I remember that a few years ago, a young girl in the ward suddenly act in stange way and it's not her usual self. From my point of view, it looks like a medical condition, maybe a mental illness situation that needs immediate medical treatment. However, some people close to her prefer to think in their superstitious way:

Her TBM mom: My daughter has so many callings and she works so hard for the Lord. That's why the Opposition wants to destroy her.

The stake Patriarch who is in the same ward: That young girl has some friends from Arab countries and they might have done something bad (malediction) or put a curse on her.

Few weeks later, she finally was sent to the hospital because the situation really got worse. The diagnosis is bipolar with psychosis symptoms. She was on her manic episode with hallucinations. The treatment went well and she seems fine months later.

I just hate people who delay the medical consultation and treatment based on their superstitious believe. Apparently, many Mormons give wrong medical advice based on their believe too. Also, they prefer superstitious explanation...

Maybe she was just seeing ancestors pointing the way to the mental health clinic...

Yes, religion has always gotten in the way of mental health treatment. Which was why the trial of Brian David Mitchell for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart was negotiated ever so carefully by the powerful Mormon Church. They had to be sure the proper defenses were used that did not cast aspersion on people who hear voices. I mean, implying that auditory and visual hallucinations are signs of being crazy, why--people might think Joseph Smith was crazy.

Maybe an egomaniac...or a sexual addict...and we all know he was nothing of the kind, just a flawed-but-honest farmboy with flaws --and the Lord chose him anyway just to show us that we are acceptable with all our flaws (lying, cheating, counterfeiting, being unfaithful, tricking friends into going on missions and then "marrying" their wives, threatening fourteen year olds in order to have under-age sex....).

Why it makes the average Mormon feel a lot better about his sins...and that just shows you what a loving god the Mormons worship.

Anagrammy

I was with TBM DD when a close, mutual friend was having a 'psychic moment', not in touch with reality AT ALL: my DD & DSOL kept repeatedly asking her if she wanted a PH blessing.... without any response.... over a period of about 15 minutes, I pointed out that friend wasn't responding, much less giving permission/asking for a blessing.


I was the only one in the room who knew what was happening...

My husband has 2 close relatives that are as crazy as a loon...and I am not kidding. They prefer to treat themselves with quack vitamins etc and they keep getting worse and worse. One is severely paranoid. I am beginning to think that Mormons have a LOT of mental illnesses...maybe it's all that inbreeding combined with the whackyness of their cult? We had a Mormon friend for a while who actually "saw dead people"...just like that movie. I think this person ended up in an assylum though.

had a SIL say the the same thing about another SIL who has bipolar. Some nonsense about how "some people are just more sensitive to the spirit world and can hear voices from the other side".

I have depression and OCD. My mothers believes that it is the cloud of Satan however.

I have ocd too. My mother told me it was a punishment from god because i wasn't going to church. Funny, tho, it was the ocd that kept me from going to church

My lifelong, chronic depression is totally hereditary.
Yet my tbm family insists
it "afflicts" me because I am
" allowing Satan to discourage" me.
What the hellll????
They have said for years,
"just pray for the lord to heal you"
And everything will come up roses.
Are you f*cking kidding me???
Are we still in the dark ages??
I have brothers that are doctors.
I just can't.....
The morg is such a vipers nest of bullshiit.
Ugh,
I've got to get some sleep,
I'm totally on a morgdom bashing spree.
This isn't really me,
I'm just so furious right about now....
That is all...

I can see why having OCD would cause someone not to go to church, especially now that every member is a janitor. The unsanitary bathrooms are a very good reason to avoid the Mormon church in my opinion, and I don't even have OCD.

Ooh... my fiance has OCD (specifically violent-intrusive thoughts) and his mother believes in demonds. For example, he was not allowed to watch pokemon growing up because a pastor taught her that the swirl in the pokemons eyes when they passed out were hypnotizing their children. She still believes it to this day! Nut job... Anyway, when he started showing signs of OCD, she told him that a demon was attached to his video games and making him think this way, so HE THREW ALL OF HIS VIDEO GAMES AWAY. Video games is his passion, so it left him with nothing to do but sit on the couch all day and let the violent thoughts consum him. I finally said enough was enough, and we did extensive research and therapy together and found that giving up his normal activites was giving in to what the OCD wanted. He had multiple panic attacks a day, it got really scary. But no... his mom wanted him to stop playing his "demonic" video games, so she took advantage of his sickness and ran with it! bitch. She kicked him out soon after because I disagreed with her, and my fiance agreed with me. I took him in after that. Since then, he has been on medication and doing very well. I cant believe that religious people think it is perfectly ok to diagnose someone like that. This needs to stop.

The Mormon views on mental illness has led me to conclude that people in the cult have either intelligence (thus making them canidates for apostacy), a mental illness (or the first two combined), or severe stupidity (practically a requirement for a leadership position).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 10:27PM by hellrazor.

I took a few classes in psychology. Just enough to make me a dangerous arm chair observer.

The untreated people i've seen in the mormon church is amazing to me. They have a major phobia about getting real help with mental issues. They don't want those dr.'s interfering with the holy ghost.

I knew one lady(rs pres.) who worked for a psychiatrist. She talked in that little girl voice. She made her husband move into the basement when he retired because he didn't live the gospel like she wanted him to. Her daughter, who was a victim of a gang rape at Ricks, didn't want anything to do with the church. And her son whom she had slated as apostle material got a divorce. She hated her family for not living up to her Mormon expectations. She would tell anyone who would listen all about her evil family who had ruined her dream of eternal salvation. She even convinced the sp. (crazy in his own right) to get up in stake conference and anonymously rake her husband over the coals for not being righteous enough. Ok, who is the sick one in this family?

Sure, men find a slightly higher pitched voice attractive. However, when it's too extreme, it's annoying.

A quick search shows that there are several reasons women do that. I have yet to find any that are positive.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum7jul07,0,7903770.column

I posted on another thread about how a neighborhood Mormon insisted that my brother was possessed because he was drunk.

The foul smell, slurred speech, and sloppy motor skills, accompanied by a loud, "F*ck you!" right before puking. It can only mean a young man is possessed.

I think belief in wacky ideas makes people do some really stupid things.

nite!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 10:36PM by mindlight.

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."

Thomas Szasz

I've posted elsewhere about Ex's behavioral addictions and psychiatric problems and how all the Church leaders and counselors saw it as an exclusively spiritual problem.

I've also seen members and leaders shun and punish individuals suffering from bipolar disorder and/or depression because they "didn't have enough faith" for God to cure them, they must not have paid their tithing or read their Scriptures daily, or maybe they had an unrepentant sin lurking in their closets. Maybe they weren't valiant in the pre-existence. Maybe God was trying to teach them something, or maybe it was a lesson for those around them.

It used to make me so angry when I heard Mormons declare that Brother or Sister X was "just being tested" by the Lard and if they were faithful enough, then all their issues would just go away -- no need for medications or therapy.

The members (and often leaders) seem to not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine psychiatric disorder caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain. Instead, they find a religious reason to blame the person suffering from the disorder -- a throwback to the Middle Ages or even farther.

Yes, this exactly.

I have heard bishops and SP members get up in F&T and bear testimony to the "fact" that there is no such thing as mental illness! Either it's from Satan and the person is just too weak and susceptible to rise above it, or it's God's punishment for lack of faith/righteous behavior/tithing.

No need for meds -- just live the gospel, have faith, and pay your tithing! Depression doesn't really exist and can be cured by ramping up your service and your positive attitude.

Blech!

When I found out my boyfriend/future husband is gay some 29 years ago--they didn't even send me to a therapist. They sent my ex of course to an lds ss therapist who was supposed to help him change--but not me. They told me that it was satan working on me because I was embarking on such a difficult journey and he was trying to make me fail.

Nothing to do with a mental breakdown from what they were putting me through--trying to understand the gay issues--telling me he was damned if he didn't CHANGE, telling me it was my job to save him, telling me he was a "monster"--

To think of what I suffered through because of their stupidity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 08:37AM by cl2.

My husband's TBM ex-wife was diagnosed as bipolar when they were married. However, I'm pretty sure her issues stem from borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. The meds she took never worked and her behavior is pretty classic. I think a couple of her kids have the same issues.

My super-TBM father in law told me that his ancestors used to keep him a wake at night because he wasn't being diligent enough in doing their temple work. So he would spend every night poring over genealogy. Now he can't ever sleep and has developed restless legs syndrome. Connection?

Most every woman I've met is either on sleeping pills, anti-depressants, or medicine for "headaches". Although the men will never talk about their meds, I'll hear whispers of the wives about their husband's meds: Most of the time, it's Aderall for the men.

My daughter was brainwashed by her first boyfriend beginning at age 16. Now at age 25, he has moved her to Utah and family has little to no contact with her. He does not permit. I offered to send her a plane ticket to visit but she said not without him. All she talks about is the church and giving or her illnesses that seem to be made up. Her mother in law introduced her to percocet when she was 17, unknown to me, so she takes that and anti depressants. She suffers anxiety and cant work anymore at wal mart. This is such a sham. She does not think on her own. She shuns her family. She thinks we are evil. She did not talk to me for years until she got sealed, whatever that really is. Once she did confide in me that she was not prepared for the sealing. They want to save my mother who has been dead since 2001. The husband has her conviced to serve and expect little, and that they are better than the rest of us sinners. It is very sad to have a daughter join a cult such as this.

OK, the devil is still making me do it. This topic crazily raises its bobblehead on this board now and then, so here we go--again.

In a previous thread, RfM poster “Outcast” (wasn't Lucifer an outcast?) complains that I have labeled “believers as suffering from mental illness.” This, “Outcast” declares in a deeply wounded voice, is a charge that he/she asserts “crosses the line beyond 'challenging beliefs” (“Re: So, it's OK to kick around Mormons who believe in Elohim but not OK to apply the same boot to the seat of believers in the non-Mormon Xtian god?,” posted by “Outcast,” 2 June 2012, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,518717,519270#msg-519270).

In response to out-of-sorts “Outcast,” RfM poster “jacob” notes:

"From reading the posts that you are referring to I would say that you are generalizing. I think that imaginary friends doesn't have to equate to mental illness, although I had one as a kid and I consider myself sick. I don't think that Benson has ever said that every believer is also mentally ill, I think he says that belief in imaginary friends is a sign of mental illness” (“From reading the posts that you are referring to I would say that you are generalizing,” posted by “jacob,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 2 June 2012, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,518717,519532#msg-519532).

For “Outcast's” benefit (since “Outcast” is the one who has chosen to bring up this subject again), I would add that, yes, there are religious beliefs which arguably are indicators of mental illness. Indeed, certain religious beliefs are, in my opinion, simply crazy, and demonstrably craziness-producing.

For RfMers here who may have not followed this lively debate over time, “resurrected” for review (pardon the supernatural term) below is an edited version of the original thread regarding the subject of religion and its relationship to mental illness:

Mormonism, Mental Illness and Other Similarly-Rooted Religious Manifestations of Dysfunction and Disorder

--Observing the Disturbing: Mormonism is a Form of Mental Illness, As Is Its Sibling, Christianity

Both are in the business of selling sin, submission and self-hate. Yet, there are some defenders of the faith who appear to be in denial, meaning in denying that religious belief can clearly represent a classic form of debilitating and destructive mental illness. For example, in a recent, now-closed thread, RfM poster "summer" asserted that Mormonism is hobbled with mental dysfunctionalities, while arguing simultaneously that Christianity deserves to be cut a break: " . . . Christianity has evolved, and is still evolving to keep up with the times. Mormonism is pretty far behind the curve. Mormonism has also institutionalized dysfunctional, controlling, and psychologically unhealthy behavior" ("Re: Mainstream Christianity believes in free agency?," by "summer," posted on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,351854,352156#msg-352156).

One will get no argument here that when it comes to cultivating good mental health, Mormonism is definitely "behind the curve." But one will get deserved push-back if one insists that its sibling, Christianity, somehow isn't.

