And at some point the definition get's so stretched out that you could reframe any mental health and interpersonal problem as rooted in addiction. I'm not so rigid that I insist people only call what's officially recognized in the DSM as addictions. But we can't treat these all as the same.   

I don't know the definition of moral failure on this that you may be thinking of. But even if I were to call it that because someone is unhealthily relying on something to manage their mental and interpersonal pain it would come with the huge caveat that everyone is morally failing to one degree or another. Thus Jesus. Shame isn't in recognizing one's failed and have major weaknesses, it comes in assuming your failure is somehow uniquely horrible and staining, can never change enough to matter, and who you are is innately the problem. 

 

With luv,

BD

I agree that the 12 step program isn't for everybody and shouldn't be the only tool used to battle addiction.   I found it very helpful for all the reasons you mentioned., but it wasn't enough by itself. 

In terms of porn addiction being a disease, I would recommend reading Dr. Don Hilton's book He Restoreth my Soul.   He is an LDS neurosurgeon and scientist who has studied the effects of pornography on the brain and has effectively predicted that the effects on the brain would look the same as drug addiction.   It Rewires the frontal lobe to where the stoping "breaks" don’t work as well, and it significantly shrinks the amygdala associated with decision making and motivation.  The exact same brain damage is seen with street drug addiction.   

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600144/

Quote

Bottom line: pornography harms the brain almost exactly the same as drug addiction. For those who think that porn is just “harmless entertainment”, science is showing us the actual truth – porn addiction is real and it truly is the new drug in our society.

https://fightthenewdrug.org/cambridge-neuroscientist-valerie-voon-porn-drug-addict-brain/

https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/compulsive-sexual-behavior-prefrontal-and-limbic-volume-and-interactions-2016/

Here is a short video explanation by Dr Hilton:

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Thank you very much for explaining. 

We are obviously coming at this from two different points of view.  Since I don't see the value in repeating ourselves back and forth to each other in an attempt to convince the other that our point of view is actually right and theirs is wrong, it seems like the best way forward is to agree to disagree.   

Yes, we are coming at this from 2 different points of view.  I am asking you to consider the point of view of an addict in recovery in understanding why this language might be more damaging than helpful in addiction recovery. 

[Smiley McGee]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe!

I was thinking about someone who said something like "I don't know if Gary exists but if he does he definitely loves chocolate".  

That seems different to me than saying "I believe that Gary exists because of my personal experiences with Him, and it's those personal experiences that lead me to believe he definitely loves chocolate."

They’re the same thing. No one knows whether God exists (note that you substituted know for believe in the second scenario you trickster). We give a hypothetical deity our ideal traits, and then argue with others about it—the great human pastime. 
 

“I believe Gary exists because of my experiences with him” is a statement that begs the question.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, we are coming at this from 2 different points of view.  I am asking you to consider the point of view of an addict in recovery in understanding why this language might be more damaging than helpful in addiction recovery. 

I have considered it and I can see how it might be more damaging. I don't disagree with you on that.  My disagreement is that, because the message can cause hurt under some circumstances, that it shouldn't have been said.  

This person was quoted in a news article about the talk--

“This year I’ve been overcoming food addiction. It’s been freeing and wonderful to have my food chatter almost disappear! I don’t know why I didn’t understand that we would inherit different ‘bodies of glory’ in the next life. It just was an ‘aha’ moment listening to this talk. What would I put in a ‘celestial body’? A ‘celestial mind’? A ‘celestial heart’? This gave me food for thought! I’m grateful to have a blessed guide to strengthen me. —Angela Morris Adair

Their experience obviously doesn't negate the experiences of those who have been hurt by the talk, not at all.  But neither do the experiences of those who have been hurt negate hers.  We are all so different and we all need different things sometimes.   

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

They’re the same thing. No one knows whether God exists (note that you substituted know for believe in the second scenario you trickster). We give a hypothetical deity our ideal traits, and then argue with others about it—the great human pastime. 
 

“I believe Gary exists because of my experiences with him” is a statement that begs the question.

