Utah State Today--Utah State University Press

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=50792

Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012


John P. Dehlin is a doctoral student studying scrupulosity and anxiety disorders at USU. He is featured in a free presentation sponsored by USU's Religious Studies Program Feb. 21, 4 p.m., room 15 of the Animal Science Building.
John Dehlin, a doctoral student at Utah State University investigating a new treatment for scrupulosity — a form of religious obsessive-compulsive disorder — will discuss his findings at a talk Feb. 21. He was invited by USU’s Religious Studies Program to present the results of his research and explain what the symptoms and treatment are for religious expression gone awry.

“Scrupulosity is a long word that says a lot,” said Philip Barlow, the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at USU. “The United States is a deeply religious country, but religion is in rapid change these days. There are arguably healthy and unhealthy ways of religious expression.”

He invited Dehlin to discuss when religious expression achieves pathology. The talk, “Understanding and Treating Religious OCD,” explores what healthy and unhealthy religiosity is, Barlow said.

Dehlin researches the nexus of religion and mental health. For his master’s thesis, he worked with assistant professor of psychology Michael Twohig to evaluate Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as a treatment for scrupulosity — a form of OCD centered on religious and moral behavior. Scrupulosity has appeared in Christian literature for centuries and is common across virtually all religious populations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 08:22PM by Susan I/S.

“The condition is actually quite prevalent in the LDS community.”

Ha! I thought so. I caught that nasty scrupulosity/OCD bug myself around the time all those guilt trips start 'For the Strength of Youth.' It was pure insanity.
But when I was finally diagnosed and realized all that guilt was in my head, it was what set me free. Free to question stuff. Free to leave what I didn't really believe.

I'm glad to see people starting to take a hard look at the religious dimension of OCD in Utah. One year at BYU, 3 of my 6 roommates (50%) had OCD, so I've always wondered if it wasn't a bit overrepresented in this area/religion.
And it's very encouraging to hear that Dehlin has the guts to expose the needless suffering and futility of trying to change one's sexual orientation.

By the way, after I realized that I didn't really believe in the Mormon religion (and had a good dose of cognitive behavioral therapy), I would say the severity of my OCD plummeted by at least 75%. It flares up a bit from time to time and I still have a lot to work on, but it's like night and day compared to how it was.

While I know it's possible to change an extreme interpretation of your religion and achieve a more balanced, healthy relationship with it, I do think that some religious messages/ideas and environments are so OCD-promoting that removing yourself from them (or RADICALLY reinterpreting them) is the only way you can fully heal. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for sharing :)

I too despise the SoY pamphlet. It made me feel guilty any time I turned on the radio. Music won in the end though :) yay

They used to call it Religious mania. But scrupulosity is __Such__ a $10 word! ;o))

Scrupulosity sounds like one of those made up words from The Simpsons--like craptacular.

Mormons think that things like this are perfectly cromulent and it makes them feel embiggened...

Comments like that make me wish RfM had a "like" button :)

It seems to explain, in part, why it can be so challenging for news exmos to shed cult conditioning.

Great great book about it called "Devil in the Details."

Tuesday morning, I was called by a stranger (Ken Tingey, I think his name turned out to be). He invited me to go to your seminar, thinking that it would touch on super-conservative religious thinking, and we could raise questions about how evolutionists can also be obsessive/compulsive. Ken picked me up (at Pioneer Valley Lodge, where I've been living only a couple of months -- my wife passed away, and so I moved up here from Salt Lake -- I was on the USU faculty for 31 years, and I have family here). Your seminar turned out to be not at all what we had expected -- but MUCH better! It struck close to home in several ways. Unfortunately, I missed a part about treatment because my son from Indiana called, and I stepped out into the hall to talk with him. You said the talk might be on your website, and I would love to hear (read?) it again! Incidently, your entry in Wikepidia says nothing about obsessive-compulsive disorder. Is that entry about you or about your father or someone with the same name?
Frank B. Salisbury

I am said Ken Tingey. I found the presentation to be interesting, for unexpected ways different from the unexpected ways that Frank Salisbury mentioned above. In short, I found the study to be unnecessarily narrow -- at least that it focused on obsessive-compulsive behavior with regard to religion from one end of the spectrum where much could be learned from a more balanced treatment. Of course, as you mentioned in the presentation, scrupulocity can relate to general issues of morality independent of any specific religion. A balanced study of religion and morality with respect to obsessive-compulsive disorder would also include obsessive/compulsive behaviors with regard to irreligious and immoral behavior. This would include individuals who are not obsessive and compulsive with regard to achieving religious objectives, but with regard to irreligious behaviors. Such individuals could not be honest, could not be respectful, could not be faithful in the face of all that religion and morality have to offer. Surely in this time of social and economic turmoil, such issues are of significant importance. One associate of mine attributes much of the economic crisis to such behaviors. I don't know the psychology literatures with regard to such behaviors, though I have studied a good deal about fraudulent behevior as outlined in the accounting and financial auditing literatures. That might be a good place to start with regard to a study of "unscrupulocity". This other end of the spectrum in fact may prove to be more damaging to society than the other.
Also, it would surely be overstepping the bounds of the study and of its findings to provide advice to religious leaders to stop providing advice such as to "hum a tune" when feeling temptation or stress. What if the technique is effective for most practitioners? For example, if "humming a tune" is an effective strategy for 5 million people, advice with regard to the technique should certainly account for the needs of people with obsessive tendencies, but should not be considered to be counter-productive.
Best wishes in your studies. I hope that you can derive solutions that will bring useful results to yourselve and to others.
Kenneth Tingey

