Church Not Responsible for High Anti-Depressant Use

[nate]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640196840,00.html

"With few exceptions, Latter-day Saints who live their lives consistent with the teachings of the (church) experience greater well-being, increased marital and family stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, less suicide and less substance abuse than those who do not," Judd said Tuesday during a BYU Forum on campus.

...um, but those normal folk that can't live up to the impossible quickly become depressed, anxious, suicidal, divorced and shunned, which is exactly the point, you DOLT! BYU professor studying mental health of Utah...:duh no conflict of interest there. And with a sampling of 540 you can pretty much "prove" whatever you want with stats.

Judd said there are no studies that explain the higher use of antidepressants in Utah, or for that matter in Maine and Oregon — the other two states with high rates of anti-depressant use.

How about S.A.D. (Seasonal Affective Disorder) in those rainy, coastal states?

"Perhaps one of the reasons the residents of Utah lead the nation in the use of antidepressants is that since they are generally more educated and aware of the symptoms and treatments of depression, they are more likely than the residents of other states to seek medical treatment." In fact, he said, a closer look at the pharmacy study showed Utahns did appear more likely to seek medical help.

hahahahaha. As soon as I stopped going to church, my mother forced me (and 2 of my brothers) to see a psychiatrist (a joint session) in which the doc gave all 3 of us scripts for Prozac within 10 minutes. It couldn't be the fact when people start doubting the church they feel something must be wrong with them, could it? No way. And it couldn't be that more people seek prescriptions BECAUSE more people ARE DEPRESSED, could it? No way. It's because Mormons are SMARTER! :slap:

The state also ranked first in the use of narcotic painkillers.

Because mormons are smarter, right? hahaha :D

"The majority of studies I have reviewed are supportive of the assertion that religious belief, and most especially faithful religious devotion, facilitates mental health, marital cohesion and family stability," Judd said.

But what are you reviewing? Where are they? Can I see too?

[helemon]

Waite a minute, is this a drug thread? ;) (Reading DZ's mind.....SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS A SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!:mad: )

I guess we don't need to worry about Mormons using illegal drugs they are already stoned on legal drugs! :duh

It also points out that like Nate said it is impossible to live up to the ideals of the Mormon church which can lead people to depression and that can lead to drug use legal or illegal to escape the emotional pain.

Are there any stats on illegal drug use in UT? Is Utah low on illegal drug use because it is wrong and against the WoW but big on legal drug use? Could it be that many of the people in these other states are using alcohol and tobacco to treat their anxiety and depression but in Utah this is not acceptable so more people turn to prescription medication?

[helemon]

How about S.A.D. (Seasonal Affective Disorder) in those rainy, coastal states?

If SAD was the reason then wouldn't Alaska top the charts.

[nate]

If SAD was the reason then wouldn't Alaska top the charts. Yeah, but remember, those damn Alaskans aren't smart enough to seek medical help. Duh! :p

But really though, how many Alaskans are there? Are the numbers in the studies based on population, or just overall numbers? See, I don't know, because the article doesn't touch on any facts, only the assumptions of this one BYU professor. You would think that Alaska would, if SAD was the only factor. I don't think it, nor anything else, is solely to blame, unlike this professor. My point is that this guy presents one possibility AS DEFINITIVE, failing to see that there could be many different variables...perhaps thousands.

[helemon]

Yeah, but remember, those damn Alaskans aren't smart enough to seek medical help. Duh! :p

But really though, how many Alaskans are there? Are the numbers in the studies based on population, or just overall numbers? See, I don't know, because the article doesn't touch on any facts, only the assumptions of this one BYU professor. You would think that Alaska would, if SAD was the only factor. I don't think it, nor anything else, is solely to blame, unlike this professor. My point is that this guy presents one possibility AS DEFINITIVE, failing to see that there could be many different variables...perhaps thousands.

Right, I totally agree with you there. I think the professor is clearly biased toward trying to find an out for the church instead of looking at how aspects of the Mormon religion could lead to depression when people feel they are unable to live up to the high expectations.

[Born Free]

I found interesting how this guy is only to happy to lump Mormons in with other Church goers, when it suits, where as the religion is notorious for its insistence on how superior it is to every other religion most the time.

" Judd began to review studies on religion and mental health in 1983. His look at 540 studies that measured both mental health and any religious affiliation, belief or practice showed that 51 percent found a positive association between religion and mental health. Sixteen percent indicated a negative relationship.
"The majority of studies I have reviewed are supportive of the assertion that religious belief, and most especially faithful religious devotion, facilitates mental health, marital cohesion and family stability," Judd said.
The positive association held true for most religions."