Before proceeding further, let it be noted that there is a definite Mormon-Christian connection--although not the one Mormonism's propagandizing proponents would have the gullible believe. Perceptive observers of the “religious belief-as-mental illness” proposition are encouraged to compare reported findings on dysfunctional Christianity with their own mentally-disturbing experiences in Mormonism. The similarities are striking, sobering and, to use an especially appropriate term here, “sickening.” To appreciate that fact as one reads further, simply replace the words “Christian,” “the Christian Church,” and “religion” with the words “Mormon,” “the Mormon Church” and “Mormonism.” Those parallels will become manifestly evident.

--The Religion Belief/Mental Illness Connection

Rather than attempt on my own to persuade “summer” and other like-minded RfM posters that religious belief (including the weed-infested Mormon garden variety) is a form of mental illness, I'll instead refer interested readers to the observations and findings of others--both in and out of the Christian realm of belief--on the subject of both Christianity's manifest dysfunctionalities and harmful effects.

One highly-regarded critic in this arena is Wendell W. Watters, M.D., professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Watters is the author of the book, “Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness, and Christian God-Talk” (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992).. By way of professional credentials, Watters is a trained psychoanalyst who spent seven years in that area and 25 years as a practicing psychiatrist. He credits working with his patients has having led him “to the conclusions I have reached about the hitherto unrecognized role of Christianity in people's lives,” adding that it “became evident that in the social woodwork of the Western world, the cross of Jesus has been carved deeply over the past two thousand years and that even people who [have] never darkened a church door [have been] strongly affected by many teachings of Christianity, often without knowing it.” As to his own personal background, Watters does not come to religion ignorantly, noting that his “early upbringing was in the Anglican (Episcopalian) faith,” with “many of the messages emanating from that institution still reverberat[ing] at some level of my being” (Introduction, pp. 11-12). But Watters is a seasoned--and reasoned--foe of religious belief, having concluded that it is a pernicious, mind-hampering form of mental disease.. Indeed, his book banners the warning across the top of its front cover: “Christianity May Be Hazardous to Your Health!”

Another experienced author and critic is Leo Booth who, as vicar of St. George Episcopal Church in Hawthorne, California, authored the book, "When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse" (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1991). Booth describes himself this way: "My name is Leo. I'm an alcoholic. A co-dependent. A religious addict and religious abuser. I'm a recovering priest."

--The Challenge in Escaping the Prison of Mentally Destabilizing Religious Belief

In making his case for religion as a perceivable and preventable mental illness, Watters minces no words. He dedicates his book “to all those who choose to think for themselves on existential issues, no matter how lonely and painful that may be,” and quotes freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll on the facing page: “If people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish--if a little more enlightened, religion would perish.” (pre-Introduction, pp. 4-5) Watters' book starkly warns the reader of what they are about to encounter as they run up against his bold arguments on the devastating effects of religion on the human psyche: “Churchgoers who are committed believers may be offended by this book, if, indeed, they read it all,” he acknowledges. And no wonder. Watters forthrightly announces that his thesis, “based on many years of clinical experiences, is that, despite the so-called comfort of the Christian message, Christian doctrine and teachings, deeply engrained as they are in Western society, are incompatible with the development and maintenance of sound health, and not only 'mental' health, in human beings.”

Watters certainly has work cut out for him in cutting through religion belief's mental morass, observing that“[t]raditional believers tend to cling to their religious systems with a tenacity not demonstrated in the area of scientific research. Addictive belief systems become so much a part of the identity of some people, that it is often impossible to determine where the individual being stops and the religious, group-think starts.” However, to the searching and open-minded, Watters offers hope and encouragement: “People who are atheists, freethinkers, or humanists (who comprise approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's population) may find much to help them in their never-ending quest for genuine meaning in their lives.” Watters informs the reader that, ultimately, he has “written for those who, while nominally religious, are increasingly dissatisfied with the theist orientation to life and, in spite of the guilt they are encouraged to feel for doubting, are prepared to explore the humanistic alternative”(Introduction, pp. 9, 12).

That sounds like a lot of visitors to this “Recovery from Mormonism' site.

--Religious Belief as a Dangerously Addictive Drug

Watters likens religion to a habit-forming narcotic, describing it as “an existential soother to which individuals, having been born atheists, are encouraged to become addicted as they grow up in our theistic society.” In this regard, he declares that “Christianity is the pacifier PAR EXCELLENCE, claiming to alleviate cosmological fear--fears largely of its own creation--and to relieve guilt that has been stimulated in the believer by Christian god-talk.” (original emphasis) Like pushers trying to entice their customers to inhale the “wonder drugs of deity” they peddle, Watters says that “[i]n order to sell their product, god-talking salesmen do everything possible to prevent the believer from growing up emotionally and psychologically, manipulating the greedy egocentric infant in us all with preposterous promises of eternal bliss in the hereafter.”

Watters might as well be talking to true-believing, saddled-by-their-faith Mormons who are convinced against all reason and evidence that their brand of mind-twisting religion is absolutely imperative for long-term happiness and survival: “In our addiction, we tend to lose sight of the price tag carried by most drugs, some higher than others. . . . Christians [substitute 'Mormons'] will find it difficult to entertain the notion that the tenets of their faith (one many claim to be as essential as food and air) have side effects that are deleterious to their health and that of their children. Simply put, Christian indoctrination is a form of mental and emotional abuse that can adversely affect bodily health in the same way a drug can.”

Watters' book explains the negative side effects of hallucinatory religion to those searching for healthy meaning and economic practicality in their existence:“ . . . [E]vidence that religion is not only irrelevant but actual harmful to human beings should be of interest, not only to other behavioral scientists, but to anyone who finds it difficult to live an unexamined life. . . . [T]he argument advanced [against habit-forming religion] should stir political decision makers, who complain about the high cost of health care even while continuing to subsided that very institution that may be actually making the public 'sick'” (ibid., pp. 9-10, 12).

As noted earlier, Watters isn't the only critic who finds religiosity both harmful and addictive. Author Leo Booth defines "religious addiction" as "using God, a religion or a belief system as a means both to escape or avoid painful feelings and to seek self-esteem. It involves adopting a rigid belief system that specifies only one right way, which you feel you must force onto others by means of guilt, shame, fear, brainwashing and elitism. Thus religious addiction nearly always results in the abuse of someone else in the name of your beliefs." Booth also describes religious addiction as "a hidden epidemic," in which "the concept of God . . . is used to create guilt, shame and, ultimately, self-hate."

Religious addicts, Booth explains, are driven by their "need to control, judge and proselytize," which he says "make abuse [of themselves and others] a virtual imperative." The driving force behind that imperative is "[t]he all-or-nothing mindset [and] the belief that sex is dirty, [along with] other symptoms [which] unite to build a wall of shame and fear around the spouses and children of religious addicts. When a religious addict's rage is couched in scripture, when it literally appears to be the wrath of God, the guilt and shame imbedded in the family go straight to the core. In this way, religious addiction destroys families as much as do other addictions."

In the end, Booth says, it amounts to "using God or religion as a fix. It is the ultimate form of co-dependency--feeling worthless in and of ourselves and looking outside ourselves for something or someone to tell us we are worthwhile. . . . It is using God, religion or a belief system as a weapon against ourselves or others. . . . [In reality, however, it is an] addiction [that] has very little to do with God or spirituality, just as food addiction and alcoholism have less to do with the substance involved than with the way in which they are abused. Religious addicts use the accessory items of religion--rituals, dogma and scriptural texts--to reinforce the dysfunctional message that all humans are evil, stupid or incapable of merit. Thus, far from enhancing spiritual development, religious addiction stunts or paralyzes spiritual growth . . . ."

Booth speaks of religious addiction as an obvious "mental disorder" in the same breath as he does "compulsive behavior and psychiatric disorders;" "drug addiction, eating disorders, co-dependency, sex and love addictions, gambling;" and "such psychiatric illnesses as depression, anxiety, paranoia and post-traumatic stress due to sexual and other physical and mental abuse." As with drug addiction, there are definite symptoms of religious addiction, which Booth lists as follows:

--"Inability to think, doubt or question information or authority.

--"Black-and-white, simplistic thinking.

--"Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough or aren't 'doing it right.'

--"Magical thinking that God will fix you.

--"Scrupulosity: rigid, obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics or guidelines.

--"Uncompromising, judgmental attitudes.

--"Compulsive praying, gong to church or crusades, quoting scripture.

--"Unrealistic financial contributions.

--"Believing that sex it dirty, that our bodies and physical pleasures are evil.

--"Compulsive over-eating or excessive fasting.

--"Conflict with science, medicine and education.

--"Progressive detachment from the real world, isolation, breakdown of relationships.

--"Psychosomatic illness: sleeplessness, back pains, headaches, hypertension.

--"Manipulating scriptures or texts, feeling chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God.

--"Trance-like state or religious high, wearing a glazed happy face.

--"Cries for help; mental, emotional, physical breakdown, hospitalization."

While a professed believer in God, Booth nonetheless is convinced that the most effective way to treat and recover from religious addiction is not through religion itself, but through personal spirituality. He defines "religion" as "being essentially a set of man-made principles about God, focusing on a teacher or prophet," which often contains "negative messages" that produce feelings of "alienation and and shame." Borrowing from Eric Fromm's "The Dogma of Christ," Booth explains the three-fold function of religion:

--"for all mankind, consolation for the privations exacted by life;

--"for the great majority [of humankind], encouragement to accept their class situation; and

--"for the dominant majority, relief from guilt feelings caused by the suffering of those they oppress."

Booth writes that these functions have historically been carried out by "[t]he controlling authority of the [Christian] clergy," who are tasked with "teaching and interpreting religion" in order to maintain abusive "social control" by "keep[ing] people in submission [and] fearful of error." He notes that "[t]his divinely appointed power group claims not only to speak for God but insists that it is also the only way to God. From cradle to grave, we are trained to look to someone else to tell us what to do, when to do it and what will happen if we don't." Booth explains that this power group "make[s] the rules and say[s] the rules are God's, so that questioning the teachers or teachings equals questioning God. Those rules, those messages have been, still are, often dysfunctional and abusive." And thus, he laments, "[s]o it is that people allow themselves to be abused in the name of God." By contrast, Booth defines "spirituality" as an individually-determined "process of becoming a positive and creative person" through "a search [for] a healthy spirituality that . . . enhance[s] our self esteem" and which leads to "the spiritual freedom of truth" (pp. 1-2, 13, 20-21, 23, 27, 30-31, 36, 38, 59, 92)

--The Case for Regarding Religious Belief as a Mental Disorder

From the cover of Watters' book, "Deadly Doctrine," on through its final pages, he lobs salvo after well-aimed salvo at the negative, ignorant and unhealthy impact of religion's “deadly doctrines“ on humankind. Starting at the beginning, he draws a bead on the mental backwardness that religion creates--and the social ills that it also produces: “Christianity's influence actually militates AGAINST human development in such vital areas as self-esteem, sexuality and social interactions. The tragic result of Christian conditioning is too often anti-social behavior, sexual dysfunction, poor psychological development, anxiety and even major psychiatric illness” (original emphasis). “Christian indoctrination,” Watters writes, “is not simply a problem affecting individuals or single families; the noxious effects of its teachings over nearly two millennia pervade society at large, even those who are not Christians, and in ways that seriously undermine human welfare and the quality of life. Christianity's aggressive pronatalist policies have encouraged large families despite parents' ability to cope either emotionally or financially. With this the Christian church has formulated rigid sexual roles, forbidding all practices not leading directly to conception. By actually promoting sexual ignorance and irresponsibility, Christianity has allowed the proliferation of such social ills as rape, child molestation and pornography.”

Watters' book further argues that “[r]ecent research data in the field of psychology and religion . . . show that patients with rigid belief systems manifest greater racism and less open-mindedness and flexibility than those with a more questing scientific attitude toward life. Biological predispositions toward severe depression and schizophrenia may also be aggravated by Christianity's promotion of an extreme body-soul dualism, self-denial and narrowly defined social roles.” Watters' work notes how reluctantly “the Christian church” has come to grips (or “rectification”) with the mental illness-producing nature of some of its most notorious traditional and officially-peddled doctrines on such matters as “slavery, democracy, psychoanalysis, sexuality and reproduction, and religious toleration.” (from flyleaf, original emphasis)

Booth agrees that all is not well in the world of religious belief. He points out, for instance, that "the messages and teachings concerning the concept of original sin [which] offer the explanation that we were born bad and only by following God's rules can we overcome this inherent blight" is a manifestation of "the disease of religious addiction and abuse" which serves only to create "negative effects on self-esteem and spirituality" and which results in harming people "as individuals and as a society." He warns that "[t]eaching the concept of original sin--that people are born bad--and keeping the focus on avoiding error, which religious addicts equate with sin, makes people slaves to following rules . . . . Promising heavenly rewards as compensation for suffering and deprivation in this life conditions people to escape into magical thinking and denial of reality. Teaching that acceptance of Christ (or any other prophet/teacher) is the way to absolve sins lead to rationalization and the inability to take responsibility for one's actions."

