Addiction is offensive to God?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

He uses the word "addiction" and included drugs, alcohol, and other accepted clinical addictions.  

I didn't notice him mention a single element that is in any and all cases considered to be a clinical addiction. Everything I heard him list can exist on a spectrum anywhere between bad habit and a full-on, diagnosable addiction. 

I know plenty of people who are not clinically addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but who will, indeed, often turn to those for solace instead of looking to God just as President Nelson stated. For those people, I feel his message was apt. 

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It's nothing that needs to be or can be fixed by you.  He either misspoke by saying "addiction" instead of "bad habits", which I think is less likely, or he over-generalized and/or mischaracterized the nature of addiction and the spiritual character/faith of those inflicted by it. 

I believe he used the term "addiction" in an over-generalized way - though perhaps not much differently then the way that many others do. 

And regardless of his characterization, I believe his counsel was sound: If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I just was hoping that we were past these types of harmful stigmas with addiction.  

I think you could probably say the same sort of thing about other issues as well - depression comes to mind. I think those are things that we have gotten better about discussing, and I think we will continue to improve over time.

I didn't find President Nelson's remarks to be outrageously harmful. Over-generalized for like the two to three sentences that made it into his talk, okay, I can accept that. But I can also extend a little grace and give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't trying to burden anyone who is struggling with a harmful stigma though. 

 

[BlueDreams]

On 10/8/2023 at 12:39 PM, Jehosephat said:

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: 

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. 

I hope you decide to participate from time to time in other threads. I've really appreciated your well thought out explanations. 

I've been thinking a ton about this. I mentioned that the big thing I would shift is the word addiction. It would probably be a more mouthy option like "unhealthy coping" 

I'm honestly on the fence about "Saddens"...Not because I don't think it saddens God, but also because I don't think it doesn't offend God.  I don't disagree with what you insert. I think it's true. But I generally also agree with what Nelson initially said as well. I think both of these have their limitations. There are people who will read his words through a lens of shame that will take his words hard. There are people who I know who aren't fully committed to change who would take words like yours as a source of enabling, insisting other's pain and harm be softened around them because they're "changing," ignoring/minimizing all the ways they haven't changed and what their past actions did to others. 

In reality, working with people with consistent problems like the ones Nelson noted is a balaancing act between teaching mercy and compassion and then speaking hard truths the need for boundaries for those around them and themselves, and giving clear understanding as to what their "drug" of choice is cutting them off from. It's a balance that no one can easily nail in a soundbyte, IMHO....but I would still want it to be talked about, even if there will be nuance that is missed. The only thing worse than sharing incomplete truths is not sharing any thought on it at all. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree with that general sentiment.  It is the generalization that addicts are placing another God before Him that is problematic for me.  It feels very dismissive of my experience and of so many other addicts trying to overcome their addiction and probably spend more time on their knees and turn to God more than the average person in their day-to-day lives as they seek solace, healing and direction.  To make the general statement that God is offended at addiction because addicts turn to their addiction over God for solace just feels dismissive of the actual experience and spiritual devotion of most addicts who are religious and spiritually based and turn to Him for healing.    It saddens me for those who will hear this talk and are in the grips of addiction and are giving their 100% everything to God to try and overcome it but still fall short.   For those who are shame based (most addicts - John Bradshaw argues all addicts) and who take every word of prophets to heart - this will cause more harm than good.   They will believe that God is offended because they are not turning to Him enough, or are not devoted to God enough, etc.  Any reason to blame themselves and beat themselves up, they will take...that just feeds the addiction unfortunately.   It will also feed a stigma about addicts that they are somehow spiritually less-than others because they choose addiction over God and worship false Gods.  That is so far from true of addicts that I know.    

It struck me while reading the bold especially that you're coming at this with a singular lens. I assume, considering the work you've done, that you may have heard of the stages of change model. If not, this is a rough model to explain how people move through making changes. The stages you keep describing sound most like those in the preparation/determination and action/willpower stages...particularly those a little past the honeymoon stage of changing their behavior (the part where they have a really simple and overly optimistic view of what it will look like/take to change), but before they're starting to really enter the maintenance stage and haven't fully gotten a handle of how deep their problem goes. I think you are right, that these are probably the most vulnerable to be hurt by Nelson's words. To me though, they're also the ones that it's least directed to. 

Quote

As you think celestial, you will find yourself avoiding anything that robs you of your agency. Any addiction—be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex, or even food—offends God. Why? Because your obsession becomes your god. You look to it rather than to Him for solace. If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. Please do not let an obsession rob you of your freedom to follow God’s fabulous plan.

The bold is part of my reasons why. For one those you describe are starting the process of "thinking celestial," but they're also the ones most likely to fully grasp the pain of robbed agency and of having the addiction rob them of fuller experiences in their past. Ironically, they're the ones where agency is beginning to be restored and they are truly beginning to "think celestial." I see his words more applicable to those in the preliminary stages of change and those who haven't solidly fallen into patterns that are fully out of control yet. Who may be using these to cope, but haven't had experiences or gone so long that the coping is all they really know how to do consistently. Because of the wide set of potential "addictions" there's also a wider range of people who this may apply to. Heck, if he had put workaholics on that list he could have been talking to about half the church   

I probably would have not chosen his exact words, but I also can't say I disagree with him. It's not because I dismiss the experience of those in the throes of change. I absolutely don't and love watching as they begin to really experience God, their loved ones, and themselves in new more meaningful ways. It's because in aggregate, with the wide amount of people I've seen lean on their favorite numbing device, I've seen the truth in his words. 

I should note that the reason I believe it offends God is three fold, when they're not in the active change/maintenance stages I can very much see how limited their life and potential has become. I can hear in the way they engage with their faith community how often very shallow their experience of God is. And I can see through the pain of their closest loved ones, how destructive their unregulated selves are to others. 

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I hope you decide to participate from time to time in other threads. I've really appreciated your well thought out explanations. 