No where does he try to tease out any of the specifics.

I am willing to accept as valid the idea that where as many non-member depressives are likely to self-medicate with alcohol, then Mormons are likely less prone to that problem. But he avoids that they may use sugar and caffeine as replacements, which have their own 'high' and frequently exasperate the serotonin and dopamine problems in the brain that are key elements of depression. Of course there are also numerous other addictive type behaviours that a depressive might engage: work and sex to name just a few (remember those figures on Utah access to porn via the web).

He also sweeps aside whether Mormons may have more stress in their life than mainstream Christians. For a start Mormonism has a lay leadership - stress up! It is a high maintenance religion: HT, FHE, all that attendance, plus temple work.

He conveniently overlooks how Mormon doctrine and practice might compare on stress scales with mainstream Christianity: anti-birth-control, high emphasis on Sabbath observance, wholesale history-hiding/laundering, doctrinal shifts by stealth and denial, pressure to marry early and have large families, women having to defer to men.

He skims over that Mormonism is significantly anti-psychology and psychiatry, and tends to be anti-drugs that impact the mind, yet in spite of that dynamic, it still rates high. It is a religion that treats the mentally ill as morally defective. Even the statement:

""With few exceptions, Latter-day Saints who live their lives consistent with the teachings of the (church) experience greater well-being, increased marital and family stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, less suicide and less substance abuse than those who do not," Judd said Tuesday during a BYU Forum on campus."

makes an excellent example of how Mormonism shames those with difficulties. Reverse that statement and you get something like:

If you suffer from: marital problems, family instability, depression, anxiety, family suicide or substance abuse, then it is very likely because you are not living lives consistent with the teachings of the (church).

So, inspite of that message, Mormons are still gobbling down their ADs in record doses.

But ultimately it is the duplicity that makes me smile. :Puking When it suits they want to duck under the umbrella with other religions, stating there is no difference of significance and that they share in the health benefits observed, but most the time, they proudly insist upon their marked superiority.

Sorry guys; you can't have it both ways.

You know, this sounds like getting a pre-emptive dose of anti-anti into BYU students. Here they are at a university where they should be learning how to think critically, and once again we observe that when it comes to their own religious beliefs, they are being coached early in sloppy thinking.

Boy I wish Eddy was around right now to pass an opinion, given he might have even known this shining light.

Daryl

PS: It struck me after writing this, that if the religion is as good as they claim, then Mormons should be showing marked improvements over the 'other religions' on these indicators

[Born Free]

I find this conclusion a very interesting one to draw.

""With few exceptions, Latter-day Saints who live their lives consistent with the teachings of the (church) experience greater well-being, increased marital and family stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, less suicide and less substance abuse than those who do not," Judd said Tuesday during a BYU Forum on campus."

The stats are giving him big-picture trends, but by what magic logic does he conclude 'with few exceptions' when he gets down to the minute behaviour? He has leapt from the meta picture right through to the micro, making huge assumptions along the way. I would love to see the stats exam results this guy got. Either he is not flash on stats, or we are witnessing another case of religious contamination.

And he appears to make this HUGE assumption about causality. His logic goes 'religious observance creates well-being' on all those scores. The article does not quote how he ruled out whether people who enjoy good mental health, are likely to be Church going, i.e. the causality is turned the other way around.

Daryl

[helemon]

The article does not quote how he ruled out whether people who enjoy good mental health, are likely to be Church going, i.e. the causality is turned the other way around.

True, if someone is feeling depressed they probably don't want to hang out at church where they will be expected to socialize and probably have people ask them how they are doing. If the religion makes them feel like a failure and depressed then they will probably just stop going.

[Born Free]

Google 'Daniel K. Judd' and see what you come up with. Is this guy into seriously gilding of the lilley or what?

Check out this example of how good he is on stats.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

It states in part:

'Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd computed in the year 2000 that only 6% of Mormons who marry in a temple ceremony subsequently go through a temple divorce. This is a small fraction of the rate in the general American population. Unfortunately, the value may lack accuracy:


Most Mormons who have their marriage sealed in a temple ceremony and who subsequently divorce do so in a civil ceremony. This avoids the rather complex temple "cancellation of sealing" (divorce) procedures. Thus, their divorce is not counted in the above figure.

Some Mormons marry in a temple ceremony, divorce in a civil procedure and subsequently remarry in a second temple ceremony. This would count as two temple marriages and zero temple divorces -- thus reducing the apparent divorce rate.


Overall, the Mormon divorce rate is no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have a lower rate.'