"This," Booth says, "is the foundation of religious addiction and abuse: We are bad and God will magically fix us if we do what someone tells us is God's wish." It is, he writes, "the conflicts and sources of guilt and shame within Christianity [that] have left us vulnerable to victimization by those who would abuse the power we give them." Booth observes that religious addicts "all share a common experience: in the name of God, they have been made to feel fear, guilt, shame and anger. In the name of God, they have emotionally, physically or sexually abused themselves or others. In the name of God, they have brought themselves or others to the edge of financial ruin. In the name of God, they have judged and condemned themselves or others as worthless or inherently bad." Booth notes that "[much] shame comes from dysfunctional religious beliefs" and that "[d]ysfunctional religious messages about sin, about sexuality, about God as an angry judge or Cosmic Fixer have created these toxic beliefs--from which people have tried to escape by means of addictive practices" (pp. 16, pp. 25, 31, 36).

--Treating the Mental Illness of Religious Belief

Watters, in "Deadly Doctrine," argues for rapid, intense and focused remedial action to counter the perverse, pervasive and poisonous role of Christian dogma in perpetuating a range of debilitating mental illness: “In the face of so much human suffering resulting from Christian doctrine, it is imperative that health care professionals, recognizing the Christian belief system as an addictive disease, develop a religious status examination to help evaluate how notions about life derived from Christian god-talk compromise individuals' healthy functioning. In failing to to determine the role of oppressive religious beliefs in mental illness, physicians and other health care workers actually promote Christianity's continued stranglehold on human happiness and self-fulfillment.”

Watters' work lays out the aggressive course that must be taken to effectively counter the mental disease of religious dependence--a course that Mormons in their various stages of recovery could also arguably benefit from: “If we are to free ourselves from the destructive end toward which god-talk is leading us, we need to cure ourselves of our addiction to religious doctrines that teach us to deny self-responsibility in all areas of our lives. . . . Only with proper education comes the promise of RECOVERY that will restore the primacy of reason and critical thinking” (from the fly leafs, emphasis added).

“Recovery.” As in “Recovery from Mormonism”--and in that rehabilitation process, as in recovery from Mormonism's contributing cousins in cranium-crushing crime.

--The Role of Religious Belief in the Development of Significant Psychiatric Disorders

Watters, in his chapter entitled “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” cites the work of behavioral scientist Albert Ellis in making the case that “there exists an irrefutable causal relationship between religion and emotional and mental illness.” Noting that Ellis “identifies 11 characteristics of religiosity that run counter to the development of sound mental health,” Watters offers the following summary of findings: “Adherence to a religious view of life, in contrast to the scientific humanist view, discourages self-acceptance, self-interest and self-directedness, which are all necessary for sound mental and emotional functioning.” Watters presents Ellis's contention that “religion tends to make healthy human-to-human relationships difficult, and encourages intolerance of others and inflexibility." Ellis asserts that “[s]eriously religious people have difficulty accepting the real world and trying to change what can be changed for the better; especially problematical is the acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Religious people make use of scientific thinking, but only until it comes too close to areas that threaten their religious beliefs. They are also prone to fanatical commitments, in contrast to the less fanatical but nonetheless passionate commitments of emotionally healthy non-believers. Generally speaking, emotionally stable people are more inclined to be risk-takers in the sense, first of all, of recognizing what they want and then taking appropriate risks to pursue their personal goals. Deeply religious people, by contrast, are more inclined to feel too guilty to pursue their goals, since self-sacrifice is such an important component of their world view” (pp. 135-36).

Below are explicit examples of religious belief manifestations of mental illness. Watters notes that “Christian doctrine and teachings are incompatible with many of the components of sound mental health . . . . ” Sound mental heath, he says, includes the following indicators:

--”self-esteem

--”self-actualization and mastery

--”good communication skills

--”related individuation and the establishment of supportive human networks,” and

--”development of healthy sexuality and reproductive responsibility”

Watters then observes that in family situations “[w]hen the couple are not only partners to each other but parents to children in a family, the destructive effects of Christian doctrine combine to compromise the healthy development of yet another generation.” Watters writes that women, in particular, have been trapped in a mentally-battered world of their own where religious dogma denies their personal identity and right of choice: “Until recently, women in our society were not encouraged to look upon themselves as autonomous individuals capable of developing their human potential in whatever direction it took them. Even their identities were submerged in that of their husbands. . . . Nonetheless, women were somehow expected to be effective catalysts in the self-actualization of their own children. But how can a woman be expected to develop the adaptive potential of her own biological offspring if her own adaptive potential has been compromised, not only by the gender role she has been obliged to play but by many other teachings inherent in our Christian doctrine?"

Those destructive teachings include the following:

“Consider the tendency of Christian indoctrination to produce self-loathing, guilt over pleasure, the inability to be in charge of ones won sexuality and reproductivity and a built-in orientation away from human support systems and toward the divine. Could anyone design a more inefficient training program for parents? The fact that most mothers in our society do not raise schizophrenic children has more to do with the innate humanity and good judgment of most women and their ability to defend themselves against the more destructive effects of Christian doctrine, even when they may repeat that doctrine like parrots Sunday after Sunday” (pp. 140-41).

In the authoritarian scheme of sex roles still largely imposed in the Christian church, Watters writes that the saving grace, so to speak, of protecting church-raised children from church-created psychiatric illness is the “female characteristic that comes to the rescue;”--namely, “the mother is expected to be 'emotional' and allowed to be demonstrably affectionate,” while in the history of Western religious culture, “that has long been denied to men. . . . Coupled with this is the traditional pressure on the male to control his feelings as much as possible, . . . [and] never to attempt to express them verbally and directly. . . . The longing for contact with a male God may be a reflection of this longing for contact with an earthly father denied to most people in the Western world because of the roles males have been and still are encouraged to play.”

Such factors, Watters argues, play their own role in the toxic relationship between “Christian doctrine and mental health,” where children are mentally imprisoned and developmentally stunted in a religiously dysfunctional and destructive environment. He notes, for instance, how “Christian teachings [demonstrably] interfere with the process of 'related individuation,' [in] that a child who is under-individuated shows poor ego boundaries and runs the risk of remaining fused with or absorbed into the stronger organism, the parent. In order for this to be the case, the parent, whose individuation has also been severely compromised, would have to remain over-involved in the life of the child.” Watters notes that “[e]xcess criticism and hostility toward the growing child also interfere with healthy adaptive growth, making it difficult for the child to feel good about himself. Negative attitudes toward the self . . . are actually favored by Christian doctrine [and] lead naturally to negative attitudes toward others" (ibid., pp. 140-41, 145-46).

Booth likewise illustrates the plight of women in double-minded, schizophrenic-like religious belief systems, where they "are particularly vulnerable to . . . behaviors [of religious addiction] because of the secondary roles into which they are cast. For women with a Christian background, religion has given a definite message concerning their conduct:"'. . . [W]omen should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet women will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty' (1 Tim. 2:9-15). 'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands' (Eph. 5:22-25).' "These verses," writes Booth, "have been the basis for the religious abuse of the female population. They help make women susceptible to becoming both addicted and abused. When religion is used as an external means of identity, of finding self-respect, these verses can become the standard against which women measure themselves. The woman who has been abused, who is seeking to purify herself or attain perfection, has only to adhere to this code to assure herself of salvation. This is how women use religion as a fantasy means to compensate for their secondary status--by becoming exemplary models of that role. At the same time, these texts set up a rebelliousness, an internal conflict that causes some female religious addicts to become abusive and sexually conflicted. . . . Just as often, the same verses . . . are used to justify sexual abusiveness [by men]. The idea of women as examples of submissive purity and sanctity sets up powerful conflicts in men, which have contributed to sexual double standards and abuse. Even today, the myth persists that there are sexual acts that men should not perform with wives, but rather mistresses. Another myth holds that women should remain sexually inexperienced, but that men should know what they're doing. . . . The conflicts produced by such mixed messages no doubt add to the range and sense of guilt felt by many religious addicts" (pp. 108-09).

*Religious Belief and the Inability to Forge Meaningful Human Inter-Connectedness

A “major affective disorder” that Watters causally associates with Christian doctrine and liturgy is the actual “discourag[ment] [of] the kind of human-to-human communication and negotiation skills that make for genuinely supportive human networks, the phenomenon of 'Christian fellowship' notwithstanding.” As an example, he points to “[the] beesch[ing] of [lonely] listeners to 'come unto Jesus Christ,' thereby reinforcing the barriers that separate lonely people from their fellow human beings, [which are the] very barriers that Christianity has helped to erect” (p. 147).

*Religious Belief and Depression

Another major mental illness that Watters blames on Christian contribution is depression: “If an individual has grown up with poor human relationship skills, his or her human support systems may not be very effective, in which case full-blown clinical depression may emerge. This illness may show varying degrees of intensity and require a variety of psychiatric treatments; when it reaches the degree of intensity requiring mood-altering medication, we consider that we are then dealing with a major affective illness. The main classification system used today is BIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood disturbance is alternately one of mania and depression) and UNIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood is only one of depression).” (original emphasis) Watters blames Christianity for contributing to the affective illness of depression through a combination of “personality factors, early maternal deprivation, loss of human supports associated with incomplete mourning, stressful life events that exceed the coping capacity of the individual and learned helplessness,” together with “low self-esteem, strong super-ego, clinging and dependent interpersonal relations, and limited capacity for mature and enduring object relations.” Watters notes that all of these “are inevitable products of the Christian belief system, one that preaches self-abasement as a means of ingratiating oneself with the deity, that discourages ego growth and inner-directedness and promotes super-ego growth and outer-directedness with its reliance on external authority. The dependent, clinging relationship Christians are encouraged to develop with their God quite naturally becomes the paradigm for their relationships with each other in the absence of any training in how to make adult human relationships work.” (pp. 147-48)

*Religious Belief and Maternal Deprivation

“Maternal deprivation,” as a contributing factor to mental illness generated by unhealthy religious influence, is, as Watters writes, “largely a direct result of the authoritarian pronatalist sex code operating in our society, which promotes the idea that motherhood is the only legitimate role for real women and which has encouraged women, even those who genuinely wanted children, to have more of them then they can care for emotionally or economically. Paul stated the childbirth was the only way in which women could be forgiven for the sins of Eve. By continuing to make it difficult for women and men to become knowledgeable about their sexuality, by continuing to resist the establishment of contraceptive and abortion services, many Christian denominations continue to contribute to unwanted pregnancies and maternal deprivation.” Watters emphasizes that “[b]eing a competent mother is an adult activity and women can give OF themselves TO their babies only if they have been able to give TO themselves without feeling guilt. A Christian society that promotes suffering as good for the soul, while it discourages adult self-esteem and human inter-dependency, is hardly an environment for encouraging women to develop their full potential as human beings; and if a woman has been socialized to ignore her own needs, how can she be expected to be sensitive to the needs of her infant?” (pp. 148-49, original emphasis)

*Religious Belief and Unhealthy Mourning

In addition, Watters writes that the Christian practice of mourning losses is likewise conducive to the development of a depressive mental state: “. . . [I]t is not the loss itself that appears to play an etiological role in depression but rather the way the loss is mourned. Christian attitudes toward death discourage healthy mourning in many ways, starting with the destructive impact of the resurrection myth. Since Jesus promised Christians a life after death, much of the message of 'comfort' delivered at Christian funerals is geared to a denial of the very existence and permanence of death. . . . The essential Christian denial of death is illustrated in the famous hymn, 'Abide with Me;' here we find the words 'Where is death's sting? Where, grave, the victory? I triumph still, if thou abide with me.'" By contrast, Watters notes that “[h]ealthy mourning occurs when the bereaved is able to experience and express the full range of painful feelings mobilized by the loss of a loved one.” Unfortunately, as he reports, “Christian doctrine and practice encourage people to deal with such emergency emotions by beseeching 'God' to take the painful feelings away, thereby making it difficult for human supports to sustain the mourner through these difficult times. It is often said at Christian funerals that 'the widow was a real brick,' or 'he held up so well during it all.' Denial of emergency emotions of all kinds is really encouraged in Christianity.” (p. 149)

*CONTINUED . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 05:37PM by steve benson.