I strongly second that.  What a great addition to the conversation.  I want more.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

22 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It struck me while reading the bold especially that you're coming at this with a singular lens. I assume, considering the work you've done, that you may have heard of the stages of change model. If not, this is a rough model to explain how people move through making changes. The stages you keep describing sound most like those in the preparation/determination and action/willpower stages...particularly those a little past the honeymoon stage of changing their behavior (the part where they have a really simple and overly optimistic view of what it will look like/take to change), but before they're starting to really enter the maintenance stage and haven't fully gotten a handle of how deep their problem goes. I think you are right, that these are probably the most vulnerable to be hurt by Nelson's words. To me though, they're also the ones that it's least directed to. 

The bold is part of my reasons why. For one those you describe are starting the process of "thinking celestial," but they're also the ones most likely to fully grasp the pain of robbed agency and of having the addiction rob them of fuller experiences in their past. Ironically, they're the ones where agency is beginning to be restored and they are truly beginning to "think celestial." I see his words more applicable to those in the preliminary stages of change and those who haven't solidly fallen into patterns that are fully out of control yet. Who may be using these to cope, but haven't had experiences or gone so long that the coping is all they really know how to do consistently. Because of the wide set of potential "addictions" there's also a wider range of people who this may apply to. Heck, if he had put workaholics on that list he could have been talking to about half the church   

I probably would have not chosen his exact words, but I also can't say I disagree with him. It's not because I dismiss the experience of those in the throes of change. I absolutely don't and love watching as they begin to really experience God, their loved ones, and themselves in new more meaningful ways. It's because in aggregate, with the wide amount of people I've seen lean on their favorite numbing device, I've seen the truth in his words. 

I should note that the reason I believe it offends God is three fold, when they're not in the active change/maintenance stages I can very much see how limited their life and potential has become. I can hear in the way they engage with their faith community how often very shallow their experience of God is. And I can see through the pain of their closest loved ones, how destructive their unregulated selves are to others. 

With luv,

BD 

That describes pretty well where I was at during that time.  I was just starting to realize just much of a grasp this has on me.  My wife was threatening divorce, and I was in a dark, dark place of shame for the hurt that I was causing her.  This was a woman I would willingly lay down my life for, yet I couldn't let this go for her or to save our relationship.  I didn't fully understand the depths of my problem at the time, you are right about that, and I didn't have the words or experience to explain why I couldn't stop. 

This was the point where I fully submitted to God in desperation.  I didn't know what else to do but pray.  Those prayers eventually evolved into the practice of meditative prayer that I talk a lot about.  Overtime I learned to listen and hear God in ways that I didn't know was possible.  He showed me things about myself.  He showed me my shame.  That is when everything changed.   I didn't even have a word for it at the time.  But he showed me the core beliefs about myself that were trapping me in addiction and the life experiences that caused these beliefs, namely the darkest belief of all - "I am unlovable", and other similar ones "I am unacceptable", "I am a mistake".   I had never allowed myself to go there before.  It is too dark and painful a place to go.  That is what I had been hiding from my entire life, and now here it was looking back at me, and I could see and feel it.   I started researching everything I could about shame when the word came to me.  I eventually found and read Healing the Shame that Binds you by John Bradshaw.   I learned from the book that these core beliefs that God showed me cause a person to create "false self's" - masks that keep a protective barrier around our heart to prevent people from knowing the real us - because if they ever met that guy, they would discard him.  He is unacceptable.  Unlovable.  Nope, he can't show his face to anyone.  Too dangerous.  Too painful.  This all leads one to isolation.  Even thou I had lots of friends and family that I interacted with, I always felt unknown.  Nobody knew the real me.  They couldn't.  I wouldn't allow them to go there.   

The acting out was nothing more than a pseudo intimacy.  That is the purpose it served, to fill the void of interpersonal intimacy and relationships where I felt known, seen, and accepted/loved in my life.  It wasn't about sex or perversion.  It was about wanting to be known and loved for who I am.  The only safe way to go there was in fantasyland, because it is too painful to go there in real life.   If that core need is not met in healthy social/interpersonal ways, then they will get met in unhealthy ways.    At the core of all of this was that deep hidden pain and trauma that was not a result of anything I had chosen or deserved.  There was a scared, abused, and insecure/unsafe child trembling in hiding.    When I talk about addicts being victims, that is what I am talking about.   This doesn't make the addict less culpable of all the destructive behavior that happens as a result of that victimhood.  They are responsible for what they do with that pain/fear.  BUT if that inner child is not addressed in compassion, then there is little hope for them to come out of hiding and take risks of vulnerability.  They don't need guilt and shame.  That just keeps them in hiding. They need to feel safe.  Emotionally, they are still little kids. 

I think your comment to Jehosephat is spot on:

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

In reality, working with people with consistent problems like the ones Nelson noted is a balaancing act between teaching mercy and compassion and then speaking hard truths the need for boundaries for those around them and themselves, and giving clear understanding as to what their "drug" of choice is cutting them off from. It's a balance that no one can easily nail in a soundbyte, IMHO....but I would still want it to be talked about, even if there will be nuance that is missed. The only thing worse than sharing incomplete truths is not sharing any thought on it at all. 

I just don't think that telling addicts that God is offended at their addiction counts as a "hard truth".  It certainly qualifies as hard, but I don't think it is true.  Ultimately, I don't think it is helpful for any stage of change.   In the early stages of change, many addicts are afraid of God, they already believe they are offending Him, others don't care, others want nothing more than to please and be accepted of God and feelings of rejection will only push them further into isolation.  One can't be shamed into recovery.  That just reinforces the core problem.   

That is the balancing act you are talking about, because on one hand there is a victim that needs to be treated with compassion and understanding, but on the other hand there is the fall-out and hurt that happens when people isolate with all the accompanying consequences of that.  That can't be ignored or enabled.  I have learned and am of the firm conviction that the one and only real treatment and road to true recovery for shame-based addiction that results in isolation, is true honest intimacy.  I am of the firm conviction that the best and first approach is to address the victim of addiction in compassion. 

