Suggestions Please

[_Mister Scratch]

Count me out. My relationships are okay. I don't have any problem with your Guiding Principles, as far as they go, though. You didn't respond when I suggested before that you concentrate on believing Mormons who genuinely wish to heal and/or repair relations with unbelieving members, and as I said before, many Mormons would benefit by your Guiding Principles. That would be better practice for you, in that if you gained some credibility with your fellow believers you might gain some credibility with us.

I apologize for not responding to your suggestion. I had read it, thought about it, and formulated a reply, but apparently neglected to post it.

While I think both sides would benefit from the interventions, the reason that I chose to concentrate on former members and unbelieving members, is because, unlike believing members, they currently, and for some time now, have web sites devoted to the challenges faced by loss of faith (none of the sites, in my view, take a functional and healthy approach to meeting the challenges, though). And, over the years that I have been discussing Mormonism on the internet I have encountered many who have faced, or were facing, those challenges. Whereas, on the otherhand, I don't recall but maybe one or two instances of where believing saints have, in cyberspace, raised issue with how to deal with the challenge of family and friends losing faith. So, it is simply a matter of pragmatism in concentrating on an existing audience rather than attempting to create a new one. I am merely offering an alternitive to meet the more evident and accessible, current need.

The problem with your approach, Wade, is that TBMs tend not to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. Instead, the de rigueur response is to shun the exmo, and to basically treat that person as if s/he did not exist. And anyways, don't you ever read the Ensign? I can recall at least a couple of times in which articles or letters dealt with "Advice" on what to do if you've got a family member who left the Church. Perhaps you're simply looking in the wrong place(s).

[_wenglund]

Another note. I re-reviewed your Guiding Principles and have this comment, as a psychiatrist wanna-be myself: The basis for for implementing those principles would seem to me to be a sound understanding of personal emotions in order to make the wisest choices regarding them.

If you don't mind, humor me by defining the following (and I know you really love defining so this should be fun for you):

Anger
Boredom
Jealousy
Guilt

ANGER - an emotional reaction elicited by a number of unique stimulus, including restraint, aggression, threat, attack, and frustration. Anger is characterized by a strong autonomic nervous system response, particularly the sympathetic component. (From the Forensic Psychology web site.)

ANGER - A strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. (From the Self-Knowledgeweb site)

ANGER - One of the primordial emotions, along with fear, grief, pain, and joy. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

BOREDOM - A state of weariness with, and disinterest in, life. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

JEALOUSY - The quality of being jealous; earnest concern or solicitude; painful apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one's happiness; painful suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover. (From the Self-Knowledge web site)

JEALOUSY - An envious emotional attitude primarily directed by an individual toward someone perceived as a rival for the affections of a loved one or for something one desires, such as a job, promotion, or award. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

GUILT - An emotional state produced by thoughts that we have not lived up to our ideal self and could have done otherwise. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

GUILT - The criminality and consequent exposure to punishment resulting from willful disobedience of law, or from morally wrong action; the state of one who has broken a moral or political law; crime; criminality; offense against right. (From the Self-Knowledgeweb site)

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

ANGER - an emotional reaction elicited by a number of unique stimulus, including restraint, aggression, threat, attack, and frustration. Anger is characterized by a strong autonomic nervous system response, particularly the sympathetic component. (From the Forensic Psychology web site.)

ANGER - A strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. (From the Self-Knowledgeweb site)

ANGER - One of the primordial emotions, along with fear, grief, pain, and joy. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

BOREDOM - A state of weariness with, and disinterest in, life. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

JEALOUSY - The quality of being jealous; earnest concern or solicitude; painful apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one's happiness; painful suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover. (From the Self-Knowledge web site)

JEALOUSY - An envious emotional attitude primarily directed by an individual toward someone perceived as a rival for the affections of a loved one or for something one desires, such as a job, promotion, or award. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

GUILT - An emotional state produced by thoughts that we have not lived up to our ideal self and could have done otherwise. (from the Encyclopedia of Psychology web site)

GUILT - The criminality and consequent exposure to punishment resulting from willful disobedience of law, or from morally wrong action; the state of one who has broken a moral or political law; crime; criminality; offense against right. (From the Self-Knowledgeweb site)

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Certainly informational definitions. But do they help you take personal responsibility and make good choices when these emotions occur? If so, how, and if not, might there be more dimension in understanding of emotions?

