truthseaker
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by truthseaker
-
-
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
A bishop or stake president listens to those who ask for guidance and then directs them to seek their own spiritual solutions utilizing prayer and the scriptures. He may point them to scriptures or the like where he feels inspired to do so. If someone asks about suggestions for professional counselling, the bishop has a hotline number to call for that sort of information where those who are trained give the actual advice. None of this is antithetical to professional counselling. It is spiritual counselling, and you need to view it and see it in that light, not as a competition or alternative to professional counselling. A bishop is not qualified to give professional counselling. He is qualified to give spiritual counselling.
Thanks, you must understand that is a very fine line to walk, and a bishop is not trained to see the signs of someone who needs professional help, not everyone who needs counselling comes out and asks for it.
-
Just now, Vort said:
Except that it's not a joke. It's the truth.
If that is your viewpoint on that comment then I find that extremely sad and very unethical.
-
-
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:
I suspect some bishops have counselled many members who are taking their power back from a therapist which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.
I know....low blow. I couldn't resist.
A joke is very well welcomed at this point in the current discussion!
-
21 minutes ago, Vort said:
Pretty sure this is not what truthseaker said.
EDIT: For the record, here is truthseaker's own words, along with the post she was responding to for context. I don't see how this can be interpreted in any way other than that bishops should not counsel their congregation members, and that only psychologists are licensed to do so.
Exactly, bishops should not counsel their members, they are not qualified to do so. A counsellor, a psychologist a psychiatrist is. Or at the very least in an emergency situation a doctor.
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
What on earth do you think a bishop does?!
When the ignorance gets this thick, I think it's time for me to walk away and take a break.
I was responding to Just A Guy who said
It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.
This is not what therapy is about at all. Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them. I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients. I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.
The Bottom line is:
A bishop is not a medical health professional. He has no real training in marriage counselling, trauma counselling, suicide counselling, depression counselling, crisis counselling, sexual abuse counselling, physical abuse counselling etc etc. He should therefore make NO recommendations whatsoever on how anyone should receive treatment. Its unethical
-
34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Omega, I’m not convinced this is accurate—at least, not to the extent that client information is released to third parties without client consent. Do you have a source? I know that with law practice—a third party can be paying the fee, but that doesn’t give them access to the information absent a signed release.
This sounds nice in the abstract, except that other posts suggest you take a very expansive definition of “counseling”.
I have loads of respect for competent mental health professionals; but the fact is that in giving advice about life-decisions and trying to heal emotional wounds, mental health professionals are doing the kind of work that was historically within the domain of the clergy and/or the family. When I see a subset (not all) of professionals saying “my clients have to quit listening to their bishops, quit listening to their parents, quit listening to their closest friends and listen exclusively to ME”—I sort of wonder. What roads is that paid therapist planning to lead their client down, that the therapist thinks would elicit an objection from the people who love the client the most?
Wise mental health professionals realize that healing isn’t a one-man show. They identify social supports and try to take a team approach. It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight. Again—no disrespect to the profession; but an awful lot of practitioners are walking train wrecks who went into the field because they “want to help someone the way my therapist helped me” even as they remain stuck in the theroes of substance abuse, are midway through their fourth or fifth failing marriage, whose idea of a healthy personal life involves either copious amounts of alcohol or a copious number of cats. If we’re going to compare LDS bishops with mental health professionals to determine either a) which group generally has a more sincere love for their clients as individuals, b) which group has a better track record of actually translating their own advice into a stable, healthy and productive lifestyle, or c) which group is statistically less likely to exploit their clients for sex, money, or the sheer joy of a sadistic power trip—I’ll take the LDS bishops, every time.
This sounds nice in the abstract, except that other posts suggest you take a very expansive definition of “counseling”.
I stand by everything I have said. I don't suggest any underlying agenda in anything I have said.
“my clients have to quit listening to their bishops, quit listening to their parents, quit listening to their closest friends and listen exclusively to ME”
I have never met a qualified therapist who has that attitude, to do so would be highly unethical.
Wise mental health professionals realize that healing isn’t a one-man show.
My clients support structure is of great value to their recovery. A bishop is not however a mental health professional and should never act or behave as such.
It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.
This is not what therapy is about at all. Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them. I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients. I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.
-
18 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:
When an individual goes through church counseling services and the church pays the Bishop receives updates on the counselling and the individuals progress. I would never agree to have the church pay for counseling if i needed it just because of the privacy invasion that is implicit in it.
This is the kind of unethical repercussions of bishops making referrals that I'm concerned about.
I don't know what the policy is in your country, but in Australia if you get a referral from your doctor every Australian is entitled to 10 free sessions with a medical health professional per year. With these clients I always give them an extra 2 sessions at my cost so they can come and see me once a month.
-
8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
FYI, I'm a ward finance clerk. I write 98% of the checks that get written. Here's a breakdown of the kinds of checks I write, from most often to least often:
- Reimbursement checks (folks bought the food for some church-sponsored event and turned in their receipts.)