For me, addiction recovery happens on two different levels.  One level is treating the victim.  On the other hand, those victims cause hurt for others by staying in isolation and all the accompanying consequences of that.  That also needs to be addressed.  I have more to say about that, but don't have time know.  This is an incomplete post...but I want to go home now  

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

On 10/8/2023 at 7:42 PM, bluebell said:

That was brought up but I don't remember which thread.  It was discussed how Pres. Nelson seemed to be using scriptural language when using the word "offend" since that is how it is often described in the scriptures when speaking of sinning.

Someone (I don't remember who it was) then looked up the definition of the word "offend" in a 1800s dictionary (because one of the verses we were talking about was in section 59 in the Doctrine in Covenants).  We learned that the definition has changed somewhat from that era.  Where it used to most commonly mean "displeased" it's morphed into signifying annoyance or resentment at a perceived slight today.

In the same conversation, someone else brought up how scripturally, offend was probably most often used in the scriptures because sinners were thought of as offenders in the legal "justice being harmed" sense, because when we sin we break spiritual laws the same way offenders are those who have broken laws in our justice system.

 

Great response. 

In Hebrew, offend means to "make angry" or to "strike against" and as you said "displeasure". Does to "strike against" or "offend" insult God? I'm honestly curious. I'm not trying to speak on His behalf. I'm so far out of my element here. When God is offended...is that the same as humans being offended?

[pogi]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I have more to say about that, but don't have time know.  This is an incomplete post...but I want to go home now  

To wrap up my thought, I think a lot of the pain that spouses experience in being married to an addict is partly avoidable where there is a good understanding of addiction and where realistic expectations and boundaries are in place.  The hardest part for my wife was the feeling of being a victim of infidelity.   I was a cheater in her eyes, according to many conference talks and interpretations of scripture, I was committing adultery.  She took it personally.  It caused her to have self-doubts of being good enough, pretty enough, etc.  The hurt of betrayal was visceral for her.  The problem was, I believed all those talks too.  I didn't understand my problem at the time either.  They just reinforced the belief that I was unacceptable because I tried and couldn't change.  Our perspective and understanding of the problem was toxic and almost destroyed our relationship.   That is partly why I am so sensitive to language from church leaders about addiction.   It is just one more reason for the spouse to misconstrue the nature of addiction and cause her, or him, to perceive their spouse in harmful and counterproductive ways.  It causes unnecessary hurt and pain for both the spouse and addict. 

Our church leaders could do a lot to avoid this type of toxic dynamic in relationships where addiction exists.  The spouse needs to know what she is getting into, and clear and realistic (I emphasize realistic) boundaries need to be in place.  The expectation should be that the addict is taking steps to get help and reach out.  Perfect sobriety without relapse is unrealistic.  It can take years and even decades for some.   That needs to be ok with the spouse if the relationship is going to last, as long as they see that the addict is committed and working towards recovery.  They need to understand it has NOTHING to do with them.  Addiction is hard enough for a spouse to deal with, taking it personal and making it about infidelity makes the situation toxic where every relapse is seen as cheating. 

After learning and becoming brave enough to be vulnerable with my wife and expose those dark beliefs and places that I have kept hidden my whole life, she also read Healing the Shame that Binds You and was filled with compassion and understanding and our relationship started to blossom from there.  A simple change in perspective as to the nature of addiction changed everything.  She was no longer offended.   That is not an enabling attitude and approach to addiction.  It is a healing approach to relationships where addiction exists.  I think the same is true with God.   Boundaries and accountability don't disappear where offense no longer exists. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by pogi

[rodheadlee]

On 10/6/2023 at 7:00 PM, Smiley McGee said:

What happens when God is offended? Someone develops an alcohol addiction, God is offended, then what? He refuses to help? He punishes the person somehow? What’s the incremental impact to the addict, beyond the consequences of the addiction, of God’s taking offense?

The bishop will tell you come back when you're clean. That's what happened to me. I was really hoping to get a blessing to help me get off of cocaine.

After a long battle running from myself for years I channeled it to coffee and nicotine. I'm still addicted to coffee and nicotine

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

The bishop will tell you come back when you're clean. That's what happened to me. I was really hoping to get a blessing to help me get off of cocaine.

I hope that wouldn’t happen now.

[Jehosephat]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:09 AM, BlueDreams said:

I hope you decide to participate from time to time in other threads. I've really appreciated your well thought out explanations. 

On 10/10/2023 at 1:40 PM, Calm said:

I strongly second that.  What a great addition to the conversation.  I want more.

Thank you both for your kind words! I likewise often appreciate your comments in the various threads I’ve read. I’m always open to exploring my viewpoints on issues (and this community helps me do that) but less inclined to sharing them (partly due to life circumstance and partly due to comfort level). I’ll try to chime in from time to time

[Jehosephat]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:09 AM, BlueDreams said:

I hope you decide to participate from time to time in other threads. I've really appreciated your well thought out explanations. 

I've been thinking a ton about this. I mentioned that the big thing I would shift is the word addiction. It would probably be a more mouthy option like "unhealthy coping" 

I'm honestly on the fence about "Saddens"...Not because I don't think it saddens God, but also because I don't think it doesn't offend God.  I don't disagree with what you insert. I think it's true. But I generally also agree with what Nelson initially said as well. I think both of these have their limitations. There are people who will read his words through a lens of shame that will take his words hard. There are people who I know who aren't fully committed to change who would take words like yours as a source of enabling, insisting other's pain and harm be softened around them because they're "changing," ignoring/minimizing all the ways they haven't changed and what their past actions did to others. 

In reality, working with people with consistent problems like the ones Nelson noted is a balaancing act between teaching mercy and compassion and then speaking hard truths the need for boundaries for those around them and themselves, and giving clear understanding as to what their "drug" of choice is cutting them off from. It's a balance that no one can easily nail in a soundbyte, IMHO....but I would still want it to be talked about, even if there will be nuance that is missed. The only thing worse than sharing incomplete truths is not sharing any thought on it at all. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Thanks for your insights, I appreciate them. I’m responding to your post but am speaking to the group. 

