- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
Allow me to tie this together with gross generalizations.
1) There is good perfectionism and bad perfectionism.
2) We are going to ask people how they feel about the standards and pressures at church and their mental health etc. It may be that LDS church members are more honest while providing answers that do not make themselves look good. However, I would speculate that many LDS members would be extremely reticent about providing answers that do not make their CHURCH look good.
3) People with the bad kind of perfectionism are more than twice as likely to leave their church. IOW, people that self report that their church experience is causing them mental anguish are more than twice as likely to leave their church as people that do not self report mental anguish related to their church experience.
1. Scope of “Perfectionism” – within the past 100 years, process science and organization science expanded the idea of “a perfect product” from “good enough (ish)” to “parts per million” as the benchmark. This is great in the production of tools to maintain/improve life (cars, medications, building parts), and not so great in how to judge life – pretty much wherever there is an assembly line to produce objectified humans. I think sometimes it is easy to produce “bad perfectionism” for ourselves when we set our expectations for ourselves as objects – when we objectify ourselves.
2a. LDS people who identify as LDS are more likely to be participating in the WoW and making other healthier lifestyle choices. So when being asked about mental health and church standards, I would expect a metaphorical “lack of substance abuse” congratulatory pat on the back is bumping the mental health reporting in that moment (a small one anyways). I also think there may be a community boost to mental health.
2b. People who are leaving the church are walking away from that being part of the community mental health boost (until they find a substitute – if at all). They are processing the “badge of shame” and being one of those who left because “they got offended, they wanted to sin, etc.”. Some of them don’t feel good about themselves for their choices – and feel that is the best choice for them.
2c. If you look at one of the many lists of why people left, it’s overwhelmingly about “the system” and “the organization” – and really the individual expected more from the church system or the church organization (usually because the individual took the church at its word in its ability to receive revelation from God) – whether it’s JS claims, SEC rulings (so that the church can be murky in it’s dealings with the federal government, but the individual is expected to be “honest in its dealings with all men”), or a bunch of other claims. The church as an institution is good at being a generalist overall but branding itself as the source of uber-specialists. I think there is also a mini-civil war going on that is thematically “Purity [Perfectionism and Correlation and expansion]” vs “Lovingkindness [Grace for Imperfection and Authenticity and non-standardization] – and it winds up looking like the mostly male priesthood leaders pitted against non-leaders (and primarily women who raise the children). There is only so much “Grace Ground” to give at the org doctrinal level in the “Grace vs Works” debate before our church looks more like the Protestants then the Evangelicals.
3a. I don’t think that people are leaving because of the perfectionism benchmark. Yes, people are leaving and distancing themselves in part because “they can’t keep up” with their understanding of church-based community expectations (which at least 50% of the time is because the individual has a complete understanding of what is expected, what the church standard is). But, I don’t see that as the result of “bad perfectionism”. I don’t think that there is enough information to properly define that, and that other factors are at play.
Quote:However, although there may be some misreporting, research has shown that religious individuals, and Latter-day Saints in particular, are the most likely to give accurate self-reports.12 While religious individuals may feel more embarrassed about reporting things that do not make them “look good,” they are more likely to accurately report those things. Thus, while we should acknowledge the limitations inherent in self-reported data, it is also important to acknowledge that the Latter-day Saints in our sample are, based on previous research, likely to report with a high degree of accuracy.
How could anyone know this for certain? Especially that part where they say Latter-day Saints in particular are better at giving accurate self-reports.
It truly reads like someone with an agenda to show that the LDS church is better than all the rest at absolutely everything.
LDS members don’t lie to make themselves look good as much as other people do, even when we ask them if they’re lying about lying. LDS members don’t revere church leaders as much as members of other churches revere their leaders. LDS members cook the best burgers. LDS dads can beat up non-LDS dads.
It’s borderline comical how they have to get a line in there saying that the church is the best.
Again, I can only speak to my experience, but my experience was the dead opposite of some of the things their study attempts to show.
Roy wrote:
The study is published by “BYU Studies, whose focus is to publish scholarship aligned with the gospel of Jesus Christ”
So it’s apologetics. Start with the conclusion, the gospel of Jesus Christ (aka the LDS church) is the best, then work your way backwards from there to come up with a study that proves the preconceived solution.
Quote:With the sustained secular winds that seem to blow against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and religion in general, we need high-quality research and thinking that critically examines popular narratives about organized religion, which often mislead rather than inform.
