How far outside the box, and stay LDS?

[Anonymous]

I understand, misfit – and rix.

I’ve told some people that they probably should leave the Church, at least for a while. For actively homosexual members, that advice isn’t rare for me. If someone was in my ward and actively homosexual, I would ask them to stay and attend with me and my family – to sit with us and try to help us model how I believe we should interact with those in that situation. However, I would understand totally if they couldn’t accept that.

Some people really are too far outside the box to stay – and I encourage those people to find peace somewhere else while working to not be bitter when they leave (or to move through bitterness as quickly as possible). That isn’t easy, either, but it’s important – even vital to emotional and spiritual health.

[Anonymous]

There is no box but what you create yourself.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

So while you have the ability to separate members’ (and even leaders’) opinions from core doctrines, others are at a level where they cannot yet resolve that. I admire those that can, and have hope that others will be able to separate cultural opinions from core, unchanging doctrines that never need to change…and recognize that the church is made up of imperfect humans — doing the best they can.

Old-Timer wrote:

I understand, misfit – and rix. I’ve told some people that they probably should leave the Church, at least for a while. For actively homosexual members, that advice isn’t rare for me. If someone was in my ward and actively homosexual, I would ask them to stay and attend with me and my family – to sit with us and try to help us model how I believe we should interact with those in that situation. However, I would understand totally if they couldn’t accept that.

Some people really are too far outside the box to stay – and I encourage those people to find peace somewhere else while working to not be bitter when they leave (or to move through bitterness as quickly as possible). That isn’t easy, either, but it’s important – even vital to emotional and spiritual health.

I empathize with you on that one Ray. It’s tough. I admire you, and anyone, who is able to keep it going while having to have these kind of tough conversations.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve just learned how to share things, and when to share things, in a way that can be effective – and a BIG part of that is realizing that this really is MY journey, and nobody else needs to walk MY journey. They are busy trying to walk their own, and who am I to shove them callously from a path that works for them or drop a burden on them that will knock them down or crush them? Is that really what love is about – walking my own path whie throwing rocks at everyone who is walking another one?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this very topic. I think ultimately this is a matter of degree. For example, I think I could safely claim that I would have no problem (indeed I would think it a moral imperative) to “throw rocks” at Jim Jones’ followers (had they not all drunk the Kool-Aid). At the other extreme, I can’t see any reason to destroy the faith of a regular TBM if they aren’t using their beliefs to manipulate others.

However, recently a lot of research has pointed out that there is little to no reliable evidence for anti-depressants having a measurable effect on reducing depression. Scientists never have known how they worked, and recently it was discovered that they are approximately as effective as a placebo (in fact the placebo effect seems to be what is helping depressed people when taking anti-depressants). I read an article in which the author was facing a moral dilemma of whether or not to tell his closest friends about this new finding. I think this situation is much tougher than the two “extreme” examples. If we continue to allow everyone to believe something that isn’t necessarily “true,” what progress are we impeding that could lead to something that actually helps depressed people? How many people are avoiding Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (something that is shown to work very well) because they believe their drugs do something? After all, real progress in depression comes from working through it internally. OTOH, no one wants to explain to an already depressed person that their medication actually has no more effect than a placebo. It’s like pouring salt in the wound!

Such situations lead me to believe that this is a matter of degree, and not a general principle. I agree with Ray in the case of most good belief systems (but not the subjective qualification there), but can’t agree in many other examples (and I wonder if Ray wouldn’t also agree with this).

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

However, recently a lot of research has pointed out that there is little to no reliable evidence for anti-depressants having a measurable effect on reducing depression. Scientists never have known how they worked, and recently it was discovered that they are approximately as effective as a placebo (in fact the placebo effect seems to be what is helping depressed people when taking anti-depressants). I read an article in which the author was facing a moral dilemma of whether or not to tell his closest friends about this new finding. I think this situation is much tougher than the two “extreme” examples. If we continue to allow everyone to believe something that isn’t necessarily “true,” what progress are we impeding that could lead to something that actually helps depressed people? How many people are avoiding Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (something that is shown to work very well) because they believe their drugs do something? After all, real progress in depression comes from working through it internally. OTOH, no one wants to explain to an already depressed person that their medication actually has no more effect than a placebo. It’s like pouring salt in the wound!