 

Perhaps God feels multiple emotions about situations, just like we do. In this case offence, sadness, disappointment, sorrow, etc. As a parent, I too might have these mixed emotions if my child were faced with addiction issues. The question is which of these emotions are most helpful for the prophet to focus on? 

 

 As a parent, do I want to make this situation about me? By letting my child know they’ve offended me? To what end? So they’ll they feel ostracized and change their behaviour to get back in my good graces?  Or would I want my child to know I’m sorry for their pain and to feel my love and compassion? My approach would be the latter, and I believe a loving heavenly parent would do the same. So I think what Pres. Nelson said may be true, but not the whole truth, and in my opinion not the most important aspect of the truth to emphasize. 

 

I also think there is a huge difference between what can and should be discussed re. addiction and mental health challenges in a 1:1 or small group counseling session (where individual needs are considered, messaging tailored, and following support provided) and what is said by a spiritual leader as a blanket statement to millions of followers. I think general conference should be more about lifting up. I think the intention of the original statement can still be achieved (think celestial, look to God as your source of solace rather than substances or behavioural addictions) in a way that builds. When done in a way that leaves a segment of the audience feeling they are an offence to God, it can leave people vulnerable without someone to help guide them through those feelings. Which I think is why this topic has seized so much discussion in this thread! 

 

FWIW. Thanks for listening. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Jehosephat said:

Perhaps God feels multiple emotions about situations, just like we do. In this case offence, sadness, disappointment, sorrow, etc. As a parent, I too might have these mixed emotions if my child were faced with addiction issues. The question is which of these emotions are most helpful for the prophet to focus on? 

I expect he also feels joy and relief because he can see the end of it as well and knows the person who is free of the addiction…maybe even as well as he knows the fallen overwhelmed mortal.

[Jehosephat]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I expect he also feels joy and relief because he can see the end of it as well and knows the person who is free of the addiction…maybe even as well as he knows the fallen overwhelmed mortal.

Great point 👍

[BlueDreams]

On 10/10/2023 at 5:00 PM, pogi said:

That describes pretty well where I was at during that time.  I was just starting to realize just much of a grasp this has on me.  My wife was threatening divorce, and I was in a dark, dark place of shame for the hurt that I was causing her.  This was a woman I would willingly lay down my life for, yet I couldn't let this go for her or to save our relationship.  I didn't fully understand the depths of my problem at the time, you are right about that, and I didn't have the words or experience to explain why I couldn't stop. 

This was the point where I fully submitted to God in desperation.  I didn't know what else to do but pray.  Those prayers eventually evolved into the practice of meditative prayer that I talk a lot about.  Overtime I learned to listen and hear God in ways that I didn't know was possible.  He showed me things about myself.  He showed me my shame.  That is when everything changed.   I didn't even have a word for it at the time.  But he showed me the core beliefs about myself that were trapping me in addiction and the life experiences that caused these beliefs, namely the darkest belief of all - "I am unlovable", and other similar ones "I am unacceptable", "I am a mistake".   I had never allowed myself to go there before.  It is too dark and painful a place to go.  That is what I had been hiding from my entire life, and now here it was looking back at me, and I could see and feel it.   I started researching everything I could about shame when the word came to me.  I eventually found and read Healing the Shame that Binds you by John Bradshaw.   I learned from the book that these core beliefs that God showed me cause a person to create "false self's" - masks that keep a protective barrier around our heart to prevent people from knowing the real us - because if they ever met that guy, they would discard him.  He is unacceptable.  Unlovable.  Nope, he can't show his face to anyone.  Too dangerous.  Too painful.  This all leads one to isolation.  Even thou I had lots of friends and family that I interacted with, I always felt unknown.  Nobody knew the real me.  They couldn't.  I wouldn't allow them to go there.   

The acting out was nothing more than a pseudo intimacy.  That is the purpose it served, to fill the void of interpersonal intimacy and relationships where I felt known, seen, and accepted/loved in my life.  It wasn't about sex or perversion.  It was about wanting to be known and loved for who I am.  The only safe way to go there was in fantasyland, because it is too painful to go there in real life.   If that core need is not met in healthy social/interpersonal ways, then they will get met in unhealthy ways.    At the core of all of this was that deep hidden pain and trauma that was not a result of anything I had chosen or deserved.  There was a scared, abused, and insecure/unsafe child trembling in hiding.    When I talk about addicts being victims, that is what I am talking about.   This doesn't make the addict less culpable of all the destructive behavior that happens as a result of that victimhood.  They are responsible for what they do with that pain/fear.  BUT if that inner child is not addressed in compassion, then there is little hope for them to come out of hiding and take risks of vulnerability.  They don't need guilt and shame.  That just keeps them in hiding. They need to feel safe.  Emotionally, they are still little kids. 

I think your comment to Jehosephat is spot on:

I just don't think that telling addicts that God is offended at their addiction counts as a "hard truth".  It certainly qualifies as hard, but I don't think it is true.  Ultimately, I don't think it is helpful for any stage of change.   In the early stages of change, many addicts are afraid of God, they already believe they are offending Him, others don't care, others want nothing more than to please and be accepted of God and feelings of rejection will only push them further into isolation.  One can't be shamed into recovery.  That just reinforces the core problem.   

That is the balancing act you are talking about, because on one hand there is a victim that needs to be treated with compassion and understanding, but on the other hand there is the fall-out and hurt that happens when people isolate with all the accompanying consequences of that.  That can't be ignored or enabled.  I have learned and am of the firm conviction that the one and only real treatment and road to true recovery for shame-based addiction that results in isolation, is true honest intimacy.  I am of the firm conviction that the best and first approach is to address the victim of addiction in compassion. 

