APA apologizes to LDS

[helemon]

From RfM
American Psychological Association APOLOGIZES to LDS Church.

A little over a year ago a movie about the LDS church called "Get the Fire" was released. It followed LDS missionaries and told about tactics used by the LDS church. At the APA convention, the movie was shown as a "must see film for any psychiatrist in mind control, brain-washing, and self-esteem issues."

The LDS took issue with the movie and support by the APA and now the APA has issued a formal apology.

" . . . offers a sincere apology for the offensive description of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . The board rejects the characterization of the church used in the program and regrets any harm this has caused."

So, the APA rejects the notion that the LDS church uses mind control, brain-washing, or powerful psychological techniques. They regret characterizing the church in that way.

What's really funny is that the LDS used "mind control, brain-washing, and psychological techniques" to get the APA to change their mind and issue the apology. LOL

The following link will describe the details of the convention an how the LDS convinced the APA to change their point of view.

Www.biasfire.com

What do you think of that Ed and Daryl?

[Born Free]

From RfM


What do you think of that Ed and Daryl?
Helemon,

Following is my reply:

"1. Are you a psychologist?

I am not a psychologist. I am a counsellor and facilitator working with separated men, some of whom are Mormon and ex Mormon. I lve in Australia.

2. Are you an APA member?

No

3. After reviewing the film introduction, does it appear to you that APA was approving the anti-Mormon conclusions of the film?

Without the disclaimer discussed in correspondence, the introduction appears to imply the APA endorses the film and its thrust.

4. Do you think APA should retract the introduction and apologize to the general membership?

I believe that a disclaimer would be appropriate and an apology that the use of a disclaimer was overlooked originally.

5. Were you surprised to learn this was published in an official APA document?

While it is of some surprise, administrative errors occur in the organisation of large conferencces, particularly as many of the people on the organising committees do not perform that function full time, in my experience. (I am sure the APA does not insist all papers and presentations are sub,itted for vetting as they are before Mormon Conferences).

6. Does this seem to you to violate APA's ethical standards?

I am unfamiliar with US APA ethical standards, but I believe that if members believe that members of a particular faith are presenting with particular problems on a regular basis, the APA should be prepared to canvas the issue.

7. Do you think this sort of episode reduces the credibility of APA in offering advice to the public and others who could benefit from legitimate psychological research?

In no meaningful way. It is of value to separate 'the public' and members and former members of fundamentalist religions, such as Mormonism. The level of depression in Utah would indicate that some factor there elevates the levels, and I am also aware that many Mormons are highly resistant to engaging the assistance of psychologists here in Australia.

8. If you were a member of a group so characterized as the Mormons were, would this impact your desire to seek services from a psychologist?

Yes it certainly would. That said, your question is loaded. Fundamentalists are already resistant to seeking the services of mental health professionals, in no small part because of the messages, implicit and explicit they get at Church. I am sure a film on Jonestown would have dissuaded its members from seeking the services of psychologists, but would that be a reflection upon the film or the reality of the toxicity of Jim Jones and the techniques he employed.

Your approach starts from the assumption that either all religions and cults are exempt from psychological critique, or that Mormonism should have some special status. Would you be as concerned and active had a similar film be presented about the Jehovah Witnesses. SBS here aired the PBS documentary The Devils Playground re the Amish. I regard it as a powerful resource in how many fundamentalist religions set up their youth, but did you protest that?

9. Did APA foster prejudice by creating and publishing this film introduction?

In the absence of a disclaimer, they acted less that ideally. That said, if there is data to suggest that Mormons present in therapeutic settings with major problems, their concern may be well justified.

10. Other Comments?

Your approach implies that you believe the Mormon Church and its missionaries enjoy the best of mental health. I would dispute that. I recently met with an old girlfriend, active Mormon, RM, general practitioner. With no prompting from me, she suggested that from her professional training, in excess of 75% RMs probably suffer from significant levels of depression.

If you want to get down off your indignant Mormon soapbox, and start thinking like a professional psychologist, you might ask if the Church conducts robust professional standard psych tests on missionaries before and after they serve a mission.

You know as an RM that missions are demanding mentally, so if the issue at the core of this is of concern, and not your protection of Mormonism, then you might ask why the Church does not perform such tests. I am aware of young people sent home from missions with major depressive episodes. In many cases they struggled to recover, believing they had falied in a key element of life. I am not aware the Church contributed anything to the cost of treatment for depression, which I believe it is morally bound to do, if the young persons mental health was not robust upon entering the mission field..

The military performs such tests. It might send men and women into battle. The Mormon Church states clearly that it is sending its young people into battle with an powerful and persistent adversary. Yet, it fails to check they are up to the task.

Why might that be?

Further, if only 25% of RMs are depressed, that is twice the national average, but still a conservative 1/3rd of what my friend claims. Why is the Church not concerned to check that.

Worse, how come you as a professional psychologist haven't raised this issue.

If you want to spend your energy productively, I suggest you approach the Mormon Church with a proposal to perform a pilot psych study on a sampling of missionaries, pre, during and post. I would expect, given your stated professional standards, that you would insist that it be peer-reviewed by non-Mormons.

Many of the Mormon and ex-Mormon clients I have seen carry major damage from their fundamentalist conditioning, whether they recognise it or not. Many conclude they married too young, as RMs, prescribed with sexual anxiety, and in many cases confusing sexual desire with love. You will be aware that marriage at a young age is statistically linked to higher risk of divorce, but Mormonism persists in promoting young marriage. Many exhibit a poor relationship with their masculine sexuality, saddled up with sexual baggage found commonly in members of fundamentalist cults.