This analogy really resonated with me! (maybe its the psych major in me) Just because things might be false, does not mean its not getting you where you need to be. Just thought I’d let you know this was great.

[Anonymous]

PressingForward wrote:

Euhemerus wrote:

How many people are avoiding Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (something that is shown to work very well) because they believe their drugs do something? After all, real progress in depression comes from working through it internally. OTOH, no one wants to explain to an already depressed person that their medication actually has no more effect than a placebo. It’s like pouring salt in the wound!

This analogy really resonated with me! (maybe its the psych major in me) Just because things might be false, does not mean its not getting you where you need to be.

It seems to me there may be two things to consider with medication and depression:

1. Trying to reduce or prevent a major crisis problem – drugs can help reduce the risk of a manic episode for the depressed. The negative could be that it reduces the overall energy or motivation as well…but at least the person is safe (you have to consider the trade-offs);

2. What exercises or new habitual practices are leading to the root problem that actually helps a person progress and get better emotionally/psychologically/behaviorally? Drugs alone don’t address this. This is individual strength and action.

If we relate this to the OP, of our faith and how far outside the box one can be and stay LDS, I would also say:

1. Trying to stay inside the box is safe to prevent a major loss of any faith or hope in life, but for some people it stifles growth and creativity and spiritual freedoms. But it can be safer (and so there are trade-offs some people live with and that is a logical choice to stay in the box and a legitimate reason NOT to stay in the box for some);

2. What personal growth or new faith practices can be learned and practiced (Liahona-style, non-codependent, new faith and knowledge) that allows you to be outside the box but still working on the spiritual progress…not just being outside the box because one is claustrophobic with no strategy or plan for dealing with non-Stage 3ness. As, Eu said…”real progress comes from dealing with it internally” and not just rebelling outside the box and being angry at everyone and everything inside the box (stage 4). It must be dealt with internally.

I guess I’m trying to express my idea that it is ok to be outside the box if you are still progressing individually and you are strong enough individually to deal with “out of the box” thinking without having to attack those that are in the box, or feel you are better than those in the box. Perhaps that is why the church teaches us to stay in the box and be obedient. It is safer to avoid problems, just like medication can be safer as a tool, until one is enlightened enough to handle the out of the box thinking productively, just like the depressed person can face the internal issues and change those behaviors effectively at which point the pills aren’t needed for that person anymore, and for us, the box isn’t needed any more. Others may need the box, but I don’t, whether they think I do or not.

[Anonymous]

I agree, Eu (and Heber) – which is why I am VERY careful and slow when it comes to “challenging” anyone with regard to a faith that is working for them.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

For actively homosexual members, that advice isn’t rare for me. If someone was in my ward and actively homosexual,…

At first read, I laughed at this…I guess I wondered if people consider me “actively heterosexual?” My wife would say yes….

I understand the common Mormon vernacular as it relates to this…and hope someday the church will catch up with the rest of the scientific world and understand that homosexuality is biological. But I digress….

Quote:

…I would ask them to stay and attend with me and my family – to sit with us and try to help us model how I believe we should interact with those in that situation. However, I would understand totally if they couldn’t accept that.

Some people really are too far outside the box to stay – and I encourage those people to find peace somewhere else while working to not be bitter when they leave (or to move through bitterness as quickly as possible). That isn’t easy, either, but it’s important – even vital to emotional and spiritual health

There is so much wise advice here…I’m ready to wear a t-shirt that says:

“Ray for prophet!”

😆

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

However, recently a lot of research has pointed out that there is little to no reliable evidence for anti-depressants having a measurable effect on reducing depression.

