Addiction is offensive to God?

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Do they differ on Neuro imaging results, or other theoretical classification requirements for addiction?  Because Dr. Hiltons results have been reproduced many times - I provided supporting links.

[bluebell]

Just now, Chum said:

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 think your answer would fill in blanks for me.

Hmmm...

I don't know about adding "to a significant number of people" because I don't know if it's true (though it certainly could be--but again, if it is also helpful to a significant number of people I don't know how that matters in terms of whether or not the statement should have been made).

But I'm absolutely willing to change "might be" to "this is" and that's a good catch.  I try not to speak in absolutes (though sometimes it happens accidently even when I don't mean it that way) but clearly in this case I have proof (in this thread) that it has happened so I shouldn't have couched the phrase in terms of possibility.

For me, this all boils down to, if there are many people who needed to hear the prophet's words on addiction, then how could it have been worded in way that lessens the hurt of others?  Trying to take the same message and say it in a better way makes sense to me.

Claiming that the prophet should not have taught what he did about addiction (as a way to lessen the hurt) doesn't make sense to me.  For those with that perspective, that's where I'd rather agree to disagree than just endlessly argue about it back and forth.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

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.

Personally, I don't think we can state that President Nelson's words are damaging. We are barely a week out. How do you propose we measure and evaluate the impact of his words? When do we make that determination? Immediately after? 3 months? Six months? A year? What number of people would qualify as significant? 

"Might" may very well be the best word to talk about the impact of President Nelson's talk. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

One avoids addiction by getting help sooner than later to nip underlying or culminated problems and issues in the bud. There is a scriptural term, "quick to observe" which is a very helpful talent or gift. Not everyone has it or uses it. So, no time is too late, but earlier in and even before the addiction takes hold is better. People who don't hear this counsel or figure it out for themselves might have someone in their lives to intervene sooner than later, and like I said, it's never too late to start. Proceed with your next question about exceptions to this.

It is clear a discussion on this is not going to be productive as you seem to know little to nothing about this topic and your myopic view is tainted by excessive religiosity. People don't get help sooner with addiction until they are already addicted.  Of course one who is already addicted does have the choice to seek help and treatment sooner than later.  And I do agree it is never to late to seek professional help.

[Jehosephat]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Hello bluebell. Thank you for your insights. you rightly pointed out that I didn’t mention personal responsibility. I do believe personal responsibility is part of the equation. Just not the whole equation. 

How could that message have been given differently? changing the word “offends” to “saddens” would be a good start. This would lead me to know my Father feels love and compassion for my situation, rather than disdain. Feeling love and compassion motivates me to want to change. It might also sting a bit knowing I’m causing my Father sadness. On the other hand, being told I am offending my Father makes me feel disdain and rejection, leading to shame, leading to a lack of motivation to change. 

I attempted in a prior post to show how the message could’ve been delivered differently: 

On 10/6/2023 at 10:43 PM, Jehosephat said:

Any addiction — be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex or even food — saddens God. Why? Because He knows it means you are suffering. Often, it is suffering that leads to addiction, and addiction which leads to more suffering. Through the Atonement of Jesus  Christ, God stands ready to help.  So look to … Him, for solace.  Find hope and strength in His grace.  If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need.  

With your insight bluebell to address personal responsibility, I would insert that by saying something like (bolded words are my own):

Any addiction — be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex or even food — saddens God. Why? Because He knows it means you are suffering. Often, it is suffering that leads to addiction, and addiction which leads to more suffering. Through the Atonement of Jesus  Christ, God stands ready to help.  So look to … Him, for solace. Draw near to Him through repentance. Find hope and strength in His grace.  If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Personally, I don't think we can state that President Nelson's words are damaging. We are barely a week out. How do you propose we measure and evaluate the impact of his words? When do we make that determination? Immediately after? 3 months? Six months? A year? What number of people would qualify as significant? 

"Might" may very well be the best word to talk about the impact of President Nelson's talk. 

ATM I want to better evaluate Pres Nelson's talk, not pass judgment. What I'm looking for today are well-reasoned and educated opinions and I'm getting those.