For me, addiction recovery happens on two different levels.  One level is treating the victim.  On the other hand, those victims cause hurt for others by staying in isolation and all the accompanying consequences of that.  That also needs to be addressed.  I have more to say about that, but don't have time know.  This is an incomplete post...but I want to go home now  

 

 

 

 

On 10/11/2023 at 10:26 AM, pogi said:

To wrap up my thought, I think a lot of the pain that spouses experience in being married to an addict is partly avoidable where there is a good understanding of addiction and where realistic expectations and boundaries are in place.  The hardest part for my wife was the feeling of being a victim of infidelity.   I was a cheater in her eyes, according to many conference talks and interpretations of scripture, I was committing adultery.  She took it personally.  It caused her to have self-doubts of being good enough, pretty enough, etc.  The hurt of betrayal was visceral for her.  The problem was, I believed all those talks too.  I didn't understand my problem at the time either.  They just reinforced the belief that I was unacceptable because I tried and couldn't change.  Our perspective and understanding of the problem was toxic and almost destroyed our relationship.   That is partly why I am so sensitive to language from church leaders about addiction.   It is just one more reason for the spouse to misconstrue the nature of addiction and cause her, or him, to perceive their spouse in harmful and counterproductive ways.  It causes unnecessary hurt and pain for both the spouse and addict. 

Our church leaders could do a lot to avoid this type of toxic dynamic in relationships where addiction exists.  The spouse needs to know what she is getting into, and clear and realistic (I emphasize realistic) boundaries need to be in place.  The expectation should be that the addict is taking steps to get help and reach out.  Perfect sobriety without relapse is unrealistic.  It can take years and even decades for some.   That needs to be ok with the spouse if the relationship is going to last, as long as they see that the addict is committed and working towards recovery.  They need to understand it has NOTHING to do with them.  Addiction is hard enough for a spouse to deal with, taking it personal and making it about infidelity makes the situation toxic where every relapse is seen as cheating. 

After learning and becoming brave enough to be vulnerable with my wife and expose those dark beliefs and places that I have kept hidden my whole life, she also read Healing the Shame that Binds You and was filled with compassion and understanding and our relationship started to blossom from there.  A simple change in perspective as to the nature of addiction changed everything.  She was no longer offended.   That is not an enabling attitude and approach to addiction.  It is a healing approach to relationships where addiction exists.  I think the same is true with God.   Boundaries and accountability don't disappear where offense no longer exists. 

Sorry this took so long. I've been a little preoccupied with life and wanted to make sure I gave it it's proper time and space.

First, thanks for sharing your experiences in a vulnerable way. It's a mark of recovery that one can own their story. It reminds me of other people I've worked with, where I've had to reduce the shame and inadvertent shaming...to differentiate the problems from porn and the bigger disruptions that were coming from their disproportionate shame. In this, you have my full agreement. I've mentioned earlier on this thread that my biggest problem with the quote is the word addiction. I don't expect it to be used like it is in the DSM....but it's a still a strong word with loaded meaning that should be used with caution.

If your story and experience was the only experience I worked with and see, I would likely entirely agree with you. In your circumstance and the circumstances similar validating shame isn't helpful. Neither is overreactions to porn = cheating that the partner can often assume. And I can see someone taking Nelson's message as a source of shame validation. I've seen softer messages do as much. 

But your story isn't all I see. It's not even the majority of behaviors I see. I'll go with the big three that I see a lot due to my work focus: anger, pornography, sex. I've witnessed these stories not just from the person with the problem but their loved ones. Your discussion of being a victim, other experiences and some of the things happening in the world had me thinking that it's an extremely blurry line between victim and victimizer. Sometimes pornography use has really little actual consequence on the couple....where the problems are more shame based and circle around irritability, falling into dark self-hurt holes, and lying about the use out of shame. But it often can have a legitimate effect on the health of the relationship and the well-being of their loved ones. Where the degree of low-self control and regulations means they're relying on their methods at the cost/risk of their jobs, their children, their family's safety, other people's safety, etc. A stream of clients and stories from other therapists I work with come flooding into my mind:

A man is emotionally unavailable and turns into a glorified checked-out teenager looking for lust hits when his spouse is diagnosed with a debilitating disease. Whenever he's confronted he gets irate and controls the situation with his anger.  Another woman tries to be understanding of her partner's porn use. She dismantles her faith/beliefs, her needs, her self to make space for his sexual "needs." The man has no patience with his wife's sexual pain, vacillating between irritability, anger, and tears. After a while and pressure from the therapist to fully disclose his behaviors, it becomes clear that he's lived a LONNG pattern of ignoring the autonomy of others to meet his sexual desire. A man was victimized by his father in likely horrifying ways. As an adult, he continues the cycle by victimizing his child in horrifying ways. Now, whenever something negative is pointed his way, he becomes the victim and his child's broken self is ignored to keep the peace. Another hooks up with a complete stranger online, the action puts his unknowing partner at risk...it was an elevation in behavior that entailed excess risk with porn and ignoring his responsibilities at work and home. I could go on and on. So it's very easy for me to see the truth in Nelson's words. I see it on the regular.

In each of these stories I know and trust that I will find an empathetic story where they were victims of pain that jumpstarted their problems that will need to be addressed. But those initial pain(s) have metastasized. They've become a source of pain for others via a set of behaviors...it leads to an extremely myopic view of themself as their primary concern while their immediate hurts and self-soothing takes precedent over everybody else ...including God. Everything gets filtered from the lens of them, their pain, their need for release from it. Anything that doesn't is ignored, avoided, or they distort the relationship to accommodate their pain and insatiable want. They've become victimizers.  

 I said at the beginning that it's a mark of recovering that they can say and own their story.  Part of their story is objectively ugly. It means looking directly into shameful activities and being accountable for the weight and injury it caused to themselves and others. If they can't they will be falling back into their cycle of avoidance and scapegoating and minimization. And they'll continue to live in some form of "addiction"/unhealthy coping. They will continue to hurt their loved ones. This is what I meant with hard truth. I most recently have been helping a person own the seriousness of their unhealthy/harmful behavior. I openly told them that they were an assh**e and royally f-d up (not censored....I cuss a lot in my job as you might imagine). If I did that to someone like you I would be feeding into their shame and it would be unethical and unproductive. But for them it was their hard truth they were avoiding. When they owned it, they actually became more centered, they calmed, and their vision/empathy became clear and true. Treating this person like someone like you would have been a severe disservice to them and their family.