How do you explain that with all its pro-marriage and pro-family messages that Mormons fare no better than the population at large in divorce?

In case you are wondering, I am an ex LDS member, still, in my 50s trying to expunge its toxic influence from my head, and battling the anger that I distorted my life for too many years to comply with its beliefs and teachings. Of course, like a most well trained Mormons, and inspite of your training as a psychologist, you will comfortably discount all I have challenged you with above, on the basis of the last paragraph.

But, in the small hours of the morning, if you lie awake with yourself for a few moments, the challenge I have thrown you will nag you, and nag, and niggle. Because you know the issue you are railing against in your APA action, is not the real issue.

I challenge you to post the replies you get to your questions openly and transparently on your site, as many ex- and post-Mormons are prepared to do.

I await your reply personally."

Daryl

PS: I look forward to Ed's response. I am guessing he is on leave or a sabbatical at present.

[Born Free]

From RfM


What do you think of that Ed and Daryl?

A later email to their website:

"I have just read: Dr. Adams' response including samples of feedback from Biasfire Visitors

You claim APA bias, yet you happily go ahead and present all the letters you got in support of your position, whilst conveniently omitting to quote in full or part from critics of your position.

How typically Mormon. Anything that is critical of an aspect of Mormonism is labelled 'anti-Mormon', as if the entire organisational is so perfect that any critique is unwarranted, unfair or biased.

Most the quotes are so patently Mormon or Mormon apologist.

The classic is the person claiming a patient has a 'right' to set their therapeutic objectives regardless of what those objectives are. I am not a psychologist, but I am confident that it is unethical for a psychologist to accept as a patient, a person who holds an expectation that they can be 'treated' for a 'condition' (homosexuality) for which there is no scientific evidence as a disease or that 'treatment' has any chance of achieving results. Little wonder this person is a critic of the APA.

You should be disgusted to be seen supported by such people. If they are typical of the psychologists you keep company with, then that says more about you than it does about bringing the APA into disrepute.

If you claim that film risked turning people off psychology as a profession, I suggest you stand back and have another look at your website, and the supporters you cite. The more time I take to look closely at your position, the more holes I find...... a bit like Mormonism, in my experience."

Daryl

[why me]

From RfM


What do you think of that Ed and Daryl?
I am not sure if I saw this documentary but I did see a documentary that was probably this documentary about LDS missionaries. And if it was this documentary then an apology is in order for the simple reason that the documentary had an agenda...to be negative toward the LDS church. It is not the place for the APA to support such a documentary without verifying its results and without obtaining a statement from the LDS church. I am sure that some members of the APA are Mormons and as such they would be offended by the film and issued some complaints about the endorsement. I am not saying that the film should not have been made I am just saying that it should have not gotten the public endorsement from the APA. And so an apology was in order because it was offensive to some of its members who believe in the LDS religion...

[helemon]

A later email to their website:

"I have just read: Dr. Adams' response including samples of feedback from Biasfire Visitors

You claim APA bias, yet you happily go ahead and present all the letters you got in support of your position, whilst conveniently omitting to quote in full or part from critics of your position.

How typically Mormon. Anything that is critical of an aspect of Mormonism is labelled 'anti-Mormon', as if the entire organisational is so perfect that any critique is unwarranted, unfair or biased.

Most the quotes are so patently Mormon or Mormon apologist.

The classic is the person claiming a patient has a 'right' to set their therapeutic objectives regardless of what those objectives are. I am not a psychologist, but I am confident that it is unethical for a psychologist to accept as a patient, a person who holds an expectation that they can be 'treated' for a 'condition' (homosexuality) for which there is no scientific evidence as a disease or that 'treatment' has any chance of achieving results. Little wonder this person is a critic of the APA.

You should be disgusted to be seen supported by such people. If they are typical of the psychologists you keep company with, then that says more about you than it does about bringing the APA into disrepute.

If you claim that film risked turning people off psychology as a profession, I suggest you stand back and have another look at your website, and the supporters you cite. The more time I take to look closely at your position, the more holes I find...... a bit like Mormonism, in my experience."

Daryl

Excellent responses!!

[Born Free]

<snip>

And if it was this documentary then an apology is in order for the simple reason that the documentary had an agenda...to be negative toward the LDS church. It is not the place for the APA to support such a documentary without verifying its results and without obtaining a statement from the LDS church. I am sure that some members of the APA are Mormons and as such they would be offended by the film and issued some complaints about the endorsement. I am not saying that the film should not have been made I am just saying that it should have not gotten the public endorsement from the APA. And so an apology was in order because it was offensive to some of its members who believe in the LDS religion...
Why Me,

In this case I will choose to break my own rule of engaging you on anything, because the issue is so important.

If this was a documentary on Jonestown, which clearly would have 'an agenda', would you argue that the APA had no right to run the program. At what point is a religion especially exempt from scrutiny?

It is possible that the APA chose to run the film because it addressed a process (even if less than ideally) that results in many people presenting in therapy, and which many therapists do not appreciate. Most psychologists are bright people in my experience. Their professional training strongly promotes logical and clear thinking in a manner few other disciplines do these days. I am sure most conference attendees were quite capable of leaving any bias in the theatre room, and gleaning the insight needed for therapy.