- Utilities payments
- Car payments
- Counseling
- Rent/mortgage payment
- Home/car repairs
- Medical billsYeah, Bishops refer people to (and pay for) counseling all the time. I've written counseling checks for the missionary that came home early and nobody knows why. I've written counseling checks for the couple who lost another baby early in pregnancy. And for the recently divorced. And for random individuals or couples that the casual observer has no clue something is up. I've written two, maybe three this year.
I'm confused why @truthseaker would think there is something wrong here. Fast offerings are wonderful things that bless people's lives, and it all starts with a bishop's referral.
There is no problem with someones church paying for counselling sessions, but ethically the referral needs to come from a doctor, to make sure everything is above board and non biased.
-
9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
I don't understand your bolded statement here. Consider the following:
"Fred, we need counselling, but we're poor. Let's go to the bishop and see if he'll refer us to an LDS counselor and pay for it."
"Ok Martha."
"Hi Fred and Martha, I'm glad you came to me for help. Yes indeed, here is the contact info of the LDS counselor this ward has been working with for a long time. She's very good at what she does, and I'm sure she can help you. I understand you're having financial hardship, and I'm happy to use fast offerings to pay for a few sessions. How about you come see me in two months and we'll touch bases on how things are going."This happens quite often. I would be surprised if you could find a finance clerk who has never written a check for counseling. Are you sure there's something wrong here?
This situation is more about getting financial help to pay for counselling, they have already decided that they need the counselling. Asking your church for financial help is fine, but I strongly believe the referral should be coming from a doctor, then the church can pay for those sessions if they want to help the member.
The bigger issue is with the bishop doing the counselling himself.
-
9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
@truthseaker is doing more than saying non-professional counselors shouldn't counsel. I get that. She is also saying you shouldn't go to your bishop for a referral. I don't get that.
Again, maybe I'm reading her comments wrong. "The point is no one should be going for counselling or referrals for counselling to someone not qualified to make that judgement."
In other words, "No one should go to a non-counselor for a counselling referral". Am I misreading?
Exactly you should not go to your spiritual leader for a referral for a mental health professional, they are not qualified to make that referral, you should go to a doctor.
-
9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Surely you don’t mean to suggest that holding spiritual authority entails an ethical obligation to never actually use that authority?
I work in child protection. While I would agree that you don’t want lay spiritual leaders going around diagnosing and treating disorders out of the DSM-V, trying to limit them from giving general life-advice or from helping parishioners to work through the consequences of a particular choice throigh the lens of a particular spiritual worldview, goes WAY too far. Especially given that in my experience more than a few “qualified therapists” really have no idea what in Sam Hades they’re doing; whereas what I’m hearing from you—carried to its logical conclusion—would suggest that a parent of a sex abuse victim has no business, say, helping their child select a university.
I’m disinclined to isolate people from meaningful sources of support just because some PsyD or LCSW with a god-complex doesn’t want the competition.
I'm saying they should not abuse that authority, and offering counselling when you are not qualified to do so is just that, abusing your spiritual authority over another.
-
9 hours ago, MormonGator said:
I'm not saying that I agree with @truthseaker, but at first it does seem a bit odd to get counseling from someone who doesn't have mental health training and experience.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with them, but I can see why someone who isn't LDS would think that way.
Thank you, I'm actually a psychologist with an active counselling practice so I do have a very strong opinion on this issue.
-
6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand Mormon culture. The Bishop isn't requesting them to come in. They chose to on their own because they respect his opinion. People can seek marital advice from whomever they please...it might be their best friend, or their mom, or their Bishop. Not everyone needs professional counseling. Yes, of course, with abuse professional counseling is needed, but a woman in an abusive relationship is not likely to pick up the phone and call a therapist. She often needs help....perhaps from family, friends or a Bishop, to be persuaded and encouraged to make that step.
But a bishop is in a position of spiritual authority over these people, it is unethical to offer advice on their personal lives (marriage or otherwise) from a counselling perspective, its very different than talking to a friend about your problems. I understand that is your culture but it invites a lot of problems, problems that could be avoided.
-
2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
I think you are misunderstanding me. Often Mormons when they have trouble in their marriage first to the Bishop, then if he feels there is a need, he will refer them to professional counseling. Yes, as we can see in the Rob Porter case, grave mistakes have been made, and thus the Church Leaders are re-emphasizing that abuse is not to be tolerated.
I understand, I think you are missing my point. The point is no one should be going for counselling or referrals for counselling to someone not qualified to make that judgement. A Bishop is not qualified to counsel people or refer people for further counselling to anyone else. He shouldn't be involved in it at all.
-
Just now, LiterateParakeet said:
No, they are not offering counseling. I think the issue is related to the Rob Porter case (and others like it) where a woman is being abused by her husband and the Bishop counsels her to try and work things out. Here's a quote from the CNN article:
Willoughby, who was married to Porter from 2009 to 2013, also said Mormon bishops discouraged divorce. One of the bishops worked with Porter and warned her that filing a protective order could harm her husband's career.