I don't expect you to agree with Nelson. I don't expect you to agree with me on this. But I hope I've helped explain why someone like me and the position I'm regularly in could feel the truth in his words, even if the exact word-choice wouldn't have been mine. 

  

With luv,

BD

Edited October 15, 2023 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:00 PM, pogi said:

namely the darkest belief of all - "I am unlovable", and other similar ones "I am unacceptable", "I am a mistake".   I had never allowed myself to go there before.  It is too dark and painful a place to go.  That is what I had been hiding from my entire life, and now here it was looking back at me, and I could see and feel it.

Okay, this part is disturbingly familiar.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, this part is disturbingly familiar.

I blame poor talks/teachings from people in authority. But I better bow out, and leave it to those that have suffered so.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I blame poor talks/teachings from people in authority. But I better bow out, and leave it to those that have suffered so.

It reminds me of being closeted.

[Jehosephat]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I blame poor talks/teachings from people in authority. But I better bow out, and leave it to those that have suffered so.

I think at times leaders can have the wrong words for the right message. What do I mean by that? I mean the intent of the message is good and inspired. But the words and language used to convey that message can be lacking, (understandably so) based on the speakers’ experiences and socialized ways of communicating. 

In the example we’re discussing in this thread, the intent (I believe) was to motivate change towards celestial thinking and relying upon God (rather than substances and behavioural addictions) as our solace. The method was to point out how addiction offends God, and should therefore be avoided. In other words, to point out the wrongs some of us are doing.    

The problem  is that if motivating positive change is the goal, pointing out our wrongs, in my opinion, is often not the best method. Especially when wrongs are repeatedly pointed out by leaders. If the goal is to help people realize they’ve done wrong, the unintended consequence of being repeatedly told so is that people internalize it to think they are bad, instead of that they’ve done bad (wrong).  This can lead people to shut down, feel shame, and can be a stumbling block to change rather than a motivator for change. 

We all have different lenses from which we view the world. Mine include my personal experiences, and professional experiences as a therapist who’s worked with children/youth/families/teachers and who’s worked as a mental health educator to parents and professionals. 

When trying to support children to change, adults often point out to them their faults and what needs changing. It comes from a good place. We love our kids. We want to help them do and be better. The problem is our method is antithetical to our goal. We often neglect to point out their positive traits and achievements (or do so way less frequently than to correct them). So kids disproportionately hear what’s wrong with them rather than what’s good about them. This leads to more challenges rather than less. 

This is especially true of children with neurodevelopmental or mental health challenges which impact behavior  (e.g see here, here, here, here, here). In the long term this can damage the adult/child relationship and the child’s self concept. Research suggests the ratio of encouraging to corrective statements should be at least 5:1 (or much higher) for both adult-child relationships and adult-adult relationships. But we often do the opposite. 

I view our relationship with God in a similar way. We are His children. We could all use more encouragement than correction from Him (through His mouthpieces). Some people have temperaments that make them less vulnerable to repeated correction; other people have temperaments that are more sensitive. Some of us are more vulnerable than others. These people especially need more encouragement than correction from Him. But the opposite often happens - many of the “you shouldn’ts” are heard and deeply internalized by this group. I don’t believe this is God’s intention. But rather, is the way “wrong words for the right message” are unintentionally used by leaders to try to motivate change.

Just like many parents have been socialized to frequently correct their children, leaders can  have a similar mindset for how to help members. It comes from a good place. A desire to help.  But it often isn’t helpful, and there’s a better way. I’ve worked with teachers and parents who’ve shifted their approach to more encouragement, less correction, and have seen it transform relationships, classrooms, and behaviours. I believe more validation and positive praise in our relationships and communications could change the world. This is not to say there is no place for correction and consequences. There is. But in the proper balance. The same principles can, and in my opinion should, apply to how church leaders communicate God’s messages to us. I know this approach personally motivates me to want to be better. I know it is foundational to building positive relationships. Too much correction and criticism can cause people to draw further, rather than nearer, to God. 

Because of my lens and experiences, I acknowledge that I am perhaps extra-aware and attuned to this. I watch conference and often hear more corrective statements than praises. I’d like to see more praise and less correction. I think it will help our community draw closer to God - especially the vulnerable, the suffering, the wounded. 

 

 

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Jehosephat said:

I think at times leaders can have the wrong words for the right message. What do I mean by that? I mean the intent of the message is good and inspired. But the words and language used to convey that message can be lacking, (understandably so) based on the speakers’ experiences and socialized ways of communicating. 

In the example we’re discussing in this thread, the intent (I believe) was to motivate change towards celestial thinking and relying upon God (rather than substances and behavioural addictions) as our solace. The method was to point out how addiction offends God, and should therefore be avoided. In other words, to point out the wrongs some of us are doing.    

The problem  is that if motivating positive change is the goal, pointing out our wrongs, in my opinion, is often not the best method. Especially when wrongs are repeatedly pointed out by leaders. If the goal is to help people realize they’ve done wrong, the unintended consequence of being repeatedly told so is that people internalize it to think they are bad, instead of that they’ve done bad (wrong).  This can lead people to shut down, feel shame, and can be a stumbling block to change rather than a motivator for change. 

We all have different lenses from which we view the world. Mine include my personal experiences, and professional experiences as a therapist who’s worked with children/youth/families/teachers and who’s worked as a mental health educator to parents and professionals. 

When trying to support children to change, adults often point out to them their faults and what needs changing. It comes from a good place. We love our kids. We want to help them do and be better. The problem is our method is antithetical to our goal. We often neglect to point out their positive traits and achievements (or do so way less frequently than to correct them). So kids disproportionately hear what’s wrong with them rather than what’s good about them. This leads to more challenges rather than less. 