Eventually I'll want to compare and contrast what I know. On that day it'd be nice if I find harmony but I might not. That's okay.

[Kevin Christensen]

15 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

Regarding this:

Quote

 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.

Step 4.  Searching and fearless moral inventory.   This is why we do it, to figure out exactly what the real problem is, where it started, what it is and what to do about it. 

When I was young, the MIA theme one year was D&C 130:20-21

Quote

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

We have to diagnose what is wrong in each individual case to fix what is wrong in each individual case, based on the discovered cause and effect, and relevant remedy.  There is nothing wrong with my small pox vaccination, or my polio vaccination, nor my periodic dental treatments, but they don't help with COVID 19 and variants.  It also happens that in addiction circles "medicating" is a common euphemism for acting out that either provides a feeling or blocks out some pain or seems to fill some void, but at an increasingly chaotic cost to life and relationships.  If we miss the diagnosis, we can also miss the correct solution.  I do agree with you and respect your opinions and expertise.   However,  recovery literature is chock full of that sort of self-discovery with regard to ultimate causes and successful solutions that lead to change and healing.  The object of addiction is not an end in itself, but a means to filling some other void.  Addicts are caught in their own misdiagnosis and inappropriate self-treatment.  And the searching and fearless 4th Step inventory is a means to discover how and why and when, and exactly what to do about it.  It should not be about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  

Misdiagnosis did not help me, no matter what degrees a therapist had on their walls.  I have had therapists who were not at all helpful.  But I don't generalize about the benefits of therapy from negative examples.  Ultimately, it's all been part of a process of discovery.  Mistakes are to learn from.  Not to shore up self-justification and grievance.

Quote

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.

That is exactly the point of Bradshaw's book, to distinguish between toxic shame, and healthy shame.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is clear a discussion on this is not going to be productive as you seem to know little to nothing about this topic and your myopic view is tainted by excessive religiosity. People don't get help sooner with addiction until they are already addicted.  Of course one who is already addicted does have the choice to seek help and treatment sooner than later.  And I do agree it is never to late to seek professional help.

Though to be fair, a person could get help with the underlying social and emotional issues that may contribute to addiction or compulsive behaviors before they ever experiment with the substances or behaviors. 

I don't think it helps the conversation at all to attack his viewpoint as myopic or tainted with excessive religiosity.

A lot of suffering could be prevented by early mental health interventions that teach effective coping skills. One might say that arguing against that is tainted by excessive anti-religious myopia. 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

if there are many people who needed to hear the prophet's words on addiction, then how could it have been worded in way that lessens the hurt of others?  Trying to take the same message and say it in a better way makes sense to me.

This is important. 

To restate a bit: While I can work with what I have, some folks are in crisis now and need answers today because they do.  And for a meaningful number, Pres Nelson's instruction is reasonably understood to be a poor fit.

I think all I can do today is be mindful of that. Maybe tomorrow some opportunity to bring improvement will arise.

[Teancum]

16 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

 

 

 

 

Well said. And why 12 step programs do help some it is not a one size fits.  There are alternatives.  I also agree that the nature of say substance abuse disorders as compared to more behavioral compulsions and obsessions are rather different than the latter and all should not be lumped together.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Teancum

[kllindley]

25 minutes ago, Chum said:

ATM I want to better evaluate Pres Nelson's talk, not pass judgment. What I'm looking for today are well-reasoned and educated opinions and I'm getting those.

Eventually I'll want to compare and contrast what I know. On that day it'd be nice if I find harmony but I might not. That's okay.

Fair enough. I hope my experiences and perspectives are also helpful. 

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is clear a discussion on this is not going to be productive as you seem to know little to nothing about this topic and your myopic view is tainted by excessive religiosity. People don't get help sooner with addiction until they are already addicted.  Of course one who is already addicted does have the choice to seek help and treatment sooner than later.  And I do agree it is never to late to seek professional help.