If you see them that way, that's fine. I don't and have explained why.  I accept that we see this differently and have no problem leaving it at that.  

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have considered it and I can see how it might be more damaging. I don't disagree with you on that.  My disagreement is that, because the message can cause hurt under some circumstances, that it shouldn't have been said.  

 

 

He was speaking to all addicts and explaining why their behavior is offensive to God.   Do you think his explanation is true for all addicts, or even the majority?   Do you agree that addiction and obsession are the same?   Do you think it is a fair to make the blanket statement that addicts turn to their addiction rather than God for solace?

How might this statement make the millions of addicts feel who have practically bloodied their knees in supplication, trying to be obedient and righteous in all things, fasting, pleading and still falling short.  “I must not be good enough, righteous enough, praying enough, etc. etc. because I keep relapsing! “. “Why am I not turning to God more instead of porn?”  I feel so bad for those stuck in those toxic lies and misdirection.   Their brains are damaged, it has nothing to do with their faithfulness and turning to God. To make it about that and suggesting that God is offended at their lack is shaming to the core, and completely untrue/unhelpful.

Edited October 8, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

He was speaking to all addicts and explaining why their behavior is offensive to God.   Do you think his explanation is true for all addicts, or even the majority?   Do you agree that addiction and obsession are the same?   Do you think it is a fair to make the blanket statement that addicts turn to their addiction rather than God for solace?

How might this statement make the millions of addicts feel who have practically bloodied their knees in supplication, trying to be obedient and righteous in all things, fasting, pleading and still falling short.  “I must not be good enough, righteous enough, praying enough, etc. etc. because I keep relapsing! “. “Why am I not turning to God more instead of porn?”  I feel so bad for those stuck in those toxic lies and misdirection.   Their brains are damaged, it has nothing to do with their faithfulness and turning to God. To make it about that and suggesting that God is offended at their lack is shaming to the core, and completely untrue/unhelpful.

Pogi, like I said before, we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pogi, like I said before, we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

I honestly don’t know what you are disagreeing with or why, but if you want to move on that’s fine.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you very much for explaining. 

We are obviously coming at this from two different points of view.  Since I don't see the value in repeating ourselves back and forth to each other in an attempt to convince the other that our point of view is actually right and theirs is wrong, it seems like the best way forward is to agree to disagree.   

At least you merit a response from him.  I guess it really doesn't matter even if a person has also had personal experiences with compulsive behaviors (addiction as he would call it in the non-clinical sense).  

FWIW, as someone with both professional and personal experience, I generally agree with you and have appreciated your comments on this thread. 

[kllindley]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

i like your post, though there's definitely parts I disagree with. 

12 steps for some of my clients have been wonderful and helpful. It reduces their shame by seeing people who are struggling, gives them a place for social support and accountability, and gives them structure to a problem that seems completely out of control and all over the place. I've attended a few meetings and could feel and see the goodness in it. I've taught the steps for a special class once. And I've helped my clients work some of the steps when they've brought them in. They're good principles, period. 

I also could see the limitations. For each client that it's helped, there's another it doesn't do much or is the wrong fit. And it's not because they're not trying...they're still seeing me, working through their problems and problematic behaviors. For one, addictions and compulsive behaviors are not created equally. There are people that step one absolutely applies. Their lives have become completely unmanageable, they have completely shot their impulse control, any emotion can lead them to their outlet of choice. There's others who don't fit and the disease/addiction model is actually helping to maintain their shame and keep them stuck in their behaviors. I had a client once who was the perfect example of this. They assumed they had a porn addiction, their bishops referred them to addiction service based on the self-diagnosis, they even spent serious money on an intensive porn/sex addiction program. It did nothing. I talked to them, explored their use/patterns and was the first voice that said they didn't have an addiction...they had interpersonal needs that needed filling and porn was an easy bandaid. Once they did that and lost the stigma of powerless addiction over their head, they realized that if they took the time to take care of themselves and their true needs the porn naturally started to shluff off.  They weren't a one off.