The persecution complex rears its ugly head again. If people are critical of aspects of church culture, the church isn’t going to take the criticism as a moment of self reflection to see if/how the culture can be improved, rather they’ll come up with their own study to “mislead rather than inform” in an attempt to prove their farts don’t stink.
This is a great conversation and I have enjoyed reading through everyone’s thoughts. When it comes to any study I always “follow the money” first. Who paid for or supported the study? That usually tells me what the expected outcome is. The second step is if the study was published in a peer reviewed professional journal. In a peer reviewed professional journal even if the study does not meet the expected outcome it could still be published (but likely won’t). This study of course does not meet the smell test (or depending on your point of view it stinks). I don’t read every BYU study that comes around, but any I have read fail the smell test at the first step – they are clearly always biased to cast the church, church members, and/or BYU in the best possible light. And as you have all recognized there are always leaps that don’t really make sense and are not supported by any facts.
I don’t want to derail this into an anti BYU post (and note that my wife and 4 children are all BYU grads) but BYU is headed in a very wrong direction in the academic world and this does not bode well for the institution or the church in general. BYU is fast becoming a laughing stock in the scientific and professional world.
DarkJedi wrote:
This is a great conversation and I have enjoyed reading through everyone’s thoughts.When it comes to any study I always “follow the money” first. Who paid for or supported the study? That usually tells me what the expected outcome is. The second step is if the study was published in a peer reviewed professional journal. In a peer reviewed professional journal even if the study does not meet the expected outcome it could still be published (but likely won’t). This study of course does not meet the smell test (or depending on your point of view it stinks). I don’t read every BYU study that comes around, but any I have read fail the smell test at the first step – they are clearly always biased to cast the church, church members, and/or BYU in the best possible light. And as you have all recognized there are always leaps that don’t really make sense and are not supported by any facts.
I agree with the “follow the money” stance. My second step also involves trying to find peer reviewed professional research. I tend to also weigh whether “The research is there” in the first place – because some topics haven’t made it to bona-fide research yet.
It’s only been in the last 10-20 years that the healthcare system realized that there are gender-based differences in symptom presentation and that these differences are worth documenting in research. One of the fields that had that realization was in heart attacks actually. Women generally have different heart attack symptoms then men do, impacting the ability to recognize what was going on and provide the proper medical treatment.
nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
The study is published by “BYU Studies, whose focus is to publish scholarship aligned with the gospel of Jesus Christ”
So it’s apologetics. Start with the conclusion, the gospel of Jesus Christ (aka the LDS church) is the best, then work your way backwards from there to come up with a study that proves the preconceived solution.
Quote:With the sustained secular winds that seem to blow against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and religion in general, we need high-quality research and thinking that critically examines popular narratives about organized religion, which often mislead rather than inform.
The persecution complex rears its ugly head again. If people are critical of aspects of church culture, the church isn’t going to take the criticism as a moment of self reflection to see if/how the culture can be improved, rather they’ll come up with their own study to “mislead rather than inform” in an attempt to prove their farts don’t stink.
Right. Sometimes in Sunday School discussions of the WoW, scientific studies will be mentioned that show that a glass of red wine or green tea can be good for your health. I have often heard a counterpoint analogy on eggs, that studies have shown eggs to be good for you, then bad for you, and now good for you again (or is it bad again – I forget). This counterpoint helps to muddy the waters and suggest that science and its “studies” can almost be bipolar in changing its mind but we can rely on the sure and steady ground of divine revelation while we wait for the science to catch up to revealed truth.
Here with “BYU studies” it seems that someone from the church came up with the idea of creating their own study (I don’t know how high up the chain this goes. Does this have to do with CES Commissioner Clark Gilbert’s policies or was it already happening?). Now, when the topic of perfectionism comes up in Sunday School someone can say, “Yes some studies conclude that LDS members have more toxic perfectionism but other studies conclude the opposite that LDS members have lower than normal perfectionism and it is actually atheists and agnostics and anti-mormons with the highest rates.”
Incidentally, I have seen this tactic similarly used by young earthers. “Scientists have different estimates for the age of things, so since they can’t precisely agree, they can’t really be fully trusted on this issue, now can they? The bible is the only resource of unquestionable truth. We have this young earth scientist here with a PhD that is trying to poke holes in the traditional scientific narrative about the age of the earth but the secular scientific community won’t honestly consider his research because then they might be forced to adopt the young earth model and that would mean God is real, the bible is true, and they’d have to give up their wicked lifestyles. Some scientists believe the earth is millions of years old, other scientists believe it to be 6k years old. They are all looking at the same data but just interpreting it differently.”