Whatever, but people can and do avoid addiction by recognizing the warning signs and contributing factors, and the warning signs for those, and take steps to avoid addiction. Getting help sooner than later to nip these problems and issues in the bud helps avoid addiction. There is a scriptural term, "quick to observe" which is a very helpful talent or gift to help someone avoid addiction. You might call it "attentive" or "perspicacity" (I doubt the latter). Not everyone has it or uses it to avoid addiction. No time is too late, but earlier in and even before the addiction takes hold is better to avoid addiction. Proceed with your next question about exceptions to the semantics, or refutation based on your semantics to protect your ignorance and myopic view tainted by excessive dependency on fallacious (and impotent) ad hominem charges, on avoiding addiction.

Edited October 8, 2023 by CV75

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Some questions for you.

1: In what way do you think some are predisposed to addictions?  What do you think causes such predisposition?

2:  Why do you think personal responsibility plays into this? Is this just for addictions to substances you view as sinful to use or other addictions, compulsions, obsessions, etc.  For example what personal responsibility does someone with an eating disorder have in relation to their disorder?  How about someone who obsessively and compulsively does self harm like a cutter?  How does personal responsibility play into that?

[Teancum]

51 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Though to be fair, a person could get help with the underlying social and emotional issues that may contribute to addiction or compulsive behaviors before they ever experiment with the substances or behaviors. 

I don't think it helps the conversation at all to attack his viewpoint as myopic or tainted with excessive religiosity.

A lot of suffering could be prevented by early mental health interventions that teach effective coping skills. One might say that arguing against that is tainted by excessive anti-religious myopia. 

Ok fair enough.  But I would assume, that you as a professional, would understand that the individual is often not aware of the underlying social and emotional issues that may contribute to addiction or compulsive behaviors before they are addicted and seek treatment. 

And I do think in overly high demand religions, like the Church, the approach of sin and such perpetuates the social stigma of addicts being weak and morally flawed.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Obviously you are correct.  It does seem, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that your knowledge on this subject seems fairly limited.  Why aren't you open to being wrong on this one?  

[kllindley]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

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 disagree with the idea of trying to convince people not to listen to or believe a prophet. 

 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 

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 don't disagree with these statements, but I do disagree with the idea of that what President Nelson said is somehow contrary to them.  Encouraging spiritual and professional help sure doesn't seem to me to indicate that he thinks that rewiring is an overnight process.

 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

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.  

 

I disagree with the need to reconsider the idea that people turn to addiction to deal with underlying emotional and mental health problems rather than using other, more healthy coping skills. I don't know how that is so controversial. 

*<ETA>: I do think there is a risk that some people will take this comment to mean that the only acceptable alternative to addition is turning to God for solace (i.e. praying, fasting, etc. etc.) I believe that turning to God for solace means seeking his guidance on how to respond to unmet needs. I believe that personal revelation from God is the best source of guidance.  Often that revelation comes through professionals or studying "every good book." The fact that President Nelson encourages professional assistance, gives me confidence he means more than increasing personal religious practices. </>

To be accurate, President Nelson did not say that addiction is "offensive" to God.  He said that addiction "offends" God.  In other words we are the ones sinning against him. We are the offender. Isn't everyone a sinner? 

As I said, I don't love the phrasing that addiction offends God. But the idea of offending God is used repeatedly in abient andif ingratitude offends God, can't behaviors that alienate us from his spirit also offend him?

To further be accurate, he used lower case "god."  This also is not unprecedented in scripture. I have no qualms about describing my compulsive behaviors as being a god to me as I frequently turned to those behaviors to deal with unpleasant experiences rather than better skills. That isn't remotely shaming to me. It offers hope for recovery. 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 It is not an obsession.

I think "obsession" is as inaccurate and non clinical as addiction. Would you not agree that pornography and other addictions/compulsive behaviors are "an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind." 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 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.  

Again, the wording was not that God is offended, but that our behavior offends Him. This is not an inconsequential semantic difference in my mind. Many (though admittedly not all) definitions of Offend are fitting: "to break a law, religious commandment, etc.; commit a sin or crime," "to be displeasing to."