I recently had occasion to pass along Bill Gardiner's paper on Shame and Religion to a therapist who had a former patient, a JW member, commit suicide. Nothing in her (the therapists) life experience or professional training had prepared her for the powerful and destructive hold that that religion had over that person before they suicided. The patient, had a drug problem in large part to self-medicate their pain about their religious upbringing, yet as the therapist facilitated the man in reframing his experience and dilema and working out what had not served him, seemed to assume the therapist was 'of the Devil', so became increasingly resistant, eventually withdrawing from therapy and later killing themselves.

In what manner do you believe that the film being screened at an APA conference constituted "the public endorsement from the APA". Why me, this type of statment is why I have so much difficulty engaging with you. From my perspective you shoot from the hip, but them, when challenged, don't believe you have any responsibility to account for the position you took. So, on this issue, I am leaving you no wiggle room! Justify your remark.

Why Me, before you take what seems to be a common position for you, and adopt an uncritical position of support and sympathy for the Church, I suggest you read all the correspondence on that site.

These people, whilst claiming to take the high moral ground for psychology and the APA, are so transparently taking the high moral ground for Mormonism. The real issue here was the particular challenges that former Mormon missionaries might present with in therapy. Did these two character raise that point anywhere?

Personally I would love to see some psychometrics done on Mo missionaries, preferrably by non-Mos, so we got to see ALL the results, not just the 'faith-enhancing' version.

I might also raise the issue of why the MoPsychs are so convinced this was a conscious act of skullduggery? They clearly back the conspiracy version. Why might that be? Why do the members of fundy orgs consistently believe that there is an agenda behind everything? I would suggest the answer lies closer to home than the APA Conference organising committee.

The way I see it this issue has lots of gray.

On the APAs side, I am clear, as I gather they now are, that they should have attached a disclaimer to the film intro. Did that come about due to some sort of conspiracy - an anti-Mo conspiracy, or a cock-up. Personally I would place my bet 4:1 that it was the latter.

At the Church end, how does the Church fare on the mental health of missionaries? 'What?" you ask. Of course it is universally known that missions are the greatest thing a young person can do, for themselves, for their family, for their Church and for God, so how could one even suggest the possibility that some develop depression from it?

And that is where the issue stops. No research, no accountability, particularly if the result might be the Church having to spend some its hard won cash on treatment for depression (which will likely be resistant to treatment whilst the person stays in the dissonant Mormon space).

So, Why Me, please proceed to offer me the rationale (head & philosophy in your terms) for your position. Alternatively or additionally, if you want to stick to your 'feelings and heart' don't stop with your empathy for MoCorp and these two fragile MoPsychs. How about a little for all the missionaries who return from missions (sometimes early) with major depressive episodes (to which the mission highly likely contributed, but towards the treatment of which it contributes zip).

You might keep in mind that some are active on this site.

The other layer of this is that many of these undiagnosed depressed males return to get married early, then engage the whole MoMale model of masculinity, and proceed to dissociated arrogant, insensitive, patriachal 'service of the Lord'. They are not infrequently busy, distant and insensitive husbands, because they have no basis for their connection with other human beings because they are disconnected from themselves.

Daryl

PS: Re - "And if it was this documentary then an apology is in order for the simple reason that the documentary had an agenda...to be negative toward the LDS church." You might like to address the issue of whether the MoPsychs had 'an agenda', and whether everything that is presented to a psych conference should be micro-vetted and 'approved' like they are for Mo General Conferences or at Communist Party conferences.

In my experience big folks don't need to be molly-coddled like that!

[flotsam]

Everything Daryl said

Wow, what a bracing read. It's good to have someone talk rational exploration, rather than marketing.

I'm going to see if I can dig up that documentary. If you think about it, this campaign probably gave that documentary quite a bit of publicity and sent viewing numbers through the roof. :rolleyes:

I'm lucky, I have a wife who is as good as a psychologist at listening uncritically. It's amazing how much she's gotten me through. I was damaged goods thinking I was da bomb. I grew up thinking that life was made of justice and condemnation. And my mission did nothing to question that idea. Ooooh Noooo. Quite the opposite, my dear Jeeves.

It's taken me nine years after my mission to start digging up how hogtied I was morally and spiritually. I'm a forgiving guy, so I'm willing to say that much of it was my fault, being such a spaghetti-spine my whole life. But MormonCorp never lifted a finger to help me consider any idea that didn't put the Corp in complete charge.

It's freaky looking back (and I still have some of this in me!) and seeing just how frightened I was of being cut off from the Church. People may point out that Jesus' teachings about mercy are all over the pages of LDS publications. Yep. But, if you leave the Church, you are damned. Show me ONE PLACE in any LDS publication where exMormons have a place in heaven. I'd love to see it.

I can definitely see the "brain washing" interpretation of a mission. The peer pressure is HUGE. The theology is overwhelming. The expectations are insurmountable. And everytime you fail, you either hate yourself, or "repent" like crazy and set yourself up to fail again. Because there's only ONE way to succeed on a mission. Baptize. That's the way it was on my mission. My leaders would get really angry with me if I set up too much service. I'm glad I had the guts to blow them off my last few months.

Even worse, is if you succeed. Then you have to keep up your reputation. YOu have to be a leader. And you have to keep getting bigger and bigger. So you get home, and you have to be the Sunday School president, and then the Elder's quorum president, and then the bishop, stake president, seventy, and on up the line.

If brainwashing is convincing someone that there is only one way to go, a mission is brainwashing.

Let me put on an angry face here.

:mad:

That feels better.

[why me]

Why Me,

In this case I will choose to break my own rule of engaging you on anything, because the issue is so important.

If this was a documentary on Jonestown, which clearly would have 'an agenda', would you argue that the APA had no right to run the program. At what point is a religion especially exempt from scrutiny?