This is especially true of children with neurodevelopmental or mental health challenges which impact behavior  (e.g see here, here, here, here, here). In the long term this can damage the adult/child relationship and the child’s self concept. Research suggests the ratio of encouraging to corrective statements should be at least 5:1 (or much higher) for both adult-child relationships and adult-adult relationships. But we often do the opposite. 

I view our relationship with God in a similar way. We are His children. We could all use more encouragement than correction from Him (through His mouthpieces). Some people have temperaments that make them less vulnerable to repeated correction; other people have temperaments that are more sensitive. Some of us are more vulnerable than others. These people especially need more encouragement than correction from Him. But the opposite often happens - many of the “you shouldn’ts” are heard and deeply internalized by this group. I don’t believe this is God’s intention. But rather, is the way “wrong words for the right message” are unintentionally used by leaders to try to motivate change.

Just like many parents have been socialized to frequently correct their children, leaders can  have a similar mindset for how to help members. It comes from a good place. A desire to help.  But it often isn’t helpful, and there’s a better way. I’ve worked with teachers and parents who’ve shifted their approach to more encouragement, less correction, and have seen it transform relationships, classrooms, and behaviours. I believe more validation and positive praise in our relationships and communications could change the world. This is not to say there is no place for correction and consequences. There is. But in the proper balance. The same principles can, and in my opinion should, apply to how church leaders communicate God’s messages to us. I know this approach personally motivates me to want to be better. I know it is foundational to building positive relationships. Too much correction and criticism can cause people to draw further, rather than nearer, to God. 

Because of my lens and experiences, I acknowledge that I am perhaps extra-aware and attuned to this. I watch conference and often hear more corrective statements than praises. I’d like to see more praise and less correction. I think it will help our community draw closer to God - especially the vulnerable, the suffering, the wounded.

Amen Jehosephat!   

Please stick around. 

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Jehosephat said:

I think at times leaders can have the wrong words for the right message. What do I mean by that? I mean the intent of the message is good and inspired. But the words and language used to convey that message can be lacking, (understandably so) based on the speakers’ experiences and socialized ways of communicating. 

In the example we’re discussing in this thread, the intent (I believe) was to motivate change towards celestial thinking and relying upon God (rather than substances and behavioural addictions) as our solace. The method was to point out how addiction offends God, and should therefore be avoided. In other words, to point out the wrongs some of us are doing.    

The problem  is that if motivating positive change is the goal, pointing out our wrongs, in my opinion, is often not the best method. Especially when wrongs are repeatedly pointed out by leaders. If the goal is to help people realize they’ve done wrong, the unintended consequence of being repeatedly told so is that people internalize it to think they are bad, instead of that they’ve done bad (wrong).  This can lead people to shut down, feel shame, and can be a stumbling block to change rather than a motivator for change. 

We all have different lenses from which we view the world. Mine include my personal experiences, and professional experiences as a therapist who’s worked with children/youth/families/teachers and who’s worked as a mental health educator to parents and professionals. 

When trying to support children to change, adults often point out to them their faults and what needs changing. It comes from a good place. We love our kids. We want to help them do and be better. The problem is our method is antithetical to our goal. We often neglect to point out their positive traits and achievements (or do so way less frequently than to correct them). So kids disproportionately hear what’s wrong with them rather than what’s good about them. This leads to more challenges rather than less. 

This is especially true of children with neurodevelopmental or mental health challenges which impact behavior  (e.g see here, here, here, here, here). In the long term this can damage the adult/child relationship and the child’s self concept. Research suggests the ratio of encouraging to corrective statements should be at least 5:1 (or much higher) for both adult-child relationships and adult-adult relationships. But we often do the opposite. 

I view our relationship with God in a similar way. We are His children. We could all use more encouragement than correction from Him (through His mouthpieces). Some people have temperaments that make them less vulnerable to repeated correction; other people have temperaments that are more sensitive. Some of us are more vulnerable than others. These people especially need more encouragement than correction from Him. But the opposite often happens - many of the “you shouldn’ts” are heard and deeply internalized by this group. I don’t believe this is God’s intention. But rather, is the way “wrong words for the right message” are unintentionally used by leaders to try to motivate change.

Just like many parents have been socialized to frequently correct their children, leaders can  have a similar mindset for how to help members. It comes from a good place. A desire to help.  But it often isn’t helpful, and there’s a better way. I’ve worked with teachers and parents who’ve shifted their approach to more encouragement, less correction, and have seen it transform relationships, classrooms, and behaviours. I believe more validation and positive praise in our relationships and communications could change the world. This is not to say there is no place for correction and consequences. There is. But in the proper balance. The same principles can, and in my opinion should, apply to how church leaders communicate God’s messages to us. I know this approach personally motivates me to want to be better. I know it is foundational to building positive relationships. Too much correction and criticism can cause people to draw further, rather than nearer, to God. 

Because of my lens and experiences, I acknowledge that I am perhaps extra-aware and attuned to this. I watch conference and often hear more corrective statements than praises. I’d like to see more praise and less correction. I think it will help our community draw closer to God - especially the vulnerable, the suffering, the wounded. 

I think that listening to the messages of conference with the desire to learn by the Spirit makes a big difference. I believe this approach is broadly communicated and reminded by leadership, and is recognizable to anyone inclined to watch/hear/read conference talks. Of course, this invitation can be easily superseded by feelings of being made to attend conference, by the distraction of abusive or sub-par homes and relationships, the cares of the world, misunderstood and misapplied doctrine (“perfection” comes to mind), and any condition for which therapeutic intervention is necessary. I believe those who benefit from the intended conference message can help those who do not, and that everyone can improve their two-way (and ideally three-way, when we include the Lord) communication.

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited October 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:01 PM, Jehosephat said:

I think at times leaders can have the wrong words for the right message. What do I mean by that? I mean the intent of the message is good and inspired. But the words and language used to convey that message can be lacking, (understandably so) based on the speakers’ experiences and socialized ways of communicating. 

