So, I just came across this and thought I'd pass it on for anyone else who might be interested. The author of the blog is a research psychologist who applies attachment theory to people's relationship with God. I don't have an opinion yet as I am just starting to look at it, but it looks interesting and perhaps could shed some light on how Mormonism has shaped our feelings about God. My own qualification at the outset is you don't have to believe God to get something from this, since attachment theory deals with attachment to internalized psychology objects ("people"), which doesn't necessarily mean there is a one-to-one correspondence with an external "object" or person.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/12/attachment-to-god-series.html

It didn't take long and was a good primer on attachment theory. What interested me most was the author's research using his measurement instrument to measure his own denomination's attachment style to God and that of two other denominations.

The attachment style for his own denomination was negative, and he was discouraged from publishing his conclusions as "too speculative." He drew the conclusion, essentially, that people tend to carry their early attachment style with their parents into their relationship with God (not surprising and often commented on here on RfM).

I was more interested in his comments on whether attachment to God is tends to be Corresponding to early parental attachment or Compensatory. What I gleaned was for people born into a religion the attachment to God corresponded to attachment to parents and for converts it tended to compensate at first and then correspond as the early excitement and feeling of acceptance wore off. The latter experience seems to mirror my experience as a convert to Mormonism.

The author became dissatisfied with the research and felt the attachment model primarily pathologizes the more difficult or negative relationship with God and stopped the line of research. I see a more fundamental problem in that unlike real parents and children, God cannot be observed in consulting room and his (her, its) parenting style evaluated. It seems to me that the relationship with a personal God may be pure projection.

I have thought about it. I thought about it alot through the years.


first the mormon definition of god- and being insecurely attached may make that definition of god more likely to stick. or being abused. since you can re enact your insecurity through thinking someone in outerspace hasyou at their mercy you may never never be worthy (& certianly dont' grok feeling it as a stadard norm primary setting ego state)- plus this carp about spirt leaving when you're bad, and god never being in your heart- perfect for hte abused and abandoned ones aint' it-- that says it all. But- what about when -- you grow/

can you out grow that definition and experience of God also?
is that not part at least of why you leave?

some people think that god is inside. some people think that we are part of god- liek we are subparticles or molecules that are molecules in the universe or standing in a sea of air- and all those molecules or particles at some level are - one. so you are part of god.

not god on another planet dammming you damn it. LOL anyways you can see how differing set points in attachment lend themselves to differing definitions of God can't you.

I could never see in my earliest life- this concept of forgiveness and then feeling relief! and they did rotten things- how could they possible cancell their conscience? they didnt' see it that way- speaking with a priest was fine.

later I coudln't see this mercy crap- how could people act like that- when they were teenagers I saw I coudln't believe-- but they felt such security within their mercy grace plan for themselves no matter what they did. I didn't stick with them.
It didn't fit- that god wasn't distant enough, unfair enough, didnt' make you work to be noticed enough. that's fits doesn't it.

later when I grew my ability to contort reality and fake or force myself to accept the mormon god concept became lame it was like um a crutch before I grew very much. I am glad I once had the crutch it helped me stand up. but then I grew stronger.

What makes some cling to rules? (insecure) what makes some cling to authoritarian figures? (?) what makes some so serene and secure they rebell joyously with no guilt from the rules? ( ) and what combinations?

When someone was not the favorite child, perhaps left at the hospital and the mother bonded inadequately, resented that child- is a surprise that child (what?) selects a new relgion? different from their moms'? If a child is with a parent that narciscistically puts/projects their own self loathign on assigned traits or a bundle of things- only onto an identified scapegoat child, is it a surprise when this child finds a new religion?
or is only partially susceptible to being entrhalled by any religion? having seen through the parental religion- why wouldn't they see through the new non parental religion?

further if someone found a religion to meet unmet parental needs (hello) (I know people like that) whose saying they wont' grow up and their mentors won't die or get distant or become de ideolized- when they are ready to fly further into the future on their own. In which case they will be ready, to de ideolize whatever jargon their substitute mother/father mentor gave them- which they overlooked couldn't scrutinze when it was primary emotional needs the mentor/substitute was there to meet initially. Finally, one grows beyond the need.

I noticed in this family I met so much more secure, such confidence not needing approval of each other, of authories, of God even! & my gosh! abudance of accepting the love of the universe or god- and each other! assuming it! how amazing is that? that it - that serene secrity exisxts.

I have thought a lot about that attachment theory and stuff. I know that this face to face front bonding works and calms. I know that being held known calms and rebonds. I know that some hormonal cycles are bonding sequences- and can be re engaged to generate a state of some calm bond, more secure serene primary h olding state. as an ego state. and even though it is within you it is enacted through, or can be regained through, connecting with others around you.