*Religious Belief and the Inability to Cope with Anxiety

Watters points to religious belief as contributing to debilitating mental illness in failing to offer healthy, self-aware mechanisms for dealing with stressed-caused anxiety: “Christian doctrine and liturgy . . . discourage the development of adult coping behaviors and the human-to-human relationship skills that enable people to cope in an adaptive way with anxiety generated by stress.” As Watters notes, Christian teaching and practice require that “adaptational challenges associated with anxiety are not to be resolved by using ones human support system to help develop a higher level of coping skills. Such feelings should be suppressed or denied. One Christian psychologist, John A. Hammes, put it bluntly: 'Not only should needless anxiety be avoided. Other unhealthy emotional responses should be resisted This means avoiding anger, hate, jealousy, envy, bitterness, and depression . . . . For the Christian, however, indulgence in such moods indicates a lack of trust in divine providence.' If such denial is impossible, the anxious Christian is encouraged to regress to a dependent symbiotic state with the great anthropomorphized unknown and unknowable. A prayer in the Anglican prayer book titled, 'For Those in Anxiety,' teaches this message specifically. . . . [T]he prayer does not ask God to help the anxious and distressed to maximize their human support systems in order that they might bear their own burdens and learn and grow thereby. It says nothing about asking God to enlighten the anxious and distressed as to the sources of their suffering, and to enhance their problem-solving skills by tackling those problems that can be solved. It says nothing about asking God to help the anxious and distressed develop confidence in themselves; rather, it urges the supplicant not to make the effort, but rather to 'put our whole trust and confidence' in God” (pp. 61-62, 149).

Which leads to the next religion-exacerbated mental affliction.

*Religious Belief and Learned Helplessness

Watters compares and contrasts a healthy human-centered attitude toward individual self-confidence and ability, against the Christian lack of one: “It is . . . generally accepted that children who, from an early age, live in a human environment that encourages them to develop mastery of their intra- and inter-personal environments, as well as the physical environment, are likely to develop a sense of competence and ultimately sound mental health. They are the adults who are more likely to cope with loss by allowing the mourning process to go forward naturally and to adapt well to challenges and cope with stress by use of their human support systems. These individuals are less likely to become depressed, having grown up with a life-long sense of their own personal worth and competence, and an ability to trust in the human beings they cherish. By contrast, children who grow up influenced by Christian teachings develop a sense of powerlessness in the world, rather than a feeling of competence and mastery, together with an inability to trust in the human support systems around them. It is logical that such individuals are more likely to grow up with a tendency to develop 'clinical' depression when faced with loss or stress.

“Christian doctrine,” Watters summarizes, “promotes human helplessness by making it a virtue, indeed the 'sine qua non' of a good Christian life. Paul said, 'For when I am weak, then I am strong.' (2 Cor. 12:10) A perusal of a common Anglican hymn book today will convince one that this is not simply an outmoded notion pushed by Paul, but is one constantly reinforced: 'Stand up! Stand up for Jesus! Stand in his strength alone; the arm of flesh will fail you; you dare not trust your own;' and 'Jesus Savior, pilot me over life's tempestuous seas.' It is important to note that these lines explicitly discourage the development of personal mastery, warning that 'the arm of flesh will fail you.' They do not implore Jesus to help one find strength in oneself and human support systems to sail over 'life's tempestuous sea.' In order for a growing child not to be damaged by repeated exposure to such message, he would have to be blessed with a considerably high level of innate adaptive capacity and with a familial and social environment that was able to neutralize the destructive impact of these messages” (pp. 149-50).

*Religious Belief and Co-dependency

Booth defines "co-dependency" using terminology from Robert Subby's book, "Co-dependency: An Emerging Issue," as "an emotional, psychological and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an individual's prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive rules--rules which prevent the open expression of feeling as well as the direct discussion of personal and interpersonal problems." Booth explains that "[i]n religious co-dependency, the family members either take on the belief system that the addicts bring into the home or resign themselves to putting up with it, living in martyred victimhood. They may also rebel.”

Or, as Booth adds, they may simply involuntarily submit: "When the family members take on the addict's belief system, they rarely do so out of their own inner convictions. Children who are raised in this kind of religious environment seldom have an opportunity to question those beliefs, especially if they are raised in a home in which doubting and questioning are punishable sins. Because of religious teachings about women being submissive to men, wives usually follow their husband's lead. Either they are not aware of their own needs and beliefs or they set them aside to follow those of the addict. They become as judgmental, dogmatic, rigid, intolerant and perfectionistic as their addicted spouse or parents. As a result, they have their own struggles with issues of control, guilt, shame, inadequacy and fear. Religious co-dependents are extremely out of touch with their emotions; they have been conditioned not to think for themselves. They live very narrow, restrictive lives, avoiding people who do not meet their strict standards. The families who resign themselves to living with religious addicts are walking pressure-cookers ready to explode. Resentment, fear, rage and anxiety seethe beneath the surface because putting up with the status quo set by the addict entails not rocking the boat. They may attend the same church, swallowing feelings of hypocrisy and anger. Some try to adopt an approach that says do what you want but leave me out of it--co-existing in stoic martyrdom. . . . In resigning themselves to the addict's behavior, they become victims, feeling helpless, powerless, confused and frustrated. They may alter between arguing with the religious addict or tuning out by avoiding or ignoring the addict's behavior. The passive-aggressiveness that comes with being a victim may manifest itself in the form of extra-marital affairs, hiding or hoarding money so the addict can't tithe it away or belittling the religious addict to family and friends. The families who rebel often have the hardest time. Spouses frequently find themselves pitted against a powerfully united church front. The dissenting spouse is portrayed as sinful and ungodly. Worse, when children are involved, they are often caught in a good parent/evil parent situation, creating great guilt and confusion."

The downward spiral of mental illness continues with, as Booth notes, "[d]ysfunction beget[ting] dysfunction.. The religious co-dependent spouse often ends up adopting unhealthy rules of care-taking which include:

--"Peace at any price.

--"Maintain the conspiracy of silence.

--"Never quit.

--"Never discuss feelings.

--"Try to appear normal."

The personal cost to all involved is horrific:

". . . [F]or the religiously addicted family, any failure, imperfection or scandal is seen as a disgrace to God, the church, the ministry or the preacher. The taboos against expression of feelings and the urgent need to look normal make the religiously enmeshed family a breeding ground for the secret addictions of anorexia, bulimia, sexual addictions, compulsive spending, gambling, workaholism. With these come the need for silence, never giving up, never discussing feelings and above all, peace at any price" (pp. 111-14, 120).

--Research Findings on How Religious Belief Contributes to Mental Illness

In his chapter on “Christianity and Mental Health: The Research Findings,” Watters cites an expansive project conducted by Daniel C. Batson and W. Larry Ventis, “The Religious Experience” (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1982). Its researchers made a detailed examination of 57 studies correlating “being religious” with characteristics of mental health, racial prejudice and concern for other people. Their conclusion, notes Watters, was that “the means [to an end] orientation to religion had “a rather pervasive negative relationship” to mental health REGARDLESS OF HOW MENTAL HEALTH IS CONCEIVED. “In other words," Watters writes, “people who are religious for short-term social rewards are not very mentally healthy when measured by [the following] characteristics: freedom from worry and guilt, personal competence and control, self-acceptance or self-actualization and open-mindedness and flexibility.”

By contrast, when reviewing “the end orientation to religion,” Watters reports that the two researchers found “it was not a personal competence but a blind reliance on the omniscience and omnipotence of the deity” that gave long-term religious people an increased sense of “personal competence and control” when compared to non-religious people. In other words, notes Watters, “[a]s the authors point[ed] out, the greater [finding of] 'personal competence and control' were based on reliance on God, not on oneself”--meaning, essentially, that it wasn't really personal at all. The definition for this attitude, Watters states, is religion-manufactured “smugness”: “[The] combination of apparent freedom from worry or guilt [as detected in the end orientation portion of the examination], combined with an apparent sense of personal competence that is really a reliance on God, coupled with a [lingering] lack of open-mindedness and flexibility is actually a definition of smugness, a quality especially characteristic of the 'born again' Christian.” Watters quotes Baston and Ventis' conclusion that “[t]he intrinsic end orientation [towards religion] leads to freedom from existential concerns and a sense of competence based on ones connectedness to the Almighty, but at the same time an inflexible bondage to beliefs. In contrast, the quest orientation [toward science and open-mindedness] leads to neither.” Watters explains the reason for the difference between the two approaches: “The social desirability factor most certainly operates here . . . Christians are not supposed to feel guilty if the guilt has been washed away by the blood of Jesus, so there is a marked tendency for Christians to deny guilt even when it is clearly operating in their lives and helping to shape their behavior. Many Christians lead restrictive, austere, pleasure-free lives, as a way of minimizing the opportunities for guilt to arise. The more religious the individual, the more guilt is denied, a finding that any sensitive psychotherapist will confirm. Hence Christians, when answering a questionnaire, are likely to show the same degree of denial that they demonstrate in the clinical situation. By contrast, people with a quest orientation to life have no such need to deny any guilt they may feel; it is more acceptable for them to be open and honest.”

The research confirmation, Watters announces, of Christians being guilt-laden underscores the fact that “[t]he price religious people have to pay for the existential nostrums offered by Christianity is to have a straitjacket placed on their human potential.” He continues: “Many Christians, especially those engaged in scientific pursuits, try to deny that this is the case; they even talk about science as being a gift from God to enable humans to conquer the earth and subdue it as the Bible instructs. Some Christians claim to be scientific about some areas of life, but even for them a truly scientific approach to the totality of human existence is impossible; it would be too painful emotionally for them to turn the telescopes and microscopes on the human need for a sustaining deity, and the strategies used by religious institutions to keep that need alive in human beings.”

Watters observes that the nature of these findings do not bode well for the overall mental health of religious believers: “The gist of all this is that being religious is quite definitely not associated with greater mental heath when compared to a scientific, questing approach to life. The latter approach's association with more 'worry and guilt' is probably traceable, in large part, to early Christian socialization and a lesser need to deny emergency emotions. But even if this is the case, surely this is a small price to pay for the great 'open-mindedness and flexibility' that characterizes the quest orientation.“ Watters highlights some of the project's other, particularly disturbing findings:

*The More Religious, the More Prejudiced

The Batson-Ventis examination found that, overall, devout Christians demonstrated a noticeable degree of racial prejudice. “Why,” asks Watters, “when Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, are Christians more intolerant of those who do not have the same skin color? . . . The question may be asked another way: Why are those who have grown beyond the need for the comfort of the Christian religion, or who were minimally exposed to it, more racially tolerant than those who are still believers? Is there something about the doctrine of the Christian church that tends to make people seek and find scapegoats? The answer to this question," Watters asserts, “is undoubtedly a resounding yes. An individual burdened with as much guilt as a Christian is encouraged to bear would, if he or she does not become completely psychotic, have to externalize some of the self-hatred which characterizes the true Christian. Scapegoats for that hatred have never been hard to find” (pp. 156-59, original emphasis).