If people are being hurt by their interpretation of what President Nelson said, I find it a much better approach to help them understand how he might have meant something else rather than trying to convince them not to believe him. It almost seems like some people are seeking reasons to be offended at a Prophet's words. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by kllindley

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok fair enough.  But I would assume, that you as a professional, would understand that the individual is often not aware of the underlying social and emotional issues that may contribute to addiction or compulsive behaviors before they are addicted and seek treatment.

They often are not, you are correct. That is why I love the Word of Wisdom.  It helps prevent so much suffering. That is why I think comments like President Nelson's have the potential to be helpful.  If anything, I would have wanted him to expand on that more. To say: "If you are suffering, please seek help before you turn to unhealthy behaviors in your attempts to cope."

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And I do think in overly high demand religions, like the Church, the approach of sin and such perpetuates the social stigma of addicts being weak and morally flawed.

I don't disagree with this at all. I don't believe the answer is to minimize personal responsibility. 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I disagree with the idea of trying to convince people not to listen to or believe a prophet. 

May I respectfully ask, in your professional capacity, which you said is mental health with an expertise on addictions, do you work with non LDS clients/patients?

[kllindley]

I think it's worth addressing the idea of responsibility. We can promote people taking responsibility for their situation and their behaviors without blaming or shaming. One saying that I use fairly often in therapy (credit to Wendy Ulrich for the idea): "Healing requires that we take responsibility for things we are not responsible for." Or as a popular meme says "Trauma is not your fault, but healing is your responsibility."  That responsibility is not something we can usefully impose on someone, rather it is something the individual must take for themselves. 

Another way of conceptualizing this is to distinguish between responsibility as blam/fault and response-ability. Blame does nothing to help healing. Understanding clearly all the factors contributing to problems, including our own actions, can definitely help. But ultimately, the question is what we do now. Addiction or behavioral compulsions do at some point override conscious acting. However, that is hardly a permanent state. For most of the time an individual has great freedom to make other decisions incompatible with the addiction. This might be entering treatment, proactively meeting the unmet needs that drive the behavior, take other actions to reduce exposure to triggers, etc.

That is the kind of response-ability I promote and encourage people to take. 

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

May I respectfully ask, in your professional capacity, which you said is mental health with an expertise on addictions, do you work with non LDS clients/patients?

Predominantly non-LDS, but not exclusively. 

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think it's worth addressing the idea of responsibility. We can promote people taking responsibility for their situation and their behaviors without blaming or shaming. One saying that I use fairly often in therapy (credit to Wendy Ulrich for the idea): "Healing requires that we take responsibility for things we are not responsible for." Or as a popular meme says "Trauma is not your fault, but healing is your responsibility."  That responsibility is not something we can usefully impose on someone, rather it is something the individual must take for themselves. 

Another way of conceptualizing this is to distinguish between responsibility as blam/fault and response-ability. Blame does nothing to help healing. Understanding clearly all the factors contributing to problems, including our own actions, can definitely help. But ultimately, the question is what we do now. Addiction or behavioral compulsions do at some point override conscious acting. However, that is hardly a permanent state. For most of the time an individual has great freedom to make other decisions incompatible with the addiction. This might be entering treatment, proactively meeting the unmet needs that drive the behavior, take other actions to reduce exposure to triggers, etc.

That is the kind of response-ability I promote and encourage people to take. 

Well certainly for a substance addict taking the first step in seeking treatment is accepting responsibility.  I guess the same could be said of a cancer patient.  My did died of lung cancer.  He was adamant to me two years before he died that we not force treatment on him.  At that time he has a "small" spot on his lung. When I would ask how he was over the last two years of his life he would state the "spot is still small."  About 6 weeks before he passed away he was in very rough shape. Pneumonia and other things and then the docs told us he had lung cancer that has metastasized.  I am fairly certain he knew well before that how things were progressing but he told none of us nor his wife. I was with him the day before he died and with him when he died.  He did what he loved right up till a few months before his death and he was 87.  But had he stepped up, say taken responsibility better maybe, and shared with us, I think we could have made his last days on earth more comfortable.  