He very clearly sees exactly what he wants to see, so to have a PhD after his name is disgusting. He clearly doesn't go where the 'truth' leads him; he goes where his religious prejudices take him, and he finds; 'Voila, exactly what he wanted to find!' This would suggest very dubious standards on PhDs at BYU.

Daryl

[helemon]

He very clearly sees exactly what he wants to see, so to have a PhD after his name is disgusting. He clearly doesn't go where the 'truth' leads him; he goes where his religious prejudices take him, and he finds; 'Voila, exactly what he wanted to find!' This would suggest very dubious standards on PhDs at BYU.

But he is exactly the type of professors the church wants there! Ones who will do 'research' that supports the claims of the church and covers up the problems. His research just like that of Dan Petersen is helping to ensure his tenure at BYU. Professors who try to appeal to reason and the truth are fired, as was recently demonstrated by Jeff Nielsen.

[Born Free]

But he is exactly the type of professors the church wants there! Ones who will do 'research' that supports the claims of the church and covers up the problems. His research just like that of Dan Petersen is helping to ensure his tenure at BYU. Professors who try to appeal to reason and the truth are fired, as was recently demonstrated by Jeff Nielsen.

So they should have the spelling and pronunciation of Professor amended so it says Pr-ho-fessor, because that is what they are; whores who sell their professional integrity for pieces of silver, and not many pieces at that.

:: I wonder what the depression rate is amongst Professors at BYU? That level of lack of integrity must be exacting a high price on their self-esteem and sanity ::

On the surface their jobs must look great: A profile job in a tertiary institution of your religion. But it has a price.

I saw a SDA pastor friend in a similar position. There was no, read NO room to speak out. And as he got older and wiser, he came to see how stuck he was: he no longer believed as he did as a young man, they paid badly (which was OK when he was gung-ho), and the older he got, the less viable it was to walk and start in a place where he was truly independent.

The level of cog-dis that must be necessary to make that work, if you have a brain, must be off the scale.

Hats off to the Big Eddy's of this world.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

I find this conclusion a very interesting one to draw.

""With few exceptions, Latter-day Saints who live their lives consistent with the teachings of the (church) experience greater well-being, increased marital and family stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, less suicide and less substance abuse than those who do not," Judd said Tuesday during a BYU Forum on campus."

The stats are giving him big-picture trends, but by what magic logic does he conclude 'with few exceptions' when he gets down to the minute behaviour? He has leapt from the meta picture right through to the micro, making huge assumptions along the way. I would love to see the stats exam results this guy got. Either he is not flash on stats, or we are witnessing another case of religious contamination.

And he appears to make this HUGE assumption about causality. His logic goes 'religious observance creates well-being' on all those scores. The article does not quote how he ruled out whether people who enjoy good mental health, are likely to be Church going, i.e. the causality is turned the other way around.

Daryl
This was exactly what I was thinking, too.

What I think this kind of claim demonstrates (again...) is how faith shapes the world in the eyes of the faithful. In this case, Judd can't see any of the other possibilities, and has to make claims to help him feel better about the choices he continues to make.

For me, I make sense out of HIS argument this way: The Church is a "system," designed by people who like the "system" to be the way that it is. Other people who like the same "system" find that they personally resonate with the practices, rituals and outcomes of participating in that system. Subsequently, they genuinely feel they are living in the manner they are supposed to be, because they feel congruent living the gospel. Living the gospel is easy for them, and they feel good when they do.

However...and this is a BIG however...

There are many, many people who either are thrust into a life living the gospel without their consent (Born in the Church), or who join on their own volition without either a complete understanding of what they are committing to, OR who are still spiritually under-developed and evolving, OR who were born in the church but find that the dynamics of life have changed their perspective to something new. For any of these people, they may find that the "system" as outlined by the gospel DOES NOT resonate with them. Psychologically, it fights with them internally, and they cannot find peace. But since they have been programmed to believe that this "system" is in fact God's "system," they feel obligated to continue to live something that is somehow in violation of their unique spirit. They are the ones living incongruously, struggling (and often failing) to live the standards of the Church, and suffering from the guilt and depression that is spawned under these circumstances. THESE, my friends, are the people on anti-depressents...I would bet my last dollar.

[Born Free]

<snip>

There are many, many people who either are thrust into a life living the gospel without their consent (Born in the Church), or who join on their own volition without either a complete understanding of what they are committing to, OR who are still spiritually under-developed and evolving, OR who were born in the church but find that the dynamics of life have changed their perspective to something new. For any of these people, they may find that the "system" as outlined by the gospel DOES NOT resonate with them. Psychologically, it fights with them internally, and they cannot find peace. But since they have been programmed to believe that this "system" is in fact God's "system," they feel obligated to continue to live something that is somehow in violation of their unique spirit. They are the ones living incongruously, struggling (and often failing) to live the standards of the Church, and suffering from the guilt and depression that is spawned under these circumstances. THESE, my friends, are the people on anti-depressents...I would bet my last dollar.
P_M,

Well said (as always).

