Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: October 05, 2022 02:20PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought that the RfMers would jump all over it. After all, "recovery from Mormonism" suggests that there is something, namely Mormonism, that people here are striving to recover from, which would include, again presumably, thoughts, feelings, etc. instilled or caused by Mormonism that adversely were affecting one's continuing post-Mormon life. I further assumed that RfM was somehow about replacing such thoughts and feelings with something more positive. I didn't think of RfM as a vehicle in which 'recovery' was achieved by an incessant wallowing in negative anti-Mormon thoughts, while encouraging others to do the same, without some vision for a better worldview. My bad.
In any event . . .
_________________________________________________
"Here is something not so useful in my opinion. . . . [W]e can replace the negative idea with a wholesome thought or activity."
COMMENT: Why would anyone have a problem with replacing negative thoughts with positive thoughts? You may disagree with what is 'positive' or 'negative' but the basic psychological principle that we can replace destructive thoughts with more positive ones, and thus to some extent alleviate stress, anxiety, and related harmful behavior, is well-established. After all, this is the gist of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) which although theoretically controversial has an impressive track record. (I expect all the clinical psychologists out there (or their clients) to chime in with their emphatic support for CBT (although I will not hold my breath)!
_______________________________________________
"And here is the possibility that attempting the advice above is just instilling fear of these thoughts. Live Science: 'When we suppress a thought, we're sending our brains a message,' Magee said. This effort labels the thought as something to be feared. 'In essence, we're making these thoughts more powerful by attempting to control them.'
COMMENT: In the first place, this belies common sense and common experience. Moreover, as mentioned, such a pseudoscientific 'theory' or idea flies in the face of the well-established empirical results of cognitive therapy; as one example, where obsessive-compulsive thoughts bring about compulsive irrational and harmful behavior. In OCD therapy, such harmful thoughts are mitigated by willed, directive control of one's thoughts. (i.e. suppressing (refusing to entertain) the negative thoughts and replacing them with positive thoughts) Such suppression does NOT reinforce the negative thoughts they are intended to displace, and do not make matters worse, as claimed here. Otherwise CBT would not be so popular!
Moreover, consider the danger of advocating a view that people (and our teen-age children) they cannot suppress and thereby overcome negative, unhealthy thoughts, and thereby improve their lives. Do you really want some teenager who obsessively thinks about shooting up his school to continue to harbor such feelings because, after all, he is powerless anyway; or do you want him to seek professional help?
Here is a nice quote:
"In the absence of effort, the OCD pathology drives the brain's circuitry, and compulsive behaviors result. But mental effort, I believe, generates a directed mental force that produces real physical effects: the brain changes that follow cognitive behavioral therapy for OCD. The heroic mental effort required underlines the power of active mental processes like attention and will to redirect thoughts and actions in a way that is detectable on brain scans. . . . With practice, however, the conscious choice to exert effort to resist the pathological messages, and attend instead to the healthy ones, activates functional circuitry. Over the course of several weeks, that regular activation produces systematic changes in the very neural systems that generate those pathological messages -- namely, a quieting of the OCD circuit." (Jeffrey M. Schwartz, *The Mind & the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force.)
Finally, just because some idea has a Mormon flavor does not make it wrong, and just because some idea has a scientific flavor does not make it correct. I don't think 'recovery' is served by slamming Mormonism in every context imaginable, while invoking whatever 'science' can be mustered to support that knee-jerk reaction. It seems to me that the actual merits of positions, doctrines, theories, and arguments should not always be secondary to the desire to debase and humiliate. After all, such 'obsessive' motivations are NOT indications of recovery, but indications of the problem. (IMO)