*No Noticeable Difference in Concern for Others Among Religious Believers and Non-Believers

Watters notes that when studies have been conducted that are designed to filter for “socially desirable” answers (such as one finds in self-reporting questionnaires), “religious people were no more or less helpful than non-religious ones.” Moreover, from the several studies reviewed by Batson and Ventis, Watters reports that “it appears . . . that Christians can associate themselves with projects that give them a sense of being good Christians, when the helping is not on an interpersonal level and when they are not required to tailor their help to the real needs of a human situation. Otherwise," he observes, “Christians are no more helpful than non-religious people; indeed, if [one of the conducted studies] is measuring a real dimension, Christians are more insensitive since they tailor all their efforts to their need to ingratiate themselves with the deity. . . . “[As an indicator of this,] [i]n their book, 'The Long Dying of Baby Andrew,' Robert and Peggy Stinson described their experiences with the medical staff with whom they had contact during the tragic circumstances surrounding the birth and eventual death of their premature infant. It was their experience that non-Catholic doctors, especially non-Christian doctors, were more responsive to patients' concerns and feelings than were the strongly Catholic physicians, who insisted on following their own rigid religious program.”

Watters further reports on the telling results of a study patterned after the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan:

“Theology students were tested to see what determined whether or not they would stop on their way to class to help someone in obvious stress. It turned out that a religious orientation did not seem to determine their behavior. Rather, it was more a question of how rushed students were to get to their class. However, among those who did stop, there was a distinct difference in one aspect of helping behavior between those with [religion as] an end orientation and those with the [scientific] quest orientation. The person taking the role of a sick derelict lying in the doorway of a building was instructed to insist that he could manage on his own and did not need the student to do anything . Those with a quest orientation respected his wishes more than those with an end orientation. The latter appeared to have an internal need to help that overrode their ability to be sensitive to what the other person really needed” (pp. 159-60).

--Religious Belief Constitutes a Negative Force in Personal Mental Health

As Watters knits it together: “It is safe to conclude that committed Christians, when compared to those with a more scientific approach to life, do not fare very well when it comes to mental health, racial prejudice and concern for others. On self-report, Christians appear less best with worry and guilty than non-religious people; however, the psychological mechanism of denial and the need to give socially desirable answers may account for the difference. They appear to manifest as much personal competence and control as those with a scientific questing orientation; but this, too, is spurious, for it is not a real sense of personal competence but rather a reliance on an omnipotent deity. Committed Christians shows more racial prejudice than those with a humanist orientation, while in interpersonal situations they are no more helpful than non-believers. Indeed, Christians may be less so, since that are insensitive to the real needs of the person in distress as they persist in acting according to their Christian belief system. Summing up their research, Batson and Ventis conclude: 'This evidence suggests that religion is a negative force in human life, one we would be better off without'” (p. 160).

Watters then adds his own blistering assessment of mental illness-producing religion, followed by his prescription for cure: “Religions--Christianity most of all--are the enemy of human morality. . . . [M]any of Christianity's doctrinal beliefs work against the development of the full moral potential of human beings. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women can develop into moral beings by manipulating their guilt, treating them like small children, and urging them to be afraid of their natural impulses. Those who set themselves up as the deity's interpreters form institutions that develop their own strategies, which are designed to expand and consolidate power over the believer. In the case of Christianity, these god-talking shepherds have been able to convince the sheep that that are innately evil and that 'all good things come from God.' The first step for the pilgrim on the road toward humanism is to understand this, 'the great projection.' The next step is to repudiate the destructive myth of innate evil. 'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man,' says Psalm 108, verse 8. . . . [T]his belief, ingrained as it is in the religious consciousness of Western society, has had a devastating impact on inter-personal relationships and human health. The medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and high-tech medicine are collectively blamed for the high cost of health care, some of which is well-deserved. However, no accusing fingers are ever pointed at the institution that promotes suffering as a valuable strategy, and whose doctrines have been shown to compromise human health in a variety of ways. . . .There is an evolutionary process at work here, At one time, a 'man's home was his castle,' and the state had no right to intervene if a man chose to beat his children in obedience to the biblical injunction about sparing the rod and spoiling the child; or if he abused or raped his wife, since she was his property. Now the state takes a radically different view of all such forms of abuse, to the extent that health care professionals can be charged if they fail to report suspected instances of spouse or child abuse. Admittedly, in comparison with physical and sexual abuse, the matter of mental and emotional abuse is proving more difficult for the justice system to deal with; however, there are signs that these forms of maltreatment are gradually acquiring judicial legitimacy. . . . Whatever we do, we must ensure that education, not legislation, is the strategy used to effect change. There must be no attempt to use the state to outlaw religion, even if Christianity has no compunction about using the state to extinguish other faith systems. . . . Only if Homo religiosus evolves into Homo sapiens can our species hope to survive. Surely it is time we . . . completed what others started at the time of the Renaissance” (pp. 191-92).

Booth offers his own recommendations to mental health care professionals for dealing with the debilitations to their patients brought on by abusive religious belief systems. He urges that those being assisted be encouraged to address "spirituality as being different from religion," with focus placed on the "mental, emotional and physical wellness that promotes healthy spirituality." He suggests access to "treatment centers [that] combine lectures, medical education, family therapy and recreational therapy as well and individual and group therapy sessions." He recommends that lecture topics "address all obsessive-compulsive behaviors, INCLUDING RELIGION." (p. 252, emphasis added)

"Including religion." Indeed. Which leads to the last, inclusive point: Mormonism is like Christianity They both create and foster mental illness.

--Koenig the Seminarian, Not the Clinician

The Koenig study is not actually an original or broad-based Koenig study but, rather, is simply a selected synopsis (as Koenig himself admits) of research that has been done in the field of psychiatry, religion and mental illness. (I've read Koenig's article in its entirety). While interesting in proposing that people utilize religion as a mechanism to “cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances” (p. 11), what is particularly noteworthy is Koenig's own admission regarding the possible consequences of his review of the literature. He confesses, for instance, that “clinical implications” of his paper include the following potential negatives: “Religious beliefs may contribute to mental pathology in some cases.” Koenig also admits: “My review of recent studies is selective, not systematic." (p. 1) Furthermore, although Koenig states that “religious involvement is an important factor that enables [certain] people [such as ‘medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions and their caregivers’] to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances,” he nonetheless concedes that “this may not be true in all populations . . . ." (p. 11)

To his credit, however, Koenig acknowledges evidence of bias in studies regularly produced by pro-religion researchers. He notes that, methodologically speaking, analysis of human spirituality has in recent years frequently been tainted by that bias, with the examined areas ”often [being] assessed either in terms of religion or by positive psychological, social, or character states. . . . For example, standard measures of spirituality today contain questions asking about meaning and purpose in life, connections with others, peacefulness, existential well-being and comfort and joy. "This is problematic, as it assures that spirituality in such studies will be correlated with good mental health. In other words, spirituality--defined as good mental health and positive psychological or social traits--is found to correlate with good mental health. Such research is meaningless and tautological" (p. 2).

Despite his nod to rigorous scientific methodology, Koenig remains a big fan of supernaturalism's benefits. He writes that while “a handful” of systematic studies have reported “negatives associations [between religious involvement and mental health’], the majority [of] quantitative studies prior to the year 2000, based on a systematic review, reported statistically significant positive associations.” Koenig’s own admittedly selective review of the literature concludes that in areas of what he classifies as negative human behavior, there is a measurable positive association between religious beliefs/practices and mental health: "Religious involvement is related to better coping with stress and less depression, suicide, anxiety and substance abuse. While religious delusions may be common among people with psychotic disorders, healthy normative religious beliefs and practices appear to be stabilizing and may reduce the tremendous isolation, fear and loss of control that those with psychosis experience" (p. 3).

Koenig then examines the research in five specific areas for evidence of the positive influence of religious belief and practice on negative mental conditions:

*Depression

Although Koenig asserts that non-psychotic religious practices and beliefs have an overall positive affect on reducing depression, he also notes that at least one Canadian study examining the connection between religion involvement and depression found a negative relationship: “[The researchers] followed teenaged mothers . . . (87% unmarried) before delivery and four weeks after delivery in southwestern Ontario. They examined the relation between religion and depressive symptoms during the first few weeks after babies were born. Catholics and teenagers affiliated with more conservative religious groups scored significantly higher on depression and those who attended religious services more frequently also had higher depression scores. However, the highest depression scores were among girls who co-habitated with someone while continuing to attend religious services” (ibid).

Koenig further acknowledges that even in a different study (one which found religious attendance correlated positively with less depression), “participants [who] indicat[ed] that spiritual values were important or perceived themselves as spiritual or religious had higher levels of psychiatric symptoms.” Significantly, Koenig adds that this study was “conducted in largely healthy community-dwelling adults with relatively low stress levels” (ibid.). In other words, in locales not typified by high personal stress levels, religious beliefs and practices created high personal stress levels.

Koenig further admits that while “studies in medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions, and their caregivers suggest that religious involvement is an important factor that enables such people to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances, . . . , this may not be true in all populations, as studies of pregnant unmarried teenagers and non-stressed community populations above suggest” (p. 4).

Adding another factor that religion can't seem to effectively overcome, Koenig also notes that high rates of religion-related depression may be tied to genetic realities: “Critics say that most studies reporting positive results are observational and that some unmeasured characteristic may be related both to religion and to depression, confounding the relation. In particular, genetic factors have been implicated. In a fascinating study that examined the relation of spirituality to brain 5-HT1A binding using positive emission tomography, investigators found that 5-HT1 A binding was lower in people who were more spiritually accepting. Note that lower 5-HT1 A binding--the same pattern seen with spirituality--has been found in patients with anxiety and depressive disorders. Thus, rather than being genetically less prone to depression, RS [Religion/Spirituality]-oriented people may be at increased risk for mood disorders based on their 5-HT receptor binding profile” (ibid).

*Suicide

Koenig writes that his study of the relationship between religion involvement and suicide points largely to a positive result: “Religious involvement may . . . help to prevent suicide by surrounding the person at risk with a caring, supportive community.” He does acknowledge, however, that some studies found either no association one way or the other between religious involvement and suicide, or produced mixed results (ibid).

*Anxiety

Koenig reports that religious teachings significantly help reduce anxiety. However (and somewhat ironically), he also reports that anxiety which is produced by religion itself can bring about reduced anxiety by forcing socially acceptable behavior: “While religious teachings have the potential to exacerbate guilt and fear that reduce quality of life or otherwise interfere with functioning, the anxiety aroused by religious beliefs can prevent behaviors harmful to others and motivate pro-social behaviors.” In a related vein, Koenig also reports that multiple recent studies indicate that “anxiety and (or) fear is a strong motivator of religious activity” (ibid). So, social pressure combined with religious indoctrination can induce fear-driven anxiety which leads individuals to engage in religious activity the reduces their anxiety. A strange way to achieve the desired result.

On the issue of death-related anxiety, Koenig writes that one study found “no linear relations between religiousness, fear of death and fear of dying.” Interestingly enough, he notes, “[s]ubjects with the lowest anxiety levels were those who were either high or low on religiousness.” Those who believed in an afterlife but did not regularly attend religious services were found to be more death-anxious than those who received religious teachings at church. (p. 5) Meaning, possibly, that the more one is indoctrinated in church settings to accept the myth of immortality, the less one is concerned about dying. (Put another way, burying one's head in the sand about the reality of death's finality might mean less anxiety about being permanently buried).

Koenig admits, however, that not all types of religious friction produces anxiety reduction: “While positive forms of religious coping may reduce anxiety in highly stressful circumstances, negative forms of religious conflict may exacerbate it. For example, one recent study of women with gynecological cancer found that women who felt that God was punishing them, had deserted them, or did not have the power to make a difference, or felt deserted by their faith community, had significantly higher anxiety. These results persisted after multiple statistical controls, and are consistent with other studies in medical patients” (p. 5). In other words, individuals feeling abandoned by God and/or by God's people as a result of their personal sinful behavior experienced higher anxiety--which is understandable, given the immense guilt trip on which judgmental religious systems send their followers.

*Psychotic Disorders

Koenig describes the correlation between weird religious delusions and psychotic states: “Psychiatric patients with psychotic disorders may report bizarre religious delusions, some of which can be difficult to distinguish from so-called normal religious or cultural beliefs. About 25% to 39% of psychotic patients with schizophrenia and 15% to 22% of those with bipolar disorder have religious delusions.” Koenig then asks: “Do religious beliefs play a role in the etiology of psychotic disorders or might they adversely affect the course of these disorders or response to treatment? Alternatively, might non-delusional religious beliefs and practices help these patients to cope with psychological and social stresses, thus serving to prevent exacerbations of illness?” Answering his own question, he declares: “Unfortunately, there are relatively few studies--particularly from the United States or Canada--that have examined the relation between religion and psychotic symptoms. In an earlier review [conducted by Koenig] of the literature, . . . . [a]mong . . . 10 cross-sectional studies, four found less psychosis or psychotic tendencies among people more religiously involved, three found no association, and two studies reported mixed results” (p. 5).
Koenig reports a higher practice of religion among those suffering from depression and schizophrenia: “The final study, conducted in London, England, found religious beliefs and practices significantly more common among depressed and schizophrenic psychiatric in-patients, compared with orthopedic control subjects” (p. 5).