Your wife is a counsellor in a community where the Church predominates. Would she concur with my statement that the Church is still far from psychology/psychiatry/counselling friendly?

Does this statement I made here, apply as the predominant subtext around mental, family and relationship problems in your (Church) community?

If you suffer from: marital problems, family instability, depression, anxiety, family suicide or substance abuse, then it is very likely because you are not living lives consistent with the teachings of the (church).


See from my perspective, this statement implies that 'man' has 100% agency, and are not impacted by genetic and sociological factors. Various sciences now estimate that at best we have 'agency' in 20-25% of our actions. The rest lies in factors outside our control. That is not a model that fundamental religions like.

By making people over-responsible for their actions, you guarantee (provided they buy the deal), that they will consistently suffer from guilt for failing to meet 'the standard' because of personal inadequacy. Guilt-ridden people are easily manipulated, which is exactly what MoInc wants. It is not in their interests (that is of the Morg and its puppets), to adopt a more realistic model of what shapes human behaviour.

Invert that, and it says it is in their selfish interest to maintain commitment to an outdated and dis-proven model, and to keep people ignorant of alternatives that better predict human behaviour. Having members who are suicidal because of depression and/or suppressed homosexuality is a small price to pay for the control that can be maintained over the large number of active members, who grease the cogs of 'the Beast'.

Daryl

Daryl

[peter_mary]

Your wife is a counsellor in a community where the Church predominates. Would she concur with my statement that the Church is still far from psychology/psychiatry/counselling friendly?
Absolutely! There are some Church leaders who are humble enough to recognize that mental health issues are are very, very real and very, very outside their realm of expertise, who refer their ward members to professional help. Unfortunately, there is still the predominant view that ALL problems can be solved by living the gospel, and that problems themselves are indicative of sin and require repentence.

Does this statement I made here, apply as the predominant subtext around mental, family and relationship problems in your (Church) community?

If you suffer from: marital problems, family instability, depression, anxiety, family suicide or substance abuse, then it is very likely because you are not living lives consistent with the teachings of the (church).


LDS Family services is supposed to be the vehicle by which Church members can receive the safe, gospel-friendly therapeutic support they need. Yet rather than working in the context of normal counseling ethics, the first thing you do when you go to LDSFS is sign a waiver that allows the counselor to discuss your case with your Bishop! The operating model is that whatever you're struggling with, it's a spiritual matter that must be dealt with through eclesiastical channels, and the Bishop is the steward of that process. Confidentiality goes out the window. The therapeutic process goes out the window. What you end up with is more guilt as you go through a glorified repentence process, using the counselor as a "middle-man".

See from my perspective, this statement implies that 'man' has 100% agency, and are not impacted by genetic and sociological factors. Various sciences now estimate that at best we have 'agency' in 20-25% of our actions. The rest lies in factors outside our control. That is not a model that fundamental religions like.

By making people over-responsible for their actions, you guarantee (provided they buy the deal), that they will consistently suffer from guilt for failing to meet 'the standard' because of personal inadequacy. Guilt-ridden people are easily manipulated, which is exactly what MoInc wants. It is not in their interests (that is of the Morg and its puppets), to adopt a more realistic model of what shapes human behaviour

Daryl
Excellent point. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but I think you're exactly right. It is naive to believe that our mind rules our chemistry. Anyone who has suffered a bout of PMS (or loves someone who has!) knows the power of body chemistry! The study of brain chemistry in all areas of mental health is gaining momentum, and the popular media is beginning to explore it for the lay person. The bottom line is that you are right...our chemistry, as dictated by factors outside our consciousness, is in FAR greater control than we'd EVER like to believe!

[nate]

The bottom line is that you are right...our chemistry, as dictated by factors outside our consciousness, is in FAR greater control than we'd EVER like to believe!

And the repetitive, or classical, conditioning done by the church can really actually affect the mind in a chemical way!

[dogzilla]

And the repetitive, or classical, conditioning done by the church can really actually affect the mind in a chemical way!


Hmm...

Much like...

(dare I say it?)


... drugs?

Whhhooop! Slippery Slope! Someone alert the mods!

:cool:

[peter_mary]

Hmm...

Much like...

(dare I say it?)


... drugs?

Whhhooop! Slippery Slope! Someone alert the mods!

:cool:
You are a naughty, naughty little dogzilla.

C'mere for your spankings...