I do not know if there is research about those who have been through the holocaust or a personal sequence of disasters and then screened about their attachment response (ie is it disorganized by traumatic response) and when in the face of logic of life trauma or tragic experience how does this attachment stuff change?
I mean if someone is securely attached so they seek the crowd experience and go to community events more, that may not mean they experiencially know god more or seek to experience god more or express god spirit more- in fact, they may be more socially gregarious in a spontatneous way. so you measure more of them in occasional social groups. and they may say they feel love or loved. or loving. some who were taught the vocabulary in a protestant or catholic sense may state, oh god loves me or god is a god of love (without ever reading about revelations or the horrid pograms subsidized in the first five books of the old testament)
why? maybe they are only there and perfectly content socially so uh why read?

when someone wakes up from surgery and they're under the influence of drugs, some awake with a panic and sense of feeling unsafe where others awake feeling serene and safe- when someone walks by. Its a conditioned resopnse from memory strands- were you safe when in a vulnerable state earlier?

yet over time when the vulnerability meets with safety and satiety- repeatedly- at what point then, does a new sated state, an ego state as a primary state assert itself as -
can it be- a new norm?

and at that time- might there not be not only a new experience but a new expression of relaitonship or reality? with self as well as others & god?

I think God can be conceived of differently and my experience is that when I change my experience of God changes. I tend to think the experience from my side is projection--but maybe not the other. Is there an Other Side? I'm not sure I could know, because I'm aware I'm stuck in my human brain. But taking some views seem better for me than others.

Wow! My (LDS) marriage counselor told me this is what I had! I thought he was just making it up.... Regardless, it really pissed me off.

What did the counselor say you had and what pissed you off about it?

He implied that I had an attachment disorder.....with God. Do I really have to explain why this pissed me off?

What an idiot to say something like that to you. It's abusive. No, you don't have to explain why it pissed you off :-) This is an example of why the author of the blog gave up that line of inquiry.

Attachment disorder is often (not always by any means) caused by poor parenting. I wonder what that would say about God's parenting ability?

teaching of attachment and suffering?

It's my view that believers are emotionally attached to a deity, and in the case of Christianity, a savior.
They attach the same emotions to the deity and savior that they do to their loved ones.

The author states that attachment theory is not applicable to non-theist religions because their isn't a personal God to attach to. My understanding of Buddhism (such as it is) is that "attachment" in Buddhism is primarily in regard to craving and control, rather than love relationships as in attachment theory.

This caught my eye since I recently finished teaching the movie "Good Will Hunting" to adult students in Japan, and we read articles on attachment theory plus chapters from Daniel Siegel's book "Parenting From the Inside Out." I have also noticed that my variety of attachment disorder (after early parental divorce and mother's later remarriage to a disliked stepfather) may have contributed to my fierce independence but also restlessness about problematic situations: "'I' have to DO something about them MYSELF," no matter how ill-informed or ill-equipped I was.

I finally realized that, despite all my readings in spiritual traditions, this boiled down to a lack of trust in "God": a lack of trust that the universe or others would resolve matters rightly, and a fear of losing 'myself' in meditative practices. This has been described (in A Course in Miracles) as The Authority Problem, which every ego (separate self) has. Rebelling against others' authority--not just when directed by conscience but continually in knee-jerk fashion--was a displacement of the primal Authority Problem with "God."

I think this is a prolonged individuating adolescent stage that the evolving self goes through after quitting conventional belief systems (although Harvard Ed. Psychologist Robert Kegan would call it "4th-Order Consciousness," which is the goal of the modern adult--see his "In Over Our Heads"). It is probably exacerbated by the current Boomeritis mentality in America of "Nobody's gonna tell ME what to do!"

Of course this 'attachment disorder with God' is entirely our (ego's) projection--but then the solution would be to realize that the ego itself is a projected "false self" identity based on bodily identification and the separate self sense that entails. (Which came first? Emanationist spiritual traditions say that the false idea came first, and the body followed, as well as the whole "separative" universe which apparently supports the idea.) In other words, what we appear to be (the egoic body-mind) is "realistically" suspicious and resisting...but we are not truly as we appear.

who is, at best, inconsistent and at worst, a murdering Jew-preferring father-figure who torments his children for fun (Job). Oh, and don't forget this God allowed the torture and sacrifice of his own innocent son so that the guilty would not have to feel guilt, which in his eyes was a great Plan.

Having inadequate attachment to the God represented by Christian scripture can only be deemed healthy.

My take - now open the gates and bring in the lions...

Anagrammy