It is possible that the APA chose to run the film because it addressed a process (even if less than ideally) that results in many people presenting in therapy, and which many therapists do not appreciate. Most psychologists are bright people in my experience. Their professional training strongly promotes logical and clear thinking in a manner few other disciplines do these days. I am sure most conference attendees were quite capable of leaving any bias in the theatre room, and gleaning the insight needed for therapy.

I recently had occasion to pass along Bill Gardiner's paper on Shame and Religion to a therapist who had a former patient, a JW member, commit suicide. Nothing in her (the therapists) life experience or professional training had prepared her for the powerful and destructive hold that that religion had over that person before they suicided. The patient, had a drug problem in large part to self-medicate their pain about their religious upbringing, yet as the therapist facilitated the man in reframing his experience and dilema and working out what had not served him, seemed to assume the therapist was 'of the Devil', so became increasingly resistant, eventually withdrawing from therapy and later killing themselves.

In what manner do you believe that the film being screened at an APA conference constituted "the public endorsement from the APA". Why me, this type of statment is why I have so much difficulty engaging with you. From my perspective you shoot from the hip, but them, when challenged, don't believe you have any responsibility to account for the position you took. So, on this issue, I am leaving you no wiggle room! Justify your remark.

Why Me, before you take what seems to be a common position for you, and adopt an uncritical position of support and sympathy for the Church, I suggest you read all the correspondence on that site.

These people, whilst claiming to take the high moral ground for psychology and the APA, are so transparently taking the high moral ground for Mormonism. The real issue here was the particular challenges that former Mormon missionaries might present with in therapy. Did these two character raise that point anywhere?

Personally I would love to see some psychometrics done on Mo missionaries, preferrably by non-Mos, so we got to see ALL the results, not just the 'faith-enhancing' version.

I might also raise the issue of why the MoPsychs are so convinced this was a conscious act of skullduggery? They clearly back the conspiracy version. Why might that be? Why do the members of fundy orgs consistently believe that there is an agenda behind everything? I would suggest the answer lies closer to home than the APA Conference organising committee.

The way I see it this issue has lots of gray.

On the APAs side, I am clear, as I gather they now are, that they should have attached a disclaimer to the film intro. Did that come about due to some sort of conspiracy - an anti-Mo conspiracy, or a cock-up. Personally I would place my bet 4:1 that it was the latter.

At the Church end, how does the Church fare on the mental health of missionaries? 'What?" you ask. Of course it is universally known that missions are the greatest thing a young person can do, for themselves, for their family, for their Church and for God, so how could one even suggest the possibility that some develop depression from it?

And that is where the issue stops. No research, no accountability, particularly if the result might be the Church having to spend some its hard won cash on treatment for depression (which will likely be resistant to treatment whilst the person stays in the dissonant Mormon space).

So, Why Me, please proceed to offer me the rationale (head & philosophy in your terms) for your position. Alternatively or additionally, if you want to stick to your 'feelings and heart' don't stop with your empathy for MoCorp and these two fragile MoPsychs. How about a little for all the missionaries who return from missions (sometimes early) with major depressive episodes (to which the mission highly likely contributed, but towards the treatment of which it contributes zip).

You might keep in mind that some are active on this site.

The other layer of this is that many of these undiagnosed depressed males return to get married early, then engage the whole MoMale model of masculinity, and proceed to dissociated arrogant, insensitive, patriachal 'service of the Lord'. They are not infrequently busy, distant and insensitive husbands, because they have no basis for their connection with other human beings because they are disconnected from themselves.

Daryl

PS: Re - "And if it was this documentary then an apology is in order for the simple reason that the documentary had an agenda...to be negative toward the LDS church." You might like to address the issue of whether the MoPsychs had 'an agenda', and whether everything that is presented to a psych conference should be micro-vetted and 'approved' like they are for Mo General Conferences or at Communist Party conferences.

In my experience big folks don't need to be molly-coddled like that!
I stated my position from the basis of repectability. I cannot compare Mormonism with Jonestown...I don't believe the two are related at all. What I was trying to say is that in the United States mormons have a certain respectability in the community. True, there are some negativisms by born againers or by other christians but by and large the church is more respected today than it was a generation ago. This is my opinion. When the APA shows a documentary that is negative toward the LDS church...it will be under pressure to defend why it showed the film and if it does not have a justifiable reason to do so (which I assume it didn't because it offered an apology) it needs to offer an apology to the LDS church. But I am sure that certain LDS members of APA were offended by the film and issued a protest. Of course I do not know this but I think that there were protests from the LDS members. Hence, APA thought over their position and retracted. That was my position on this matter. It was my own conclusion why the apology was issued. It was a necessary apology if the APA could not justify showing the documentary. Now I do not believe that every 19 year old should go on a mission. I know that I didn't go and certainly the church would be wrong in stressing the fact. It is not a place for certain young people....there must be a certain amount of inner strength and purpose to be a missionary and not everyone is cut out for it. I am not against the documentary...but I am not sure if the APA should have shown it where they did...that is all I was trying to say. And yes I think that sensitivity is in order when it comes to a worldwide faith...at least be prepared to back up the reasoning for the showing. But you know Daryl, are you any different in mind control? Really if you think about it what you said to me about not wanting to engage me is in a sort of way...doing something to someone else's mind?...and it is not very nice...or is it? Maybe we all play mind games...we just don't realize it....Have a good day down under.... :)

[why me]

Wow, what a bracing read. It's good to have someone talk rational exploration, rather than marketing.