:p

[Born Free]

<snip>

LDS Family services is supposed to be the vehicle by which Church members can receive the safe, gospel-friendly therapeutic support they need. Yet rather than working in the context of normal counseling ethics, the first thing you do when you go to LDSFS is sign a waiver that allows the counselor to discuss your case with your Bishop! The operating model is that whatever you're struggling with, it's a spiritual matter that must be dealt with through eclesiastical channels, and the Bishop is the steward of that process. Confidentiality goes out the window. The therapeutic process goes out the window. What you end up with is more guilt as you go through a glorified repentence process, using the counselor as a "middle-man".

Excellent point. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but I think you're exactly right. It is naive to believe that our mind rules our chemistry. Anyone who has suffered a bout of PMS (or loves someone who has!) knows the power of body chemistry! The study of brain chemistry in all areas of mental health is gaining momentum, and the popular media is beginning to explore it for the lay person. The bottom line is that you are right...our chemistry, as dictated by factors outside our consciousness, is in FAR greater control than we'd EVER like to believe!

I have a friend who is exMo and does some work for LDS social services, and he has experienced many employees of LDSSS over the years using him as confessional about how leaders fail to respect the mental health professions.

It even frustrates the people on the inside.

Daryl

[helemon]

Hmm...

Much like...

(dare I say it?)


... drugs?

Whhhooop! Slippery Slope! Someone alert the mods!

:cool:

The USA hasn't outlawed the neuro-chemicals produced by the brain yet, only some of the close aproximations of them produced in nature and labs. :slap: Helping Dogzilla up after taking a nasty fall on the slippery slope. 'You need to be more careful dear!' ;)

[papa]

The USA hasn't outlawed the neuro-chemicals produced by the brain yet, only some of the close aproximations of them produced in nature and labs. :slap: Helping Dogzilla up after taking a nasty fall on the slippery slope. 'You need to be more careful dear!' ;)

Actually, helemon, the USA has done exactly that-they have outlawed dimethyltryptamine (schedule 1), in spite of the fact that it is produced in the brain and throughout the body. Same for 5MeoDMT as well. So you are all under arrest! :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm a surfer, so I love slippery slopes. ;)

[helemon]

Actually, helemon, the USA has done exactly that-they have outlawed dimethyltryptamine (schedule 1), in spite of the fact that it is produced in the brain and throughout the body. Same for 5MeoDMT as well. So you are all under arrest! :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm a surfer, so I love slippery slopes. ;)

Thanks for the clarification. And organized sports have made human blood illegal! And you need a prescription for estrogen and insulin. So I stand corrected there are many chemicals produced naturally by the body that are controlled or outlawed. But just because a chemical is produced by the body doesn't mean it should be made freely available to all who want it without consulting a medical professional.

[Born Free]

Thanks for the clarification. And organized sports have made human blood illegal! And you need a prescription for estrogen and insulin. So I stand corrected there are many chemicals produced naturally by the body that are controlled or outlawed. But just because a chemical is produced by the body doesn't mean it should be made freely available to all who want it without consulting a medical professional.
I was speaking with a friend yesterday whose X suffers from Bipolar Depression (Manic in the old language), and when he had been told to take a broad spectrum B group vitamin, which the label said 1 per day, his frazzled wife found he had been taking 8 per day, and it had been making him very, very erratic.

As soon as he got onto the correct dosage, the erratic behaviour ceased.

I had a similar problem with my son, who seemed to work out of a logic that went: If 1 unit is good for you, then 5 units must be great for you. Of course there are many things that simply don't work that way with respect to the human body, which is an amazingly complex organism.

For a period he seemed to be incapable of appreciating the moderation principle. He also still has something to learn (IMHO) about respecting the body's natural processes.

Daryl

[Born Free]

Any old farts (in their 50s) remember that song from the 60's? Was it Helen Shapiro?

When you stand back and look at MoInc, it fairly quickly becomes apparent that a strict dichotomy exists:

If anything is 'virtuous, lovely or of good report', then they (MoInc) are absolutely responsible, and the exclusive franchise for all God's blessings.

If it is unhealthy, shitty, complex or real, they they (MoInc) are Not, Not; Not Responsible.

Sound simplistic?

You bet, and for the simple reason that it is.

Only people who want to remain children at one level or another swallow that MoInc is the source of all things wonderful, and need to be permanently enthralled.

It should be renamed The Teflon Empire. They do all in their power to make sure s#it doesn't stick, and no skid marks are left. :eek:

But adults appreciate that shit happens; it is part of the nature of the world in which we live. Only children and adults with ulterior motives pretend shit doesn't happen on their watch.

Daryl