Koenig also writes that patients suffering from religious delusions suffered more psychotic disorders and that these mental maladies were more severe than those experienced by non-religiously delusional patients: “Subjects with religious delusions (24%) had more severe symptoms, especially hallucinations and bizarre delusions, poorer functioning, longer duration of illness and were on higher doses of anti-psychotic medication, compared with patients with other kinds of delusions.”

Koenig also reports that culture-based religious teachings can exacerbate psychotic disorders: “In the largest study to date, 62 investigators compared the delusions of inpatients with schizophrenia in Japan with patients in Austria and in Germany. . . . [R]eligious themes of guilt and (or) sin were more common among patients in Austria and Germany than in Japan; whereas delusions of reference (such as being slandered) were more prevalent because of the role shame plays in Japanese culture” (ibid).

Koenig notes the existence of disagreements over the relationship between religious delusions and the presence of psychotic problems, but adds that patients suffering from such delusions had more severe problems: “While some studies report that patients with schizophrenia and religious delusions have a worse long-term prognosis, others do not. In one of the most detailed studies to date, [researchers] did not find that patients with religious delusions or patients who described themselves as religious responded less well to four weeks of treatment than other patients. However, patients with religious delusions had more severe illness and greater functional disability than other patients” (p. 6).

While Koenig writes that most recent studies have pointed to positive affects on schizophrenic patients who attend church, not all of these patients are shown to benefit from religion as a coping mechanism, with some of them reporting that “religion . . . induced spiritual despair” (ibid).

*Substance Abuse

Koenig reports that, based on studies conducted by others (mostly of high school and college students), “90% . . . found significantly less substance use and abuse among the more religious.” Koenig also cites a subsequent study from Columbia University that found the following negative results among examined adults who did not place a high value on religion: “Adults who did not consider religion very important were 50% more likely to use alcohol and cigarettes, three times more likely to binge-drink, four times more likely to use illicit drugs other than marijuana and six times more likely to use marijuana, compared with adults who strongly believed that religion is important. The same pattern was seen for religious attendance and an even more pronounced inverse relation between religion and substance abuse was evident in teenagers. In addition, people who both received professional treatment and attended spirituality-based support programs (such as 'Alcoholics Anonymous' or 'Narcotics Anonymous') were far more likely to remain sober than if they received only professional treatment” (p. 6).

Still, Koenig reports that substance abuse (as well as heart problems) can be heightened by strict religious treatment that induces guilt, shame and isolation: “While religious influences on substance abuse appear to be generally positive, this is not always the case. When people from religious traditions that promote complete abstinence start using alcohol or drugs, substance use can become severe and recalcitrant. Those people may completely withdraw from religious involvement, resulting in social isolation and worsening mental health owing to feelings of guilt and shame. Further, religious traditions that advocate complete abstinence from alcohol may deprive members of cardiovascular benefits of moderate, controlled drinking” (p. 7)

*Koenig’s Conclusions and Summary

Religious practice and belief, Koenig writes, is not necessarily a benefit to the mentally ill, the emotionally troubled or the situationally challenged; to the contrary, he acknowledges that they can actually be harmful: “Many people suffering from the pain of mental illness, emotional problems or situational difficulties seek refuge in religion for comfort, hope and meaning. While some are helped, not all such people are completely relieved of their mental distress or destructive behavioral tendencies.

Thus, it should not be surprising that psychiatrists will often encounter patients who display unhealthy forms of [religious] involvement. In other instances, especially in the emotionally vulnerable, religious beliefs and doctrines may reinforce neurotic tendencies, enhance fears or guilt and restrict life rather than enhance it. In such cases, religious beliefs may be used in primitive and defensive ways to avoid making necessary life changes.” (p. 7). Koenig also concludes, on a conditional happier note, that “religious involvement is related to better coping with stress and less depression, suicide, anxiety and substance abuse," while admitting that “religious delusions may be common among people with psychotic disorders.” Nonetheless, he ultimately argues that “healthy normative religious beliefs and practices appear to be stabilizing and may reduce the tremendous isolation, fear, and loss of control that those with psychosis experience” (ibid).

Which begs the question: Are the religious beliefs and practices of Mormonism or Christianity healthy? I’m with Watters on that one: No. (see: "Mormonism, Mental Illness and Other Similarly-Rooted Religious Manifestations of Dysfunction and Disorder," by steve benson, on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,352408,352408#msg-352408)

*CONTINUED . . .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 05:38PM by steve benson.

In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "robertb" responds by suggesting examination of a paper that deals with religion and mental health. It is offered as recommended reading in order to counter the premises put forth by. Watters, As "robertb" notes about the touted review: "In a 2009 study titled 'Research on Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: A Review,' Dr. Harold G. Koenig writes: 'Religious and spiritual factors are increasingly being examined in psychiatric research. Religious beliefs and practices have long been linked to hysteria, neurosis, and psychotic delusions. However, recent studies have identified another side of religion that may serve as a psychological and social resource for coping with stress. After defining the terms religion and spirituality, this paper reviews research on the relation between religion and (or) spirituality, and mental health, focusing on depression, suicide, anxiety, psychosis, and substance abuse. The results of an earlier systematic review are discussed, and more recent studies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other countries are described. While religious beliefs and practices can represent powerful sources of comfort, hope, and meaning, they are often intricately entangled with neurotic and psychotic disorders, sometimes making it difficult to determine whether they are a resource or a liability' (“Can J Psychiatry,” 2009;54(5):283-291). . . . [for the entire text of Koenig's article, see: http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/6/201.full; see also,"Research since Watters' book was written nearly 30 years ago shows a different picture," by "robertb," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,352600,352703#msg-352703)

I have, in fact, read Koenig's entire article. While interesting in proposing that people utilize religion as a mechanism to “cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances” (p. 11), what is not mentioned in "robertb's" introduction to the paper is Koenig's own admission about the possible consequences of his review. He confesses, for instance, that “clinical implications” of his paper include the following potential negative: “Religious beliefs may contribute to mental pathology in some cases.”

Koenig also admits: “My review of recent studies is selective, not systematic" (p. 1). Furthermore, although Koenig states that “religious involvement is an important factor that enables [certain] people [such as ‘medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions and their caregivers’] to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances,” he nonetheless concedes that “this may not be true in all populations . . . ." (p. 11)

To his credit, Koenig acknowledges evidence of bias in studies regularly produced by pro-religion researchers. He notes that, methodologically speaking, analysis of human spirituality has in recent years frequently been tainted by that bias, with the examined areas “often [being] assessed either in terms of religion or by positive psychological, social, or character states. . . . For example, standard measures of spirituality today contain questions asking about meaning and purpose in life, connections with others, peacefulness, existential well-being and comfort and joy. This is problematic, as it assures that spirituality in such studies will be correlated with good mental health. In other words, spirituality--defined as good mental health and positive psychological or social traits--is found to correlate with good mental health. Such research is meaningless and tautological" (p. 2).

*According to Some of His Peers, Koenig Is a Religious Quack Whose Own Commentaries Are Highly Suspect

While some here may enthusiastically embrace Koenig and his penchant for the religiously ridiculous, that faithful fervor is not shared by colleagues in fields of rigorous discipline who value sound science over the silly supernatural. Koenig certainly has detractors in the halls of empirical investigation, as evidenced in the article, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?”

Hard-science professionals have concluded that Koenig's prayers didn't, well, have a prayer: “Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of Duke University’s Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health, has spent his entire professional life looking at how spirituality affects a person’s physical well-being. . . . Koenig is the author of ‘The Healing Power of Faith,’ . . . , a compilation of scientific studies that examine the impact of religious belief on physical and mental health. ‘These studies are inexplicable within the realm of science,’ he says. ‘There’s no traditional scientific mechanism in action, and scientists have a problem with that.’

“Dr. Stephen Barrett has a big, big problem with that. ‘This study is a well-designed waste of time,’ says Barrett, board chairman of the health fraud watchdog organization ‘Quackwatch.’ (http://www.quackwatch.com/ ) ‘You can’t generate magical forces with magical thinking. It’s absurd.’"

The matter at the heart of the contention:

“A massive study published in the October 25 [1999] issue of the ‘Archives of Internal Medicine’ (a journal of the American Medical Association) showed that heart patients who had someone praying for them suffered fewer complications than other patients. Researchers at the Mid-America Heart Institute of St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City studied 990 patients admitted to the institute’s coronary care unit in a one-year period. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group was prayed for daily by community volunteers--intercessors--and the other patients had nobody assigned to pray for them. The intercessors were given the patients’ first names and were asked to pray daily for 'a speedy recovery with no complications.' It was a blind trial: None of the patients knew they were involved in a study. The researchers, led by Dr. William Harris, created an itemized score-sheet to measure what happened to both groups of patients and after four weeks there was a striking result: The prayed-for patients had suffered 10 percent fewer complications, ranging from chest pain to full-blown cardiac arrest. The study concludes, ‘This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.’

“ . . . Barrett dismisses the entire study as a roll of the dice. Though the 10% difference may seem like divine intervention, he says the study has no clinical significance. ‘What it reflects is a lucky hit,’ he says. ‘A chance phenomenon.’ The researchers acknowledge an element of chance in their study--as well as an element of distortion, since patients in the control group most likely had friends and family praying for them, too. Harris writes, ‘It is probable that many if not most patients in both groups were already receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from friends, family and clergy.'

“There’s no telling, in other words, how much ‘supplementary prayer’ went unaccounted for. Which raises another devilish question from Barrett: What if someone out there was praying for one of the sick patients to get worse? Wouldn’t that skew the results? ’What if you pray against somebody?,’ Barrett says. ‘Can that do harm? Is health determined by who prays harder?’ . . .

“More fuel for Barrett’s fire: ‘I would be appalled if the government or any research foundation funded this. I wouldn’t want my tax dollars going to support it,’ he says. ‘You’re much better off spending research time and money on activities that might yield practical results.’” (Jon Bowen, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?,” under “Health,” in “Salon” magazine, 3 November 1999, at: http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/prayer/singleton/)

When confronted with scientific evidence that undermined his belief in the magical, Koenig predictably falls back on an old religionist defense. Science, he claims, "is not designed to study the supernatural." That’s assuming, of course, that the subject being studied is actually supernatural. (So much for expunging that pro-religious bias Koenig supposedly opposes).

Specifically, a prayer study (for which Koenig played booster role but in which he didn't actually perform research) was eventually scientifically analyzed. The result didn't turn out good for God. From the article, “Power of Prayer Flunks an Unusual Test”: “In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

“Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said. They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them. Critics said the question of God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study. The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the ‘American Heart Journal.’

“Dr. Herbert Benson [no relation] of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for 'a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications' for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name. The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility. The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical. The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59% of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52% of those who were told it was just a possibility.”

Enter Koenig to try to explain it away: “Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.’There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either,’ he said. 'There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted. Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and ‘why would God change his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research study?’"

Why would he, indeed? Koenig throws in the towel, while throwing his support behind that religious bias he supposedly bemoans: “Science, he says, ‘is not designed to study the supernatural.’” (“Power of Prayer Flunks Unusual Test: Large Study Had Christians Pray for Heart Patients,” by “Associated Press,” 30 March 2006, at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/#.TtR6f0axjqI)

Koenig is the same fellow who wants to be taken seriously when touting the supposedly overwhelming mental health benefits of religion but who can't explain why God demonstrably doesn't answer scientifically-scrutinized prayers of the faithful--unless you buy his supernaturalistic explanation that that God regards as inconsequential prayers offered heavenward in some research study. Moreover, Koenig doesn't seem capable of explaining why God can't, or won't, heal amputees:

“Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.