In the example we’re discussing in this thread, the intent (I believe) was to motivate change towards celestial thinking and relying upon God (rather than substances and behavioural addictions) as our solace. The method was to point out how addiction offends God, and should therefore be avoided. In other words, to point out the wrongs some of us are doing.    

The problem  is that if motivating positive change is the goal, pointing out our wrongs, in my opinion, is often not the best method. Especially when wrongs are repeatedly pointed out by leaders. If the goal is to help people realize they’ve done wrong, the unintended consequence of being repeatedly told so is that people internalize it to think they are bad, instead of that they’ve done bad (wrong).  This can lead people to shut down, feel shame, and can be a stumbling block to change rather than a motivator for change. 

We all have different lenses from which we view the world. Mine include my personal experiences, and professional experiences as a therapist who’s worked with children/youth/families/teachers and who’s worked as a mental health educator to parents and professionals. 

When trying to support children to change, adults often point out to them their faults and what needs changing. It comes from a good place. We love our kids. We want to help them do and be better. The problem is our method is antithetical to our goal. We often neglect to point out their positive traits and achievements (or do so way less frequently than to correct them). So kids disproportionately hear what’s wrong with them rather than what’s good about them. This leads to more challenges rather than less. 

This is especially true of children with neurodevelopmental or mental health challenges which impact behavior  (e.g see here, here, here, here, here). In the long term this can damage the adult/child relationship and the child’s self concept. Research suggests the ratio of encouraging to corrective statements should be at least 5:1 (or much higher) for both adult-child relationships and adult-adult relationships. But we often do the opposite. 

I view our relationship with God in a similar way. We are His children. We could all use more encouragement than correction from Him (through His mouthpieces). Some people have temperaments that make them less vulnerable to repeated correction; other people have temperaments that are more sensitive. Some of us are more vulnerable than others. These people especially need more encouragement than correction from Him. But the opposite often happens - many of the “you shouldn’ts” are heard and deeply internalized by this group. I don’t believe this is God’s intention. But rather, is the way “wrong words for the right message” are unintentionally used by leaders to try to motivate change.

Just like many parents have been socialized to frequently correct their children, leaders can  have a similar mindset for how to help members. It comes from a good place. A desire to help.  But it often isn’t helpful, and there’s a better way. I’ve worked with teachers and parents who’ve shifted their approach to more encouragement, less correction, and have seen it transform relationships, classrooms, and behaviours. I believe more validation and positive praise in our relationships and communications could change the world. This is not to say there is no place for correction and consequences. There is. But in the proper balance. The same principles can, and in my opinion should, apply to how church leaders communicate God’s messages to us. I know this approach personally motivates me to want to be better. I know it is foundational to building positive relationships. Too much correction and criticism can cause people to draw further, rather than nearer, to God. 

Because of my lens and experiences, I acknowledge that I am perhaps extra-aware and attuned to this. I watch conference and often hear more corrective statements than praises. I’d like to see more praise and less correction. I think it will help our community draw closer to God - especially the vulnerable, the suffering, the wounded. 

 

 

 

Excellent points.

[MustardSeed]

We had this lesson today in RS. The teacher came across as judgmental- and things felt awful until one woman spoke up and then the whole class became a discussion on how unfair it is to judge people who are addicted to anything. I’m not sure that’s where the prophet was going with this but that’s where we ended up and I’m glad.

[Calm]

On a side issue, curious about your opinions.  Does Utah stand a chance or is it more for pressuring FB?

https://www.abc4.com/news/utah-sues-facebooks-parent-company-meta-over-addiction-harm-for-children/

Quote

“Over the past decade, Meta – itself and through its flagship social media products Facebook and Instagram – has profoundly altered the psychological and social realities of a generation of young Americans, harnessing powerful and unprecedented technologies to ensnare youth to the detriment of their mental health,” the lawsuit reads.

Utah is asking the courts to force Meta into compliance with Utah State Code and to pay restitution to Utah and in civil penalities “well in excess of $300,000.”

They sued Tik Tok last week

Edited October 27, 2023 by Calm

[teddyaware]

On 10/23/2023 at 2:13 AM, MustardSeed said:

We had this lesson today in RS. The teacher came across as judgmental- and things felt awful until one woman spoke up and then the whole class became a discussion on how unfair it is to judge people who are addicted to anything. I’m not sure that’s where the prophet was going with this but that’s where we ended up and I’m glad.

If being unable to conquer an addiction through faith in Christ (after others equally enmeshed in the same addiction do succeed in overcoming their addiction through faith in Christ) will be the cause of certain addicted individuals to be deprived of the fullness exaltation and happiness in the celestial kingdom (with an everlasting consignment to a lower kingdom of glory), how could a loving and just God not find such exaltation depriving addictions offensive? Is God supposed to waive the requirements for entry into the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom out of pity, when he knows full well that addiction — a form of groveling, defeatist idolatry — could indeed have been overcome through the mercy of Christ and his enabling atoning power? Is it love to lie to someone and tell them that their Father in Heaven doesn’t find it tragic and offensive when one of his children gives up on his or her celestial birthright for a mess of soul destroying pottage?

In the eternal scheme of things mercy cannot rob justice, which is why indulging addicts with excesses of pity and misplaced compassion isn’t compassionate at all. Do addicts need to be shown love and compassion in order to persuade them that recovery is essential and absolutely imperative? Of course! But there’s a line that can be crossed where excesses of pity can encourage sin and pacify captive minds until they’re unwilling to awake from the sleep of death.

Bottom line? If I knew our Father in Heaven isn’t offended when the devil succeeds in enslaving his children, to the point where they lose the fullness of his blessings (I.e. failing to become joint heirs with Christ in obtaining the fullness of all the Father’s blessings) I would lose faith in him as the steadfast and immovable God of righteousness.

Edited October 27, 2023 by teddyaware