I'm going to see if I can dig up that documentary. If you think about it, this campaign probably gave that documentary quite a bit of publicity and sent viewing numbers through the roof. :rolleyes:

I'm lucky, I have a wife who is as good as a psychologist at listening uncritically. It's amazing how much she's gotten me through. I was damaged goods thinking I was da bomb. I grew up thinking that life was made of justice and condemnation. And my mission did nothing to question that idea. Ooooh Noooo. Quite the opposite, my dear Jeeves.

It's taken me nine years after my mission to start digging up how hogtied I was morally and spiritually. I'm a forgiving guy, so I'm willing to say that much of it was my fault, being such a spaghetti-spine my whole life. But MormonCorp never lifted a finger to help me consider any idea that didn't put the Corp in complete charge.

It's freaky looking back (and I still have some of this in me!) and seeing just how frightened I was of being cut off from the Church. People may point out that Jesus' teachings about mercy are all over the pages of LDS publications. Yep. But, if you leave the Church, you are damned. Show me ONE PLACE in any LDS publication where exMormons have a place in heaven. I'd love to see it.

I can definitely see the "brain washing" interpretation of a mission. The peer pressure is HUGE. The theology is overwhelming. The expectations are insurmountable. And everytime you fail, you either hate yourself, or "repent" like crazy and set yourself up to fail again. Because there's only ONE way to succeed on a mission. Baptize. That's the way it was on my mission. My leaders would get really angry with me if I set up too much service. I'm glad I had the guts to blow them off my last few months.

Even worse, is if you succeed. Then you have to keep up your reputation. YOu have to be a leader. And you have to keep getting bigger and bigger. So you get home, and you have to be the Sunday School president, and then the Elder's quorum president, and then the bishop, stake president, seventy, and on up the line.

If brainwashing is convincing someone that there is only one way to go, a mission is brainwashing.

Let me put on an angry face here.

:mad:

That feels better.
I am glad that you feel better! But flotsom now that you have blown off steam...how would you make the mission experience better for all those who go? Recently I met two missionaries who were in plain clothes...I asked them if today was their PD day and they said no it wasn't. It seems that the mission president is encouraging the missionaries to discard white shirt and tie at times to show more blending and warmth in the community...also the mission president is now stressing community service within the community at the expense of tracking time etc. I thought that this was a good idea and a much more human idea. Any suggestions for making the mission more human and less demanding?

[hamar]

Fredl:And that is where the issue stops. No research, no accountability, particularly if the result might be the Church having to spend some its hard won cash on treatment for depression (which will likely be resistant to treatment whilst the person stays in the dissonant Mormon space).

I couldn't help thinking about the issue of Agent Orange after Viet Nam and thinking there were some similarities here. Our own government refused to link Agent Orange (mission?) to the issues facing returning military personnel (missionaries?).

Nothing ever got done on that issue until a few activists (concerned citizens) were willing to force the issue and stick the evidence in the governments face in a way that they could no longer ignore.

Anyone who thinks the church has attained a high degree of respectability must live in the heart of happy valley. The only people who don't know how screwed up the church really is have terminal tunnel vision.

Regarding what Why Me said, "Now I do not believe that every 19 year old should go on a mission. I know that I didn't go and certainly the church would be wrong in stressing the fact. It is not a place for certain young people....there must be a certain amount of inner strength and purpose to be a missionary and not everyone is cut out for it."

He almost got it right! The correct answer is that NO 19 year olds should go. I can't think of another cult that sends young inexperienced and poorly prepared young people out to sell a defective product for two years that most folks already know is filled with lies and fraud. At least in the developed countries of the World. The JWs are competitors, of course, but, as Fredl already pointed out, they are likely more screwed up than the morg.

I think the suits in SLC should get their fat asses out of their leather chairs and get out there in the "mission field" and pound on a few doors themselves. They are the ones with all the knowledge and who communicate with the lord on a regular basis. They could counter all the arguments and clear up all the negative issues that are raised here with all the true and everlasting knowledge that they have but keep locked up in their heads and in their basement in SLC.

I think it's time the suits woke up to the fact that all is definetely not well in Zion and it is going to take some "concerned citizens", mentioned earlier in this post, to get them to remove their heads from their asses. IMNSHO. :Puking

[miss taken]

I am glad that you feel better! But flotsom now that you have blown off steam...how would you make the mission experience better for all those who go? Recently I met two missionaries who were in plain clothes...I asked them if today was their PD day and they said no it wasn't. It seems that the mission president is encouraging the missionaries to discard white shirt and tie at times to show more blending and warmth in the community...also the mission president is now stressing community service within the community at the expense of tracking time etc. I thought that this was a good idea and a much more human idea. Any suggestions for making the mission more human and less demanding?


I did hear of some sisters being sent on 'health' missions where their purpose was entirely 'social' rather than to 'convert'. Most I think were nurses. I am and never have been a professional nurse so I guess I wouldn't have been considered.

Why me, that mission president sounds great. I like him!!! It's a difficult issue though. To someone who believes sincerely that the church is God's one true church, then trying to get people to be members is going to be pretty high up on their agenda. Whether that membership will be good for people is going to be different for every person. It should be good for everyone shouldn't it. But in reality it isn't, and some become quite psychologically damaged. One of my best friends tried to commit suicide because she couldn't cope with the church.

The issues are also going to be different for converts and for those born under the covenant so to speak.