“If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands? We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.

“On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.

"But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, 'Why won't God heal amputees?' . . . " (“Why Won't God Heal Amputees?,” under “Is God Real, or Is He Imaginary?, ” at: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)

So much for God paying attention to every sparrow (arm or leg) that falls.

And so much for Koenig's alleged "scientific" approach to mental illness and religion. Indeed, fellow mental health professionals have taken him o the woodshed over his suspect methodology. Below are examples of published peer-review blowback Koenig has encountered from his professional critics (and even, although in more muted tones, from his supporters). Please note that these criticism of Koenig's writings on religion and mental health has been expressed as recently as 2008 in peer-reviewed venues, in response to the Koenig study of the same year that is cited by “robertb”):

*“Reservations”

“[Koenig] highlights many aspects of understanding patients' religious beliefs with which I totally agree. However, it seems he has underestimated the influence of experience in psychiatric management. The statistical findings presented were the result of surveys which can never replace high quality evidence-based research or well designed qualitative studies. Psychiatrists in the UK have been under enormous strain to maintain a fine balance between legal and clinical responsibilities. The results of the author's suggestions are not measurable and could raise a variety of medico-legal issues. For example; how to decide which patients should be involved with their psychiatrists for joint prayer? I believe, this could be dangerous ground upon which to tread. Religion is a personal activity and psychiatrists could explore the interface between religious beliefs and psychopathology. But, they should definitely not cross sensitive boundaries. ... less

“Dr. Nazar Mansour
SPR Old Age Psychiatry, NHS”

(published in “The Psychiatrist,” 16 June 2008)

*“Religion, Psychiatry and Professional Boundaries"

“We were alarmed to read the editorial on religion and mental health (Koenig, 2008). Some of the assertions are highly contentious, and we believe some of the recommendations for clinical practice are inappropriate. The invited commentary by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Hollins, 2008) is cautious, but nonetheless seems to endorse Koenig’s point of view. In doing so, she lends a certain credibility to Koenig’s recommendations. Closer integration of religion and psychiatric practice is a key aspiration of an element within the Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the College. We believe that there is an urgent need for a serious debate on the implications of such attempts to shift the boundaries of psychiatry and the other mental health professions.

“Koenig uses some statistics that are questionable. For example, the World Christian Database may say that 1.4% of the British population are atheist, but the British Humanist Association website cites recent figures from the National Census, a Home Office survey and a MORI poll ranging from 15.5% to 36%. However, it is his fundamental argument that is seriously flawed.

“Koenig uses the rhetorical ploy of suggesting that religion is denigrated and under attack by psychiatrists. He states that psychiatry has traditionally regarded religion and spirituality as intrinsically pathological. We have been involved in mental health care in the UK since 1978, and none of us has ever known this to be suggested by a mental health professional. He states that there is wide spread psychiatric prejudice against religious faith and that psychiatrists commonly do not understand the role of religion in patients’ lives. However, the research that he cites can be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatrists, by and large, believe that religion can be both helpful and problematic to patients and that they enquire about religious matters when these are relevant. As the salience of religious issues will vary between patients, this seems to us to be the appropriate approach.

“Our major concern about Koenig’s paper is his suggestions for practice. No one could seriously challenge some of his assertions, for example that we should always respect people’s religious or spiritual beliefs and that we should some times make referrals to or consult with appropriate priests or religious elders. However, these are well established parts of routine practice. They are within the limits of existing codes of professional behaviour.

"Some of his other suggestions constitute serious breaches of professional boundaries, for example:

"1. Psychiatrists should routinely take a detailed ‘spiritual history,’ even from non-believers. He recommends that when patients resist this, the clinician should return to the task later. This seems to us to be intrusive and excessive. The insistence that even non-believers have a spiritual life shows a lack of respect for those who find meaning within beliefs that reject the transcendent and the supernatural.

"2. Some spiritual or religious beliefs should be supported and others challenged. This involves the application of the clinician’s values, which is incompatible with the maintenance of an appropriate degree of therapeutic neutrality. It is unnecessary and inappropriate for clinicians to take a position on highly sensitive matters of personal conviction, such as the existence and nature of evil, the meaning of unanswered prayer and doctrinal intolerance of homosexuality.

"3. It is sometimes appropriate to pray with patients. Even when patient and psychiatrist share a faith, the introduction of a completely non- clinical activity carries a grave danger of blurring of therapeutic boundaries and creates ambiguity over the nature of the relationship.

“We have personal experience of dealing with the adverse consequences of religious breaches of therapeutic boundaries. For the most part, these have been well intentioned but ill advised; for example, patients who want to pray with psychiatrists at one point in their treatment can become persistently distressed over having done so when their mental state changes. We have encountered more worrying breaches of boundaries where clinicians have proselytised in the consulting room. Occasionally we have encountered frankly narcissistic practice, where clinicians have been emboldened by the certainties of a charismatic faith and take the position that their personal beliefs and practices cannot be challenged because they are supported by a higher authority than secular professional ethics.

“The problem with blurring the boundaries, by inviting an apparently benign spirituality into the consulting room, is that it makes it more difficult to prevent these abuses. Having moved the old boundary it is then very difficult to set a new one.

“Psychiatrists will always have to understand patients who are different to them in gender, class, ethnicity, politics and religious faith. Understanding patient’s lives, the contexts they exist in and the resources that give them strength is a key skill in psychiatric practice (Poole and Higgo, 2006). Religion can be an important source of comfort and healing, though it can also be a source of distress. Of course, it can be intertwined with psychotic symptoms. Spiritual matters, however, exist in a different domain from psychiatric practice. There are others in our communities who have a proper role in helping patients spiritually and who can be an important source of advice to us. Quite apart from the obvious dangers inherent in confusing these roles, it is completely unnecessary to do so.

“Psychiatry has done much to improve the lot of people with mental illness, though it has also been guilty of some major historical errors. Our professional roles and professionalism are under sustained attack from a variety of sources (Poole and Bhugra, 2008). In order to resist these attacks, we need to be clear about our important and distinctive roles in helping people with mental illness. Psychiatrists are essentially applied bio-psychosocial scientists, who work within a clear set of humanitarian values and ethical principles, in order to get alongside patients and facilitate their recovery from mental illness. Psychiatry does not hold all the answers, and other professions, agencies and individuals have different distinctive roles. Within psychiatry, we have to struggle with the internal threat of crude biological reductionism. Equally, if we break the boundaries of our legitimate expertise and become generic healers, we will have lost all usefulness and legitimacy.

“Declaration of interest: The authors have a range of personal convictions, including atheist, Buddhist, Methodist, Roman Catholic and non-denominational faith.

“Rob Poole
Consultant Psychiatrist

“Robert Higgo
Gill Strong
Gordon Kennedy
Sue Ruben
Richard Barnes
Peter Lepping,
Paul Mitchell
North East Wales NHS Trust”

(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)

*“Psychiatrists and Role of Religion in Mental Health"

“Koenig’s message ('Psychiatric Bulletin,' June 2008, 32, 201-203) is very clear for psychiatrists that they should respect patients' religious beliefs and a sensible way to address this is through time investment in taking a spiritual history, respecting and supporting patients' beliefs. Challenging beliefs and referrals to clergy should be welcomed but praying with patients is highly controversial and should be treated with caution.

“There is a fine line between religiosity and religious conviction becoming a part of a complex delusional system. In clinical experience some patients are not religious prior to the onset of their mental illness. For such patients, becoming religious may be indicative of a relapse of their mental illness.

“Religion and psychiatry are usually considered as two totally different ways of healing. A number of UK, USA and Canadian studies confirm that psychiatrists are less likely to be religious in general, and are more likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious. Religious physicians are less willing than non religious physicians to refer patients to psychiatrists (Curlin et al, 2007a). The Australian experience is not different either (D’Souza et al, 2006).

“Declaration of Interest: None declared.

“Imran Mushtaq
MRCPCH, MRCPsych, Associate Specialist-Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Sp-CAHMS, Eaglestone Centre, Standing Way, Milton Keynes MK 6 5AZ

“Mohammad Adnan Hafeez
MRCPsych, Forensic Psychiatrist Edenfield Centre, Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Trust Bury New Road Prestwich M25 3BL“

(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)

*“The Neglect of the Non-Believer”

“I was amazed and alarmed to read Koenig’s article on religion and mental health and the president’s lukewarm support of the article as it presents no scientific evidence that any of the suggested working practices improve patient care. The few figures it uses are not supported by other studies. Koenig claims that only 1.4% of the British population are atheists. His source is the World Christian Database, hardly an unbiased source of information. This low level has no face validity to anyone working in this country. A recent study (Huber & Klein, 2008) funded by the conservative Bertelsmann Institute looked at religious beliefs in 18 countries (8 of them European) across the developed and the developing world. It used a very broad definition of religion and spirituality focusing on Pollack’s work on the belief in the transcendence as the core of substantial spirituality (Pollack, 2000). In other words, it looks for the belief in something spiritual that may or may not be related to formal religion. They professionally polled tens of thousands of people in the 18 countries making it by far the largest and most comprehensive study into the subject so far.

“Their findings confirms Britain to be amongst the least spiritual countries amongst the 18 examined across a wide range of factors including prayer, church attendance, personal religious experience, religious reflection, pantheistic influence etc. It finds that across European Christians more than 10% of those who formally belong to a church do not believe in anything spiritual at all. This makes census data potentially quite unreliable when it comes to assessing people’s real religious believes. In Britain 19% of those polled were classed to be highly religious, 43% as religious, 38% as non-religious using a broad definition of spirituality. 55% of Britons consider prayer to be non-significant for their lives and only 33% have personal religious experiences.

“Far from religion being pervasive throughout the majority of society, in Britain at least the opposite seems to be the case. Moreover, there is already a well organised provision of support for people who follow organised religion in all hospitals with easy access to religious elders and prayer rooms. However, no provision exists for non-believers who look at questions of meaning of life and morality in a non-spiritual way. It is that group that is disadvantaged rather than those who follow organised religion. It follows that rather than insisting on getting a “spiritual history” of each patient we should show respect to those who can discuss meaning of life without spirituality and find solution to identify and facilitate their needs in an increasingly secular society.

“Yours sincerely,

“Dr. P. Lepping
MRCPsych, Msc, Consultant Psychiatrist/Associate Medical Director/Honorary Senior Lecturer, North East Wales NHS Trust/University of Wales”

(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)

*”Religion and Mental Health”

“A recent editorial in the 'Psychiatric Bulletin' by Harold Koenig, (Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, North Carolina, USA) advocates the taking of a spiritual history from psychiatric patients, praying with patients, as well as consulting with and referring to religious leaders.

"He states in the editorial: 'Religious beliefs and practices have long been thought to have a pathological basis and psychiatrists for over a century have understood them in this light. Recent research, however, has uncovered findings which suggest that to some patients religion may also be a resource that helps them to cope with the stress of their illness or with dismal life circumstances.'

“While I think there is some evidence for both these suppositions not all psychiatrists view religion negatively and intense religious beliefs are in my experience just as likely to have a negative impact on an individual’s mental health as a positive one.

“Psychiatry has at various times in its history been misused in detaining political dissidents and justifying eugenics programs of the 20th century. The founding father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud spoke of Religion as an illusion maintaining that it was a fantasy structure from which man must be set free if he is to grow in maturity. Freud viewed 'God' as being a version of the father figure and religious beliefs as essentially infantile and neurotic. Freud’s protégé Carl Jung, however, took an altogether more sympathetic view of religion and was particularly interested in the positive appreciation of religious symbolism. Jung felt that the question of God’s existence was unanswerable by the psychoanalyst and adopted a strictly agnostic stance on religion generally.

“Dr. Koenig states his interest in the subject, he is funded by the centre for Spirituality Theology and Health at Duke University but he is also at pains to point out that maladaptive religious beliefs should be challenged and where they are contributing to or intertwined with a psychopathology then a respectful but neutral stance is best adopted initially.

“Quoting from the World Christian database, Koenig states that only 12% of the British population is non religious and that atheists comprise just 1.4 % of the population. Against this background Koenig advocates the taking of a 'spiritual History' as well as a psychiatric and medical one. The spiritual history should, he says, 'gather information about the patients religious background and their experiences during childhood, adolescence and adulthood and determine what role religion has been played in the past and plays now in coping with present life problems.'