Thus “studies” just become contradictory opinions and you can believe whatever you want.
Another side note for me is the use of the term “Cancel Culture.” Dr. Dyer writes:
Quote:But where does this toxic perfectionism come from? As summarized in my article, “Perfectionism Across Adolescence,” it likely emerges from a society where (1) there are an anxiety-provoking number of choices to make, (2) polarized and cancel culture gives choices incredibly high stakes, and (3) the sense of community has been lost to radical individualism, turning us obsessively inward rather than encouraging us to be outwardly aware.
Going back to his article “Perfectionism Across Adolescence” for a closer examination of what he says about Cancel Culture:
Quote:It may also be that the cancel culture of today’s world instills an overarching fear that if we do not do well, not only will others not respect us, but they may also try to damage our reputations. The barrage of “fail” videos (in which we could include videos of people who make mistakes in public, such as at political events and Senate and House hearings) likely sends a signal to our society that if you make a mistake, your reputation is at risk.
Dr. Dyer seems to be using “Cancel Culture” to mean that in our social media society, honest mistakes, gaffes, or slip-ups can be ground for others to laugh at you or even attack you personally.This really struck me as odd because this is not how “cancel culture” is used by our society. The quotes below came up as the first items from a google search of “Cancel Culture Definition.”
Quote:Cancel culture refers to the mass withdrawal of support from public figures or celebrities who have done things that aren’t socially accepted today.
Quote:“Cancel culture is a movement to remove celebrity status or esteem from a person, place, or thing based on offensive behavior or transgression.”.
Quote:Cancel Culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel Culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
I agree that with Dr. Dyer that viral mobs can be problematic/brutal and may indeed contribute to the problem of toxic perfectionism. I would hold out the experience of Monica Lewinsky as an excellent example of how an individual’s life can be ruined in this way (she has written at length about her experience after the scandal). But that isn’t cancel culture and calling it such is imprecise and misleading.Is there a problem with perfectionism in the Church *culture* (including how perfectionism is taught in many materials)? Yes. Is there a problem with perfectionism in the West, generally, and America, specifically. Yes. Is LDS *theology* perfectionist in the unhealthy sense of avoidance of all mistakes, sins, etc. and self-criticism or condemnation for not being able to do so? No.
Is there a disconnect between the culture and the theology? Yes.
Those are my short answers. As for my longer but not comprehensive answer: I would say a lot of members have a fairly healthy view of the word “perfect” within the theology of Mormonism (a process of growth toward eventually becoming complete, fully-developed, finished, etc.) , but I also would say a lot of members still see it in an unhealthy way (a condition of being sinless, mistake-free, etc.).
I think the overall view / framework is changing generationally. I know I hear MUCH more of the “path of growth” view now than I did in the past – including in General Conference.
Old-Timer wrote:
Those are my short answers. As for my longer but not comprehensive answer: I would say a lot of members have a fairly healthy view of the word “perfect” within the theology of Mormonism (a process of growth toward eventually becoming complete, fully-developed, finished, etc.) , but I also would say a lot of members still see it in an unhealthy way (a condition of being sinless, mistake-free, etc.).I think the overall view / framework is changing generationally. I know I hear MUCH more of the “path of growth” view now than I did in the past – including in General Conference.
I can think of a few standout proponents of the path of growth model (Brad Wilcox: His Grace is Sufficient, Stephen Robinson: Believing Christ). I’m not sure that I hear this viewpoint very often. It’s frankly hard for me to imagine using the term perfect in this way (a process of growth toward eventually becoming complete, fully-developed, finished, etc.) with a church member.
However, I do agree that many members do not overly beat themselves up with self loathing over imperfections – especially if those imperfections are pretty common among members (an “addiction” to Mt. Dew or failure to truly “magnify” their calling as examples).
When I have talked about Matthew 5:48, for example, using our footnote about the original meaning of the word “perfect”, and linked that to Eternal Progression, I have not had a single person argue with me. It is all about the way it is framed.
Old-Timer wrote:
When I have talked about Matthew 5:48, for example, using our footnote about the original meaning of the word “perfect”, and linked that to Eternal Progression, I have not had a single person argue with me.It is all about the way it is framed.
Yes, I can agree with that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.