I know that when I was a missionary, my intentions were good, I wanted people to be happy and to live a good life. In reality my mission was full of contradictions, from those who would 'chip and dip em' just to get numbers, to those only wishing to impress their immediate authorities, to those without testimony but merely serving for the Porche promised on their return (I kid you not). Much of my mission I was concerned about baptising folks and then leaving them to the ward. It's a big adjustment, and many went inactive because they couldn't handle the stringent attention the missionaries gave (I am talking personally here) with a busy ward who didn't have so much time for them once they were baptised. Of the 60 people that I helped bring into the church I know of none that are now active. None. Most of the missionaries baptising in my mission at the same time will have the same experience. We baptised a lot of people and a lot of people went immediately inactive.

Missionaries are just young, immature (myself included) kids, who go on a mission because that is what they are culturally expected to do. Some are spiritually more mature than others. ie they really do sincerely believe it is true. But most (that are human anyway!) harbour doubts, insecurities, questions, and are often ignorant of many aspects of church doctrine and history.

I dunno, a lot of RM's I knew came home hardened, but some came home with more questions than they had answers.

Mary

On the APA issue! Mind Control, brain washing and self-esteem issues. Hmmmmm. I would say they are correct. This neither validates or invalidates whether Joseph Smith was genuine or not. Only that I believe that the missionaries indeed do use these methods.
They do tell a simplistic message, get investigators to watch often very emotional films (used to be Families are Forever, Johny Lingo, Man's Search for Happiness, Ancient America Speaks) and encourage investigators to have a purely emotional and spiritual response which would then preclude? them from researching the church from a logical,historical, balanced, rational and intellectual standpoint.

The missionaries often do this without even knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion..

I do recall that in my mission, when concerns were expressed that the investigators were not ready to be baptised, the 'day of pentecost' was always brought up as justification. ie that 1000.s of people joined the early christian church who hadn't had one discussion! They knew Jesus was the Christ and that was all that was necessary.

It would be easier in the church if the only motive was to have people believe that Jesus was the Christ (which I know many would dispute) Seems to me, that Jesus himself argued that it wasn't important for people to worship him as some kind of God, only to recognise the sense in the words he uttered.

But the church comes with a whole lot of baggage, and more recent history...

I've rambled...I'll shut up now!!!!

[why me]

I did hear of some sisters being sent on 'health' missions where their purpose was entirely 'social' rather than to 'convert'. Most I think were nurses. I am and never have been a professional nurse so I guess I wouldn't have been considered.

Why me, that mission president sounds great. I like him!!! It's a difficult issue though. To someone who believes sincerely that the church is God's one true church, then trying to get people to be members is going to be pretty high up on their agenda. Whether that membership will be good for people is going to be different for every person. It should be good for everyone shouldn't it. But in reality it isn't, and some become quite psychologically damaged. One of my best friends tried to commit suicide because she couldn't cope with the church.

The issues are also going to be different for converts and for those born under the covenant so to speak.

I know that when I was a missionary, my intentions were good, I wanted people to be happy and to live a good life. In reality my mission was full of contradictions, from those who would 'chip and dip em' just to get numbers, to those only wishing to impress their immediate authorities, to those without testimony but merely serving for the Porche promised on their return (I kid you not). Much of my mission I was concerned about baptising folks and then leaving them to the ward. It's a big adjustment, and many went inactive because they couldn't handle the stringent attention the missionaries gave (I am talking personally here) with a busy ward who didn't have so much time for them once they were baptised. Of the 60 people that I helped bring into the church I know of none that are now active. None. Most of the missionaries baptising in my mission at the same time will have the same experience. We baptised a lot of people and a lot of people went immediately inactive.

Missionaries are just young, immature (myself included) kids, who go on a mission because that is what they are culturally expected to do. Some are spiritually more mature than others. ie they really do sincerely believe it is true. But most (that are human anyway!) harbour doubts, insecurities, questions, and are often ignorant of many aspects of church doctrine and history.

I dunno, a lot of RM's I knew came home hardened, but some came home with more questions than they had answers.

Mary

On the APA issue! Mind Control, brain washing and self-esteem issues. Hmmmmm. I would say they are correct. This neither validates or invalidates whether Joseph Smith was genuine or not. Only that I believe that the missionaries indeed do use these methods.
They do tell a simplistic message, get investigators to watch often very emotional films (used to be Families are Forever, Johny Lingo, Man's Search for Happiness, Ancient America Speaks) and encourage investigators to have a purely emotional and spiritual response which would then preclude? them from researching the church from a logical,historical, balanced, rational and intellectual standpoint.

The missionaries often do this without even knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion..

I do recall that in my mission, when concerns were expressed that the investigators were not ready to be baptised, the 'day of pentecost' was always brought up as justification. ie that 1000.s of people joined the early christian church who hadn't had one discussion! They knew Jesus was the Christ and that was all that was necessary.

It would be easier in the church if the only motive was to have people believe that Jesus was the Christ (which I know many would dispute) Seems to me, that Jesus himself argued that it wasn't important for people to worship him as some kind of God, only to recognise the sense in the words he uttered.

But the church comes with a whole lot of baggage, and more recent history...