“Negative as well as positive experiences with faith and clergy are of importance as are theological questions such as disappointment with unanswered payers and the belief in a personal God. Dr. Koenig makes the valid point that certain religious beliefs can conflict with certain treatment options and doom those therapies to failure. Dr Koenig advocates gently probing the patient’s spiritual beliefs even if the patient is not religious or returning at a later date if resistance is met with once a firm therapeutic alliance has been established.

“Most controversial perhaps is Dr. Koenig’s suggestion that in certain cases praying with a patient can have a powerful positive therapeutic effect. Dr. Koenig is at pains to point out that this can be a potentially dangerous intervention and should never occur until the psychiatrist has a complete understanding of the patients spiritual beliefs and it should only be done at the patients request and if the psychiatrists feels comfortable doing it.

“This last point in particular raised some hackles in the comments section, A group of psychiatrists from the North Wales NHS Trust wrote: 'Even when psychiatrists share a faith, the introduction of a completely non-clinical activity carries a grave danger of blurring of therapeutic boundaries and creates ambiguity over the nature of the relationship' “They describe psychiatry as '[a]pplied bio-psychosocial science' and say that psychiatrists work within a clear set of humanitarian and ethical principles. Praying with patients, they suggest, would break those principles leaving psychiatrists outside the boundaries of their legitimate expertise (and outside their comfort zone?), leading them to become “generic healers” with the loss of usefulness and legitimacy that this would imply.

“There are a number of assertions here that need to be challenged, the assertion that a religious approach would necessarily blur any therapeutic boundaries and the potentially false distinction made between clinical and religious activity. Psychiatric nurses talk about therapeutic relationships and alliances, Psychiatrists talk of boundaries and of the dangers when those boundaries are not maintained. It is also interesting I think that the psychiatrists see themselves as “scientists” who’s humanitarian and ethical principles might be at risk from allowing religion in the door and the term “generic healer” only serves to emphasize their separateness from the rest of us.

“However, their concerns expressed over challenging maladaptive religious beliefs I share. However, this is not because I am uncomfortable applying my own values to situations involving patients, I feel my values are compatible with maintaining an appropriate degree of therapeutic neutrality because I happen to think my values are on the whole good ones. I suspect my diffidence in enquiring into an individuals religious beliefs stems from the same source as my reluctances to enquire into their sexual orientation one of pure embarrassment. It’s odd, I feel quite comfortable asking all sorts of intrusive questions into someone’s personal relationships, why they have decided to end their life for instance but I feel unable to enquire if they believe in a God or what their sexual orientation is.

“(The British Humanist Association quotes figures from a MORI poll and the National; census which puts the numbers of those who describe themselves as atheist at between 15.5 and 36%)

“[The Author would describe himself as an atheist].

"Edwin N Harnell
Psychiatric Nurse”

(published in “ibid., 18 August 2008)

(see “Responses to This Article” [Harold D. Koenig, “Religion and Mental Health: What Should Psychiatrists Do?”], in “The Psychiatrist,” at: http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/6/201.full/reply#pbrcpsych_el_5034; also, Koenig the Seminarian: A Barnstorming Believer Who Wants to Be Taken Scientifically Seriously in His Pitch for the Mental Health Benefits of Supernaturalism ,” by steve benson, on “Recovery from Mormonism,” 29 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php 2,353070,353070#msg-353070; and “Thank you for validating my point,” posted by “jacob,” on “Recovery from Mormonism,” 29 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php 2,353070,353279#msg-353279)
_____


--Jesus: A Magnificent Savior or a Mental Sickness?

Putting the belief-in-Jesus story to the mental test, Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, asks some pertinent (and, no doubt, uncomfortable) questions of believers on just how sane it is to buy into the notion of Jesus: “ . . . [M]any have asserted that the New Testament Christ character was the highest example of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly understood and followed, would make this a better world. Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he has received? Let's look at what he said and did.

“Was Jesus Peaceable and Compassionate?

“The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said, 'Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.' (Luke 22:36) 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)

“The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' (John 15:6)
“Jesus looked at his critics 'with anger' (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).

“The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. 'The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 13:41-42) 'And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.' (Mark 9:43)

“Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?

“Did Jesus Promote 'Family Values'?

"'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'(Luke 14:26)
"'I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' (Matthew 10:35-36) When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: 'Let the dead bury their dead.'(Matthew 8:22)
Jesus never used the word 'family.' He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' (John 2:4)

“What Were His Views On Equality and Social Justice?

“Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: 'And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.'(Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.

“He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, 'Ye have the poor with you always.' (Mark 14:3-7)

“No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.

“What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?"'There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.' (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.

"If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

"--Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
--Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
--Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
--Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
--Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
--Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
--Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
--Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
--Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
--Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
--If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
--If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
--If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
--If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
--If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

“Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?

“Was Jesus Reliable?

Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: 'There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom' (Matthew 16:28). 'Behold, I come quickly.' (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his 'quick' return.

“He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is 'the least of all seeds' (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could 'lose its savor' (Matthew 5:13). Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a 'fool' shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people 'fools' himself (Matthew 23:17). Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: 'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true' (John 5:31), and 'Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true' (John 8:14).

“Was Jesus a Good Example?

“He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission
(Matthew 21).

“The 'humble' Jesus said that he was 'greater than the temple' (Matt 12:6), 'greater than Jonah' (Matthew 12:41), and 'greater than Solomon' (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's 'paranoia' when he said, 'He that is not with me is against me.' (Matthew 12:30).

“Why Jesus?

“Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove that the New Testament is contradictory.

“The 'Golden Rule' had been said many times by earlier religious leaders. (Confucius: 'Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.') 'Turn the other cheek' encourages victims to invite further violence. 'Love thy neighbor' applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ('Blessed are the peacemakers') are acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward, not based on respect for human life or values.

“On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century). . . .

“Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity--mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus. . . . “ (“Why Jesus?,” published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Madison Wisconsin, at: http://ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/Why-Jesus/)

Answer: Jesus is “so special” to those with “so-specially-revealed” crazy religious beliefs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 05:37PM by steve benson.

When my father was a bishop he would complain about the people who had received any kind of counseling or medical help for mental issues.

His complaint? He couldn't do a thing with them. They wouldn't listen to anything he told them to do.

I thought that was hilarious. Apparently he like to manipulate the mentally ill and most of all the codependents. His comments were a real eye opener to me. If you asked him, he would say he couldn't do a thing with me either. Heaven help the mormon that has a mind of their own, and uses it.

Research query; what cultural artifacts in a cultural anthropology context
Makes these or once made any of these listed characteristics pro social survival shaped choices?
Or were any of them ever enhancing genetic survival odds?
If so how? And when? To which generation- the one that originally made the choice to attempt to jump out of the 1800s European peasantry - when did these cognitive patterns becomes counter productive no longer survival enhancements?

Further did this religiosity maintain or generate a multi ethnic multi lingual tribe into kne religious nation state from many origins? Is this the survival function of this group thought flow?

Question: did brig ham young use techniques intuitively or calculatingly used in history to control and manipulate various people from different places snd heritages into one group politically?
In doing so does that mean diminish national origin diminish independent strength to generate mutual interdependence among pioneer ancestors?

Does anybody have a name for that? Is this field a study of history anthropology political science psychology or linguistics communication theory?

FINAL EXAM
(Astronomy, Art, Computer Science, Geography and Religious Studies)

Read each question carefully. Answer all questions.
Time Limit: Four hours.
Begin immediately.


HISTORY:

Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.


GEOGRAPHY:

Predict the position of the tectonic plates as they will appear two billion years from now. Be prepared to prove your results.


MEDICINE:

You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.


BIOLOGY:

Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.


PUBLIC SPEAKING:

2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.


ART:

Give an objective analysis of the relative significance and quality of the works of the major artists of the past three millenia. Be specific, and prove your analysis with detailed examples.


MUSIC:

Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.


PSYCHOLOGY:

Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following:

o Alexander of Aphrodisias
o Ramses II
o Gregory of Nicea
o Hammurabi

Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.


SOCIOLOGY:

Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.


COMPUTER SCIENCE:

Write a program that will end world hunger and homelessness. You may use the computer console next to you, however use of a modem or any other communications device is prohibited, as is the use of electricity.


ENGINEERING:

The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In ten minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision.


PHYSICS:

Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.


ASTRONOMY:

Create a miniature stellar fusion reaction, and describe in detail the effects of close-range stellar radiation on human flesh.


POLITICAL SCIENCE:

There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects, if any.


EPISTEMOLOGY:

Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.


RELIGIOUS STUDIES:

Prove or disprove the existence of God, without the use of religious texts over a century old. Be specific, and include a discussion on the possible true meanings and uses for the Tetragrammaton. Also be prepared show how your proof relates to the national debt and the watergate scandal.


ECONOMICS

Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas:

o cubism
o the Donatist controversy
o the wave theory of light

Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.


PHILOSOPHY:

Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.


GENERAL KNOWLEDGE:

Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.


EXTRA CREDIT:

Define the Universe; give three examples.

And for whom? How or did it benefit our ancestors to adopt or adapt life within these views Steve?
There must have been an evolutionary advantage at one time
oR someone hoped it would gain them something to adapt or conform

When they joined the Mormon tribe 1840 s style
May be even today, now? Someone is considering it from some inherent instinct for survival - adapting conforming living the contradictions cognitively because all that matters to them now in this instant is survival of the body
?

You've only got 4 hours to take the exam. Time's a-wastin,' especially since you haven't even sharpened your pencil yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2013 11:39PM by steve benson.

My daughter was brainwashed by her first boyfriend, a mormon that had been in and out of psychiatric hospital and once diagnosed with szephrenia. He was home schooled mostly, and his entire family are nuts. I knew better than attempt to put a stop to a relationship with a 16 yr old, but she got deeper and deeper and by graduation, we had to have her hospitalized. She left home and married him right out of high school. A year later she got pregnant. The got sealed in the temple. He has her convinced that I am the most evil in the family, but we all are. The bishop that helped him break ties with the family was ex communicated when he left his wife for another woman. He runs some scam called Forex currency exchange, and my son in law is the wizard behind the curtain. He answers the emails that the customers believe are coming from this ex Bishop-the expert. Its all a scam. My daughter is a hypocondriac now, and her mother in law got her on percoset for every ache and pain. They moved to Utah a few years ago and she is now 25. I know she is depressed but he answers texts for her. She has no time with her family alone. This is such a cult. The secret sealing, majic underwear, etc. But I did not know about all this superstician. I suspected that the husband was suffering severe religiousity of some sort. They are all nuts and raising this grandchild that is not allowed to see us evil people. She is so anxious that she cant even work at Wal Mart anymore. We have lost out daughter to this religion, and his parents dropped out of the church, his brother married a woman older than his mother, one sister had a baby with a married man, the other is 28 and carries a teddy bear with her. What can we ever do to help our daughter get thinking straight again?

I don't know that you'll be able to, if she's been gone for that long. She may come back around, but it may take a long while.

So sorry to hear of your troubles! My daughter is almost the same age as yours, and I've lost her to a cult and the meddling of the Mormon cult, that empowered her and enabled her borderline personality disorder to come into fruition in her early 20's. The Mormons played a prominent role in her disappearance, and changing her name legally not once but three times since she left home, while they lied to my face.

I hate the church and a TBM brother for their evil doing. What goodwill I once held for the LDS church I no longer can, other than for some of my ancestors and some "good" people. Other than that, the church itself is evil and controlling. I've seen it up close and personal, and the damage is irreversible. Like you, I wonder how I'll ever get my daughter back again? I wish there were answers for us. Prayers help, but there is no cure for some mental illness and personality disorders. It is heartbreaking. I wish there was more help for us, what more can we do than hope and pray for our children after they've grown - once they've made their decision to sever ties with their family?

What I've had to do for my own sake is to focus on my own mental health and wellness. Take care of myself, look after what I can, tend to my home, focus on the children I have remaining, and look to the future. Be the best you can be, for yourself and your family. That's the best you can do and hope and pray for your daughter. It's like losing a child to death, only without closure. It's a pain that doesn't end. So I understand your grieving. Only a mother's heart could break like this. My thoughts and prayers go out to you.