That is counselling though (bolded section above), and potentially very damaging to the people involved if not done by a trained professional. Very unethical
-
I must be reading this wrong, surely bishops (who from what I understand are just members in good standing with the church and have a bishop 'calling', certainly not qualified counsellors) are not counselling sexual abuse/assault victims. These people need specialised counselling.
Actually anyone who needs counselling for anything needs a professional (be it marriage issues/personal issues/depression etc), not an 'bank manager or similar' with a 'calling'.
Im horrified if this is the case.
-
Just realised how old this thread is, sorry to post on here, I didn't mean to, have deleted my comment as I don't think its appropriate
-
1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:
For me, there's a huge difference between listening to God, versus listening to my own feelings. For me, I mentally sound like an ADD-jack-rabbit that's had 5 Mountain Dews before 9 AM. God... is calmness. I most equate it to the scriptural scene "Master the tempest is raging!"-- the Master calms the seas and just speaks.
LOL, an ADD Jack rabbit listening to heavy metal
-
6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Like baptism receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is a priesthood ordinance and must be done by a person holding Christ's priesthood in Christ's church. And yes, LDS believe that the LDS Church is Christ's church.
Thanks, everything does seem to be coming back to that. Who the LDS church thinks holds the authority to act for Jesus Christ on earth (obviously they think. its them). Its very interesting.
I dare you to go into an evangelical church on a Sunday morning and say that they don't have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion because they aren't LDS, you'd get lynched!
-
14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Solution: ask God yourself "is this divine revelation-- are these your words?" And listen to the answer.
Skip the part of debating men's words back and forth.
I'm a psychologist so I look at this differently from you. But I think its totally cool that's how you make it work for you!
I personally don't think feelings are not a good indicator of truth and I doubt God is going to show up on my door and say 'yep this is all true' lol. The human mind can see truth where is thinks it should be, where it wants it to be. In short its not recommended to trust your feelings alone when trying to ascertain truth, because if you want it to be true, you brain/emotional response, signs you think you see or do not see, will tell you it is.
- Maureen and lostinwater
-
2
-
3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
There's a having the Holy Ghost visiting you, versus being a full-time companion. Certainly all people (Christian and non) have the Holy Ghost visit and witness to them (that's actually crucial). When a person is confirmed (after baptism), they receive the "gift of the Holy Ghost" which is full-time companionship.
Useful resource: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng
But many churches believe the holy spirt is a full time companion of the member once they have received it. So LDS don't believe members from those other churches have the Holy Spirit as a constant companion. You need to be a member of the LDS church to have the holy spirit as a constant companion?
-
6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
I have no doubt your previous church was full of wonderful people who love Christ and do their best to follow Him! Almost all of the many Christian churches I have visited over the years are full of people who love God, love the Bible, and generally really admirable. I love visiting other churches and seeing the people there (I'm usually at at least 6 non-LDS denominations a year).
But as I listen to the sermons... there's so many different messages being told. Heck, in one month I happened to hear 4 different sermons on "we're just going to read straight from the Bible and talk about this 1 chapter" (same chapter, all 4 times). And it was 4 completely different messages- from the same chapter!
While I do love the people at other Christian Churches, and majority of the theology... some of the theology... by logic, conflicting ideas can't all be True. And some of the ideas (like that the Father/Son/Spirit are 1 God via a shared substance... I don't find that scripture anywhere. It comes from the post-Biblical Creeds, which were written by men, not divine revelation. That doesn't change the fact that the people their indeed do love God, but for me Truth is also super important. Not truth as said by man, but Truth I get from directly asking God myself and listening to Him speak.
Isn't all Devine revelation written down by men in the end. For example, weather or not you agree with the outcomes of the early church council meetings, they can claim the same thing, divine revelation, then they wrote it down. The Koran claims the same thing, the OT and NT of the Bible claims the same thing, the Book of Mormon claims the same thing.
Divine revelation can be whatever anyone says it is, no one can prove otherwise so it doesn't really speak concrete authority to me. They can't all be right so using Devine Revelation as evidence of truth is not really enough for me. I need something else to back it up, like prophesies that came true etc
-
@Sunday21 @bytebear @Vort @DoctorLemon @Jane_Doe One more question if I may bother you all again please. If the LDS church believe they are the only true church on the earth, and only LDS baptism is legitimate in the eyes of God, does that mean they also believe no members from other church's can have the gift of the Holy Spirit? I mean does the LDS church teach that only LDS members can have the gift of the holy spirit/ghost
New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews
in Church News and Events
Posted
I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by. I said it was unethical for a Bishop to counsel members about problems in their lives, which I stand by. Its fine for a bishop to tell a church member to pray about their problems, but anything above that, in my opinion is unethical.