I've rambled...I'll shut up now!!!!
I cannot disagree with you on many fronts. I have never brought someone into the church and I don't believe that I will. I know the baggage that comes with it and I also know the responsibility that membership has. That being said I don't think that it is easy to be a christian in todays world. regardless of the faith a person professes to believe in. The pope in Germany stressed the difficulties living in secular societies and how young members need to embrace the faith more. Basically, secularism is very powerful and the LDS church faces the problems that secularism can bring into a person's faith. In terms of missionaries, many LDS parents make a terrible mistake in pressuring their child to serve a mission well. Much comes from the family or the home. I remember free thinker said many months ago when he drank beer. He said "moderation, moderation, moderation" I think that I remember this correctly. Well, the same should apply to LDS life...live it in moderation, accept the faults that human's have and understand human imperfection in the first person and view god as love in practice. In my opinion, most people in this forum seem to suffer from taking the religion very seriouly, too seriously. Callings, callings and more callings as work, work, work. Well....life is best spent in moderation, I think and church life is no exception. That being said, I don't want to be a hypocrite...There was no moderation for me because I could never live the life mentally and in general through my actions as a human being. Most of the time it was a social experience for me but of course I did want to believe (why not?). But I had no callings except in the nursery...earlier I said primary but it was the nursery. I refused everything that was offered me except watching the little ones. It was an innocent calling with no gospel attached. Thanks for the post miss taken...

[Born Free]

,snip>

But you know Daryl, are you any different in mind control? Really if you think about it what you said to me about not wanting to engage me is in a sort of way...doing something to someone else's mind?...and it is not very nice...or is it? Maybe we all play mind games...we just don't realize it....Have a good day down under.... :)
why me,

IME mind control is where one person or party sets out to control the mind and thinking of another/s whilst hiding or concealing their intent.

By that definition, I am not guilty of trying to 'mind-control' you. I am absolutely up front about my discomfort with your reasoning and your approach, particularly what frequently looks like widespread uncritical take on Mormon performances.

If you choose to take that personally, that is your decision (or habit as the case may be). Being nice was never my primary intention. Whilst I do not set out to offend, and even go to some length to avoid that, if that is a by-product of attempting to have a rigorous, honest and reasonable dialogue with some people, that I regard that as a necessary price of rigour.

I prefer that any day to 'nice' rigorouslessness - which is common in MoLand. Another feature of such an exchange is its superficial 'niceness' but accompanied viscious undercurrent.

I am sure we all play a level of mind-games that we are unconscious of. Some people attempt to identify, and invite feedback on their mindgames, and take criticism in that regard seriously and not personally.

Curious that you should see no basis of comparison between Mormonism and Jonestown. Time magazine did at the time Jonestown went down, if you care to look that up. Religious seige mentalities are fairly well studied, and fundamental religions like Mormonism are well renowned for it in certain circles. Maybe they are not circles you are aware of. Waco was another example of personality cults that get out of control.

Those same circles react in quite typical ways when they perceive any criticism, large or small, and this is a classic example. BTW, as I read it, the APA apologised for a the lack of a disclaimer and the tone of the introduction and not for the basic inclusion of the film.

Daryl

[why me]

why me,

IME mind control is where one person or party sets out to control the mind and thinking of another/s whilst hiding or concealing their intent.

By that definition, I am not guilty of trying to 'mind-control' you. I am absolutely up front about my discomfort with your reasoning and your approach, particularly what frequently looks like widespread uncritical take on Mormon performances.

If you choose to take that personally, that is your decision (or habit as the case may be). Being nice was never my primary intention. Whilst I do not set out to offend, and even go to some length to avoid that, if that is a by-product of attempting to have a rigorous, honest and reasonable dialogue with some people, that I regard that as a necessary price of rigour.

I prefer that any day to 'nice' rigorouslessness - which is common in MoLand. Another feature of such an exchange is its superficial 'niceness' but accompanied viscious undercurrent.

I am sure we all play a level of mind-games that we are conscious of. Some people attempt to identify, and invite feedback on their mindgames, and take criticism in that regard seriously and not personally.

Curious that you should see no basis of comparison between Mormonism and Jonestown. Time magazine did at the time Jonestown went down, if you care to look that up. Religious seige mentalities are fairly well studied, and fundamental religions like Mormonism are well renowned for it in certain circles. Maybe they are not circles you are aware of. Waco was another example of personality cults that get out of control.

Those same circles react in quite typical ways when they perceive any criticism, large or small, and this is a classic example. BTW, as I read it, the APA apologised for a the lack of a disclaimer and the tone of the introduction and not for the basic inclusion of the film.

Daryl

I did not take any offense at all with what you said. it was only that you could have said it without the first sentence in your other post of not wanting to engage me etc. If you would have left that out, it would have been much better..that is all I meant. But I do have different views from many in this forum. But this issue was gone over already in the simon thread and so we should go over old pudding. Do you remember the documentary about women and islam that was filmed by a dutch director? He was murdered for his direction by a muslim fanatic. I saw parts of that film and could not disagree with anything that was said about islam and women. But many muslims took offense of the documentary. Perhaps they thought it was skewed etc. No one should loose their life in directing or writing a documentary but with the APA it seems that they should have understood the purpose of the documentary and if it had an agenda and if it was accurate in its editing. I don't know if this was done..but they did back off from what they did. I need to go now my time is up on the computer...take care....

Okay...I am back to continue the conversation. I think Born Free that most religions play mind games. I am sure that it was the same during Paul's time in the new testament. What Paul wrote was very strong stuff and I am sure that if it were possible many people would have joined a post-Paul forum on post-paul.org. He was a tough guy. But don't most religions play mind games? Where I live the lutherns have a strong pressence. Even though very few people attend the luthern church as compared to the luthern population, I can still see the luthern mindset in the population. It is in their blood and difficult to extract. And so I am not sure that it is just a mormon condition. The mormon church teaches a very powerful message. It is life changing and very deep in cultural and behavioral norms. It is not easy to break away from such a view of life. Is it control? Maybe...but I think that it has more to do with the message and with a person's former testimony. I know that there are people who just up and leave without the least feeling of control or impact...why? because they were most likely never in to begin with. But for those who believed with a strong testimony or with a sincere belief that was heartfelt, the leaving process is much harsher. And I think that most of us here have felt that way...we believed either with a sincere heart or we had a strong testimony which was laterdeflated...and it is difficult to extract the mind from the past...but this is only my opinion...and conjecture....take care...