This is an interesting topic (although definitely a thread-jack — but it is my thread, so I guess I can “allow” it ), so as one in the medical field, I will say that another way you can look at placebo, is that it IS pharmaceutical. The brain is SO powerful that it has the ability to produce certain neurotransmitter/hormones that accomplish desired effects, that one can reasonably argue that if the “prescriber” really knows that the “patient” will benefit from a certain therapy (even if it IS placebo), then isn’t that appropriate treatment?

IOW, if psychotherapy allows the patient to think more logically about a situation in their life…and they come to understand that they may “get well” by adjusting their attitude about something (then their brain chemistry changes accordingly), wouldn’t we want to help the patient by recommending that treatment?

So, now steering the discussion back to the OP, if the stories in the LDS legend gives a person peace, hope and happiness, why would we want to take that away from them?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

[ I guess I’m trying to express my idea that it is ok to be outside the box if you are still progressing individually and you are strong enough individually to deal with “out of the box” thinking without having to attack those that are in the box, or feel you are better than those in the box.

I think this is HUGE! WE all have our stories that we really base our daily living on. I venture to say that it is quite possible that most our “stories” are false…so as soon as we judge another for their “poor beliefs,” we gotta look in the mirror and realize that we have our own perceived “reality” that is just as false as the others.

All of a sudden, we’re strikingly equal to everyone! Imagine that!

[Anonymous]

Rix, “actively homosexual” is the best phrase I’ve found to say it without being blunt when I know people who are a bit “squeamish” about discussing sex might be listening or reading – but I understand your point and agree completely. It really isn’t a great way to say what I mean. I wish we could be much more open AND aware of sensibilities in the way that we talk about sexuality and sexual activity (generally, since we can talk about it openly here), and I don’t mean that only about within the LDS Church. It’s widespread throughout humanity to lean toward one extreme or the other, unfortunately.

I have been disappointed in how little some people can deal with discussing sex, but I also have been disappointed in now much others want to talk about it – and I’ve been disappointed by HOW both types of people have talked about it. (Of course, if you insert [no pun intended – but enjoy anyway] “religion” or “politics” into that sentence, it’s totally accurate, as well – so it’s not just about sex. 😯 )

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

This is an interesting topic (although definitely a thread-jack — but it is my thread, so I guess I can “allow” it ), so as one in the medical field, I will say that another way you can look at placebo, is that it IS pharmaceutical. The brain is SO powerful that it has the ability to produce certain neurotransmitter/hormones that accomplish desired effects, that one can reasonably argue that if the “prescriber” really knows that the “patient” will benefit from a certain therapy (even if it IS placebo), then isn’t that appropriate treatment?

I think this is a hard question to answer. And the reason is closely related to the idea of church/beliefs. If a chronically depressed person is prescribed anti-depressants from their psychiatrist (let’s assume the psychiatrist is aware that anti-depressants may not actually work), there is a certain expectation associated with that. Indeed, the idea of the placebo is that it is the expectation that has the healing effect. But, what happens when the patient “finds out” that it was a sugar pill? IOW, you’re hanging integrity in the balance, and further trust with the patient (a critical component in the eyes of most I think) in favor of supposedly helping them (supposedly since it may not work at all as it hasn’t for my mom). I think there can be SEVERE harm done by intentionally leading people to believe that which is not true (or at least believed unlikely to be true according to our best knowledge). Is that something that should be done, especially to someone already suffering from depression? In the case of those BIC in the church, the situation is different. They are raised from birth to believe the claims of the church. There wasn’t any real misleading or lack of honesty. For converts, I confess I have my own, rather critical views of the way missionary work is conducted (though I don’t believe missionaries are intentionally misleading people either).

For me, this type of thing can be traced back to agency. I don’t believe that I have the right to decide what is best for other capable adults. And, in fact, I don’t believe anyone else does either. On the other hand, I readily admit that this does not apply equally well as a principle either. Hence my statement of “matter of degree.”

