Search the Community

When accusations arose that President Trump has dementia, that he exhibits characteristics of multiple mental health disorders, and that he is truly and objectively crazy, I smirked. When POTUS responded that he was a very stable genius I cracked up, laughing. Many psychologists and pundits did not. They took him serious, and said he had once again shown that he suffered from grandiose narcicism. One columnist insisted with uber sobriety that anyone who declared his own stability and genius was unstable and foolish. Step back. Recognize the "I be all and know-all" schtick for what it is. Rush Limbaugh has been doing the same for nearly 30 years. The President was tweaking his critics, intentionally poking, prodding and irritating them. And...they reacted just like he wanted them to. Along comes a cabal of psychologists, soberly warning that POTUS is a clear and present danger, saying that their 'duty to warn' exceeds the Goldwater Rule (prohibiting psychologist from publicly diagnosing those they have not professionally interacted with). Thankfully, the APA re-affirmed the Goldwater Rule, and urged its members to cease and desist with the political grandstanding. Bottom-line: Oppose the President's policies and actions. Question his wisdom and tactics. Do not use implied expertise and unverifiable mental health speculations to attempt to undermine an election. POTUS can defend himself, and I do not always want to. However, I bristle at highly trained people who squander their expertise and bring disrepute on their professions. FWIW, I hate it when clergy pontificate about politics in ways that imply that the truly faithful could not help but agree with them.

I posted this on LinkedIn, and thought I would share it here, to see what folk think.

Hey, can anyone recommend me any books with LDS authors that talk about psychology with a gospel perspective? I am specifically looking for books on full self-control using gospel principles, basic or advanced. Or heck, even a book that doesn't necessarily teach you but at least talks about such. I can't really find anything though... Also something that mixes meditation with LDS principles would also be incredibly welcome and helpful. I know "Matters of the Mind: Latter-day Saint Helps for Mental Illness", but that seems to be the only book on LDS psychology that I can find so far. I really really wish to learn to control my body and mind on an incredibly high level, but I really want to avoid getting into waters I maybe should have left alone. Or disturbing and using powers that maybe ought not to be used at all.

A few months ago I talking with a psychologist I know. I asked if the Christian urban legend that "homophobia" was in the DSM (the APA manual on psychological diagnoses) was true. It was not. I even looked over the manual, myself. Then I read about a therapeutic framework that a Christian psychology professor was using to treat Christian homosexual men who wanted to shunt their same-sex attraction. This was not reparative therapy, but rather a putting aside of physical drives to achieve a greater spiritual purpose. The APA approved his framework. So, I concluded that there is hope in that field. People of faith can serve and be served but the elements of good in psychology. We just have to choose our therapists with discernment. Below is a link to an article based on a study. It's just a study, and most of these probably amount to nothing. On the other hand, it sure does play into that Christian urban legend I mentioned earlier. A researcher has determined a correlation between negative feelings towards homosexuals and psychologically troubling traits. http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-homophobia-a-disorder-149750/ Should we be concerned?

There is a powerful dialogue near the beginning of Silence of the Lambs. Clarice is a young, pretty FBI agent from Behavioral Sciences (i.e. she has a B.A. in Psychology). Dr. Hannibal Lector is a psychiatrist, a serial killer, and a cannibal (i.e. he would eat parts of his victims). During her initial visit Clarice tries to get Dr. Lector to take a psychological assessment. He despises psychology as pseudo-science. So, he says to her (my paraphrase): You've read my file. You've seen what I have done, and why I did it [simply for my own enjoyment]. Clarice nods. He continues: You can't bring yourself to call it evil, can you? The devil swiped evil from our vocabulary. Now, post-modern society has filed a charge against God. Their claim is that hell is immoral, cruel, and mean. Many Christians are caught flat-footed by this allegation. For centuries the fear of hell drove many into the Kingdom. Suddenly, this doctrine has become a seeming albatross. Even C.S. Lewis said he detested the doctrine of hell--though, he admitted, his opinion of it mattered not, if the teaching was true. There is an element amongst younger clergy that also struggle--some even denying--against the idea of an eternal hell that is literal, physical punishment. One well-known TV evangelist was asked why he doesn't talk about hell. Without denying the doctrine, he responded that he was called to build up, not tear down. That sounds good, but I suppose it means that those of us who teach the whole counsel of God are guilty of tearing down. Without evil hell makes no sense. Rather than defend the doctrine of hell, we must needs revive the doctrine of evil. Opposition to God's reality, role, authority, and love is not a mental disorder, a result of various traumas, nor a genetically predetermined outcome. It is evil. After the final judgment the eternal kingdom will contain no evil. Hell will. So, what says the board? Am I right? Partially? What of the lower kingdoms--will they contain lesser evils, or will all of the kingdoms be sin-free?

My daughter is thinking of being a psychologist. We are encouraging her. However, one area of concern is the integration of religious faith and this field. Historically, there is the perception that psychology is at odds with religion. The issue of sexual orientation and identity has highlighted this concern--especially with APA's rejection of reparative therapies. Things are not always as they seem. APA is realizing that a psychology vs. conservative religion dichotomy was developing--and that such should not be the case. A break through seems to have developed with APA's endorsement of the SIT (Sexual Identity Therapy) framework. In essence, it recognizes that some clients find their religious identity to be more important than their sexual orientation, and that shunting their sexuality to the side, to live celibately, or even eventually, to live in a mixed-orientation marriage, can be ethical and beneficial. Is anyone familiar with the SIT framework? One of the best known psychologists using it is Dr. Warren Throckmorton (Grove City College). http://sitframework.com/sitf-for-the-public/

Psychologist earn their keep. They do grueling work, usually 1:1, often seeing the ugliest that humanity has to offer. $90-130 per hour is dirt cheap, in my book. Considering that the car repair shop charges the same, I'll double down on my uber-respect for those in the counseling field. An interesting shift has taken place, however. Even 20 years ago, I can remember that most inmates did not want to see the psychologist. They were okay with us chaplains, though. Today the tables have turned. A recent poll indicated that 42% of those in Portland, OR are unaffiliated with any religion. 34% in Seattle, and 32% in San Francisco. This got me to thinking. People will spends years--sometimes decades--resolving psychological issues stemming from dysfunctional relationships with their parents. Again, this is time well spent. On the other hand, they balk at seeking a relationship with Father God. Too busy. Who knows/cares if there really is God? How can one know which religion is true? But really--the message is that they do not care to take the time to even begin such an inquiry. Ironic?