[Born Free]

Have a look at the PBS overview of the film.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/getthefire/film.html

This does not sound like the gross anti-Mo rant that biasfire would have one believe it is. That PBS chose to air it would also suggest that it was not biased. IME they are not into stirring up fear and loathing.

It sounds like the pro-Church story got plenty of airtime, but the dicumentary did follow post-mission a few who felt burnt by the experience.

I was discussing this issue with a post-Mo friend last night, and I coudl not recall the latest stats on the percentage of RMs who go inactive. How relevent some material for therapists who might treat former Mormons is somewhat based upon the sheer numbers and/or percentage of RMs who might wind up in this problematic mental space.

Can anyone assist me with the numbers?

As I read that review I was reminded of the psychological impact of the total experience. Look at just one factor alone - suddenly having no privacy, combined with being 24/7 in the company of a stranger. Just that alone would be enough to mentally rattle many people, most particularly certain personality types. The only place I experienced that lack of privacy was in Army boot camp, where everyone knows a major head-rework is going down.

So let us do some basic maths here. Let us assume that 20% become inactive upon return. That is JUST 12,000 young people a year, who find themselves in the difficult space of trying to get their heads sorted, potentially using therapists who have no insight into the heavy-duty process they have been exposed to.

Of course that overlooks that plenty of active Mormons make their way into therapy, so their therapists need a reasonable insight into what is unique and significant about the Mormon experience to be able to be effective.

The more I look at this, the more biasfire looks like a very biased storm in a teacup. I wonder if the MoMachine ever tried to take PBS to task.

Daryl

PS: Here are some other references to the doco I found on the net Googling it:

http://www.hartnett.nl/_fgetthe.htm

http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/GetFire.htm
(THis is interesting in that it states that "Additional funding was provided by the New York State Council of the Arts and the Utah Humanities Council.")

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon238.html

[Born Free]

<snip>

Mary

On the APA issue! Mind Control, brain washing and self-esteem issues. Hmmmmm. I would say they are correct. This neither validates or invalidates whether Joseph Smith was genuine or not. Only that I believe that the missionaries indeed do use these methods.
They do tell a simplistic message, get investigators to watch often very emotional films (used to be Families are Forever, Johny Lingo, Man's Search for Happiness, Ancient America Speaks) and encourage investigators to have a purely emotional and spiritual response which would then preclude? them from researching the church from a logical,historical, balanced, rational and intellectual standpoint.

The missionaries often do this without even knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion..

<snip>

But the church comes with a whole lot of baggage, and more recent history...

I've rambled...I'll shut up now!!!!
Mary,
I somehow missed this post of yours.

Unless I have missed something, you may have misunderstood what the doco was claiming.

To my understanding (and I would now love to see the doco myself), one element appears to be that the missionaries may be indoctrinated, taken through a boot-camp, mind-control process, and that many then suffer significant adjustment problems after the event.

Have a look at:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/getthefire/film.html

I would value your comments as a female RM.

You might also find the Q&A session with the female director/producer interesting at:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/getthefire/qa.html

Here is just an extract:
"I would like viewers to get a sense of what the 60,000 young people who are knocking on doors and approaching people in public transportation and pedestrian zones and saying the same thing in lots of different languages all over the world are about. I did not make a film about the Mormon Church. I made a film about young people who went through this experience and came to different conclusions. Because I do not give so much detailed information about Mormons, viewers can meditate on the effects of authority and socialization of all young people. For more specific details, people can browse the Internet."

Daryl

[free thinker]

I have shared this before and therefore will employ brevity to convey an easily read, and possibly more salient synopsis of my post-mission experience.

While in the mission field I sent home a companion that never should have been there. He tried counseling to stay in the game. It did not work. The happiest I ever saw him was the day I put him on a plane to return early from the mission field.

I returned clinically depressed.



free thinker

[Born Free]

I have shared this before and therefore will employ brevity to convey an easily read, and possibly more salient synopsis of my post-mission experience.

While in the mission field I sent home a companion that never should have been there. He tried counseling to stay in the game. It did not work. The happiest I ever saw him was the day I put him on a plane to return early from the mission field.

I returned clinically depressed.

free thinker

Free Thinker,

When I look at the inactivity rate of ex missionaries and church leaders, one could not be blamed for saying the Church is a Corporation, who sees people as expendible in its march to achieve its objectives.

People who fall off the wagon are rarely given a second thought, if their plight is even acknowledged. In my immediate circle of friends I have two former Bishops who were not given 2 seconds thought after their release. Little wonder so many go inactive, and become enbittered.

People are either ignored or worse, seen as failed or deficient in some way if they fall by the wayside. You could say that this is an organisation manned by non-professionals, and justify the lack of professionalism in that way, BUT, non-professional organisations have to be more careful in that regard, because people are not being kept by the pay.

Have I missed something here, or is my take justified - they use people as expendible, with not a second thought if they are left in a crumpled heap after their performance. No checks to see people are sufficiently robust before the event, and no sense of duty-of-care after they are used.

Ah!!!!!!!!!!!! The love of Christs chosen, perfect organisation.

Seems to me the remarks in the doco by the 3 former missionaries may have been well justified.

Daryl