If I had one major problem with this part of Nelson's talk, it's the use of the word addiction on every last unhealthy compulsive behavior. It can lead to using addiction treatment  models, particularly ones that focus on it as a disease, for anything we struggle stopping. There are forms of addiction that I do whole-heartedly agree that it's a serious disease...where the drugs they've used may have actually caused real brain damage from the chemicals they used that even when they're sober, may leave them with permanent limitations. But there's many other compulsive behaviors that I would never describe as brain damage. More like neural pathways that have been overly reinforced while others have been neglected. Kinda like how a person may be super muscular but struggle through basic yoga cuz they don't have any flexibility. It takes time and work to rebalance neural pathways by shifting reliance on compulsions to healthy regulation. To reduce avoidance/escapism of pain for processing. This process can absolutely have overlap with recognized addictions, some of the same tools may be helpful for said addictions....but they're still not the same. And at some point the definition get's so stretched out that you could reframe any mental health and interpersonal problem as rooted in addiction. I'm not so rigid that I insist people only call what's officially recognized in the DSM as addictions. But we can't treat these all as the same.   

I don't know the definition of moral failure on this that you may be thinking of. But even if I were to call it that because someone is unhealthily relying on something to manage their mental and interpersonal pain it would come with the huge caveat that everyone is morally failing to one degree or another. Thus Jesus. Shame isn't in recognizing one's failed and have major weaknesses, it comes in assuming your failure is somehow uniquely horrible and staining, can never change enough to matter, and who you are is innately the problem. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

 

Great points!

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

At least you merit a response from him.  I guess it really doesn't matter even if a person has also had personal experiences with compulsive behaviors (addiction as he would call it in the non-clinical sense).  

FWIW, as someone with both professional and personal experience, I generally agree with you and have appreciated your comments on this thread. 

I have been meaning to respond to you.  Sorry.  Yours requires a longer reply.  A lot on my plate right now.  What do you disagree with what I just said?  Perhaps you can articulate the areas of disagreement specifically in my last response.

Edited October 8, 2023 by pogi

[kllindley]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that the 12 step program isn't for everybody and shouldn't be the only tool used to battle addiction.   I found it very helpful for all the reasons you mentioned.

In terms of porn addiction being a disease, I would recommend reading Dr. Don Hilton's book He Restoreth my Soul.   He is an LDS neurosurgeon and scientist who has studied the effects of pornography on the brain and has effectively predicted that the effects on the brain would look the same as drug addiction.   It Rewires the frontal lobe to where the stoping "breaks" don’t work as well, and it significantly shrinks the amygdala associated with decision making and motivation.  The exact same brain damage is seen with street drug addiction.   

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600144/

https://fightthenewdrug.org/cambridge-neuroscientist-valerie-voon-porn-drug-addict-brain/

https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/compulsive-sexual-behavior-prefrontal-and-limbic-volume-and-interactions-2016/

Here is a short video explanation by Dr Hilton:

 

Have you considered that we may be very familiar with Dr. Hilton's work and find it lacking in scientific rigor?  He has dismissed or ignored the more recent research that fails to demonstrate similarities between people who identify as pornography addicts and those with substance addictions.  I believe he means well, but I cannot get on board with his conclusions.

This is a lot like people who preferred the opinions of primary care doctors on YouTube over virologists on COVID. 

[Chum]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have considered it and I can see how it might be more damaging.

I'm going to leverage the technicality that you only asked Pogi to let this go, because I really, really, really want a response to something. I promise to limit myself to one possible followup.

How would you feel about rewording this from I can see how this might be damaging (which nods toward negligible damage) to I can see how this is damaging to a significant number (less than most)?

I don't want to lock you into the phrase. You can rewrite to something more appropriate.

I think your answer would fill in blanks for me.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Chum

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have been meaning to respond to you.  Sorry.  Yours requires a longer reply.  A lot on my plate right now.  What do you disagree with what I just said?  Perhaps you can articulate the areas of disagreement specifically in my last response.

I just saw this post and will respond. Is there a specific post, the one to Bluebell beginning: "He was speaking..."?