Rix wrote:

IOW, if psychotherapy allows the patient to think more logically about a situation in their life…and they come to understand that they may “get well” by adjusting their attitude about something (then their brain chemistry changes accordingly), wouldn’t we want to help the patient by recommending that treatment?

Certainly, and I think research shows that psychotherapy is undoubtedly the most effective method (which has many parallels to the things we talk about here I might add).

Rix wrote:

So, now steering the discussion back to the OP, if the stories in the LDS legend gives a person peace, hope and happiness, why would we want to take that away from them?

I do apologize for the thread jack, and I hope I’m being clear here. The issue I’m trying to bring up isn’t about depression per se, but about “throwing rocks at someone’s beliefs.” My claim is that the idea that one should unequivocally not do this is incorrect as a principle. Rather, it is a matter of degree. IMHO we absolutely should throw rocks at the beliefs of some people. In the case of the LDS church, I think it is wrong to throw rocks at those that believe in it but this is a function of the nature of the LDS church (and clearly many anti-Mormons will disagree). In the case of Jim Jones’ followers, I would have thrown rocks and would have seen it as a moral imperative to do so. In the case of anti-depressants, the situation is more complex. At the individual level, I wouldn’t throw rocks at a patient’s belief that the drugs help them. OTOH, I would be an advocate for making it known in public venues, particularly to the scientific and medical communities that there is a growing pile of evidence that we have been duped into believing anti-depressants work. I also would be upfront with patients that no one has ever been able to conclusively show why they were thought to have worked.

Perhaps jordan could give us some feedback on how he might handle this (he’s a psychiatrist I believe).

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rix, “actively homosexual” is the best phrase I’ve found to say it…

I knew what you meant Ray…just sounded kinda funny! 😆

Quote:

(Of course, if you insert [no pun intended – but enjoy anyway]

Ohhh, boy, I’m glad you have a sense of humor, Ray!

😆 😈

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

[ And the reason is closely related to the idea of church/beliefs….

Yes…actually Eu, I think we almost completely agree.

To further clarify my position, my “spiritual transition” was quite time and energy intensive. I spent years studying, praying, meditating, attending various churches and retreats, etc. (I’m not trying to “one-up” anybody here — I’m sure many others did the same thing…), and concluded that almost all spiritual beliefs are just as bizarre and magical thinking as the next one. Contextualizing each one with the era and geography helps me to understand the foundation of each one, and that reduced the anger I had for the perceived deception I had of the LDS church…

So like you mentioned, unless a “faith” is cultish to the point that it is clearly doing more harm than good, I’m probably not going to intervene and try to de-convert anybody. If a person comes to me with real issues about the stress they have over conflicting teachings, I try to help with maybe presenting to them a different perspective of why the doctrines are as they are. I’ve found that tends to help.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

[Anonymous]

I have to get in on this as it’s a topic I’ve been pondering of late. I suppose we would have to define the box, no? If that is true then the box would have millions of differing definitions, and that’s okay. If we narrowly define the box as what is contained in the Handbook then it is more difficult for one to be unorthodox and stay LDS. We can more narrowly define it as what the prophets have taught or go even further and say it is what just the current prophet has taught making it nearly impossible to be at all unorthodox. Fortunately or unfortunately, the box is mostly defined by local leadership and, to a smaller extent, our own minds and desires. Until recently I was defining the box so narrowly as to push myself out completely and I didn’t give my local leadership much input at all. I don’t think we have to do that. Perhaps the best way to figure it out is to get to know the leadership enough to be able to decide how their box is defined. That is extremely difficult in the LDS church because there are so many differing opinions among the leadership. So, I have decided to keep my box fuzzy and speak the language of my “tribe”. The only people I really have to answer to are my Heavenly Parents and they know my heart. I say I am mormon so I am. I define my orthodoxy. I define my beliefs.

[Author]

Posts