I've resisted commenting much on Dehlin's material even though DeAnn who originated this thread is a dear friend. An old poster here I very much respect, SLDrone--a former mission president--laid into Dehlin for "fence sitting," and I'm afraid I'm with him. Here are some areas of "system theory" and personality types/disorders that I believe contribute to the dynamics. I come from an "addictions" background (with a thorough understanding of how the shame-based dynamics--à la John Bradshaw--contribute to the patterns we see, both in individual lives and in the larger "social organizations").

There is much to be explored in terms of the impact of narcissistic/codependent interplay (see Timmen Cermak as one authority), but I'm not inclined to do any more of the "heavy lifting" at this point. My understandings have served me well in recognizing Brigham Young's "pscychopathology" (easy for me to do because as a "technical Nevermo" I never had to deal with the problematic intrusion of Young as a "divinely called voice of the Almighty"). But I prefer to use that in writing authentic history rather than offering up any larger "philosophical treatise" that attempts to extract from such a base. The "data mines" are too vast and possibly too prone to "subjective interpretation," IMHO. And of course it is a deadly insult to scientists to suggest that politics always forms a huge role in the formation of consensus.

Unfortunately, the "Fall of Freud" (which only occurred in the last 30 years or so) meant that much of the "powerful clinical impressions" that were ammassed have been disregarded for now.

And to bring this back to my original suggestion, a very powerful factor that "dictates the political direction" rests within the forces of "intellectual intertia" that bring "sexy" and "appealing" interpretations up to the surface, thus "rewarding the salesmen for their glibness" rather than the "authentic plodders" who do the real work.

Everyone loves a race horse; few love plow horses, particularly if they're not Clydesdales.

Cermak points to the initial "chemistry" that operates, and the fact is that "power-oriented sociopathic sorts" have "radar" for both others of their ken as well as those whose labors they can exploit. Sociopaths are actually more adept at "exploiting ethics" than most honest folks, and our system currently rewards them disproportionately.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 05:52PM by SL Cabbie.

I am not a psychologist, but this stikes me as nonsense. There should be a psychological "pathology" that applies to psychologists who insist that behind every behaviorial problem, or mental tramua, there is a "disorder" that can be abstracted, labeled and introduced into the curriculum of Psychology departments as yet another identified "pathology" deserving of prescribed, and no doubt controversial, treatment.

Consider:

"Scrupulosity symptoms typically involve obsessing over disturbing thoughts that violate one’s religious or moral standards. Individuals may become disabled or depressed at their inability to stop these obsessions. Behavioral and mental compulsions can manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including excessive guilt, confession and assurance-seeking from religious leaders, acts of self-sacrifice, excessive praying and excessive rumination, according to the International OCD Foundation."

"Today, the primary treatment for scrupulosity is Exposure and Response Prevention, which involves individuals being introduced repeatedly to their obsessions in an effort to learn to no longer fear them. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is a departure from this practice. Instead, it focuses on helping people accept their thoughts and move past them."

Comment:

Becoming "depressed" by obsessing over a repressive religious dogma is a natural consequence of taking such a dogma seriously. If one passionately believes in God, and further passionately believes that he or she falls short of God's expectations, that person will likely become depressed, with resulting behavior to some degree. One does not need a fancy name for such a pathology. The problem is simply the mental connection to a religious dogma that is oppressive when taken seriously and literally, as often specifically taught by the underlying religious institution. The answer is to sever that connection--not to "help people accept their thoughts and move past them."

The approach highlighted in the linked article appears to me to be specifically designed to protect the underlying religious doctrine, and perhaps specifically Mormonism (Utah State?), while "blaming" the pathology on the natural mental state of the victim of such religious dogma, by suggesting they are somehow deficient mentally; i.e. that they need therapy that preserves their religious views while allowing them to "handle it."

Mormonism, for example, causes depression in many who take its doctrines seriously; partularly as related to God's expectations regarding daily life and faith. Approaching the problem by "treating" the mental state, while leaving the root cause unaddressed, is, in my view, professionally disingenuous. As long as the belief system remains, the problem will likely resurface. The answer, it seems to me, is deprogaming. The victim must be shown that the underlying religious dogma is both oppressive and false. If this destroys the underlying belief system, so be it.