I don't know if this is a good comparison but responsibility is needed I guess with many illnesses in order to receive proper treatment.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Predominantly non-LDS, but not exclusively. 

So I would assume your approach in regards to President Nelson's remarks would differ as compared to treatment for a believing Latter-day Saint?

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So I would assume your approach in regards to President Nelson's remarks would differ as compared to treatment for a believing Latter-day Saint?

I'm a little unsure what you are asking.

If you mean would I approach President Nelson's words differently with a member vs. non-member, I mean, naturally. A non-member is very unlikely to bring them up. And I would not even bring them up to a believing Latter-day Saint. If that person brought them up I would explore their response and whether they find it helpful. If they told me they were hurt by his words, I might explore whether there was a different way to interpret them than the way that was hurtful. 

If you mean is my approach to President Nelson's words here different than treatment, no. My overall approach to addictions and compulsive behaviors is fully compatible with how I understood President Nelson's words.

If your question was something else, I'd be happy to answer any clarification. 

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Do they differ on Neuro imaging results, or other theoretical classification requirements for addiction?  Because Dr. Hiltons results have been reproduced many times - I provided supporting links.

The discrepancy I'm talking about is in the neuroimaging. There are without question, similarities in substance addictions and compulsive behaviors. The bigger question is are those similarities really at the root of what substance addiction is? Are there meaningful ways where the differences in neuroimaging research between the two might signal a deeper distinction between the two?

https://leadingsaints.org/practical-steps-in-overcoming-pornography/

There is without question measurable changes to the brain in compulsive behaviors and substance addiction. The bigger question is whether those changes actually support a disease model of addiction. 

https://youtu.be/T–8C143hvY

A number of researchers (especially outside the US) believe those changes are not substantially different from the changes we see in other learning, including religiosity, love, and learning an instrument. 

https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/why-addiction-isnt-disease-instead-result-deep-learning

There is a serious bias on American addiction research to favor a disease model.  Our medical system requires a diagnosis to recieve treatment and have it paid for by insurance. That makes the addiction treatment industry very motivated to have a disease to treat. Those who try to research other models find they are cut out of funding. 

If there was an LDS addiction professional I would refer people to, it would be Cameron Staley.

https://cameronstaley.com/resources/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too

https://www.insider.com/guides/health/mental-health/porn-addiction

 

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Some questions for you.

1: In what way do you think some are predisposed to addictions?  What do you think causes such predisposition?

I thought that Jehosaphat elaborated on how some are predisposed?  It was his (her?) points that I was agreeing with.

Quote

2:  Why do you think personal responsibility plays into this? Is this just for addictions to substances you view as sinful to use or other addictions, compulsions, obsessions, etc.  For example what personal responsibility does someone with an eating disorder have in relation to their disorder?  How about someone who obsessively and compulsively does self harm like a cutter?  How does personal responsibility play into that?

I think personal responsibility always plays a part in harmful/sinful behaviors.   We may not have had a choice in things that have happened to us or our genetics and brain chemistry, but we always have a choice in how we respond and choose to move forward, don't we?  Someone who is born with a temper still has a responsibility to control it, even if they didn't do anything to cause the anger control issues.

Sometimes, our biggest responsibility might be seeking help so we can manage/heal (depending on what the issue is).

• If You Don’t Heal What Hurt You, You’ll Bleed on People Who Didn’t Cut You. -Unknown
• What Happened To You Was Not Your Fault, But How You Go Forward Is Your Responsibility -Unknown
• "A lot of people hesitate to take responsibility for their problems because they believe that to be responsible for your problems is to also be at fault for your problems. Responsibility and fault often appear together in our culture. But they are not the same thing.  We are responsible for experiences that aren’t our fault all the time. This is part of life. Fault is past tense. Responsibility is present tense. Fault results from choices that have already been made. Responsibility results from the choices you’re currently making every second of every day." -Mark Manson

Edited October 9, 2023 by bluebell