[_wenglund]

Certainly informational definitions. But do they help you take personal responsibility and make good choices when these emotions occur? If so, how, and if not, might there be more dimension in understanding of emotions?

It helps me to consider your question in terms of the interconnectivity and symbiotic relationship between our emotions, our physical condition, our external environment, and particularly our thoughts.

For example, if I have a headache, or I am tired and sick, or lacking energy and vitality because I am out of shape, etc. , it doesn't take much to set me off and get me angry. Thus, my physical condition affects my emotions. Likewise, when I get angry, particularly if the anger is intense and/or sustained, it drains and exhausts me, and can give me a stomach ache and headache, etc. My emotions, then, affect my physical condition.

If I live in a hostile or abusive or impoverished or inclemant environment, etc., I am more susceptible to anger. Thus, the external environment I live in affects my emotions. Likewise, if I am angry, that tends to aggitate and even repel people around me, and fills the atmosphere around me with negative energy. My emotions, then, affect my external environment.

If I have insecure beliefs about myself, and I am prone to low self-esteem, or if I harbor prejudices towards others, etc., it is more likely that I will view things as injurious and insulting, which will result in anger. Thus, my thoughts affect my emotions. And, if I am angry, it colors and charges my thoughts with unpleasantness and aggitating sentiments. My emotions, then, affect my thoughts.

Understanding this interconnectivity (particularly between our thoughts and our emotions) is important not only in terms of correctly evaluating our emotions (whether they are warranted or not, whether they are proportional or not, what the emotions really mean, and what all may be causing the emotions). but also in terms abating or correcting or efficaciously acting on our emotions.

By better understanding this interconnectivity, one is more able to make responsible, good, healthy and functional choices in response to one's emotions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Certainly informational definitions. But do they help you take personal responsibility and make good choices when these emotions occur? If so, how, and if not, might there be more dimension in understanding of emotions?

It helps me to consider your question in terms of the interconnectivity and symbiotic relationship between our emotions, our physical condition, our external environment, and particularly our thoughts.

For example, if I have a headache, or I am tired and sick, or lacking energy and vitality because I am out of shape, etc. , it doesn't take much to set me off and get me angry. Thus, my physical condition affects my emotions. Likewise, when I get angry, particularly if the anger is intense and/or sustained, it drains and exhausts me, and can give me a stomach ache and headache, etc. My emotions, then, affect my physical condition.

If I live in a hostile or abusive or impoverished or inclemant environment, etc., I am more susceptible to anger. Thus, the external environment I live in affects my emotions. Likewise, if I am angry, that tends to aggitate and even repel people around me, and fills the atmosphere around me with negative energy. My emotions, then, affect my external environment.

If I have insecure beliefs about myself, and I am prone to low self-esteem, or if I harbor prejudices towards others, etc., it is more likely that I will view things as injurious and insulting, which will result in anger. Thus, my thoughts affect my emotions. And, if I am angry, it colors and charges my thoughts with unpleasantness and aggitating sentiments. My emotions, then, affect my thoughts.

Understanding this interconnectivity (particularly between our thoughts and our emotions) is important not only in terms of correctly evaluating our emotions (whether they are warranted or not, whether they are proportional or not, what the emotions really mean, and what all may be causing the emotions). but also in terms abating or correcting or efficaciously acting on our emotions.

By better understanding this interconnectivity, one is more able to make responsible, good, healthy and functional choices in response to one's emotions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All good, but don't you have to go deeper than that in order to help people?

[_wenglund]

All good, but don't you have to go deeper than that in order to help people?

Yes, obviously.

Briefly, the way it works in CBT is to examine some of the more significant and troubling events that the patient has experienced in the recent past as well as currently. This examination consists of: 1) The patient briefly describing what occured just before and during the event; 2) The patient distinguishing and naming the emotions/moods experienced during and/or after the event; 3) The patient rating each mood/emotion in terms of severity; 4) The patient answering the key question: "What was going through your mind at the time" (referring, of course, to both words and images). The intent here is to dig deeper, past the obvious thoughts, and vet the near indetectable "automatic/hot thoughts" that are driving or intertwined with the mood/emotions; 5) The patient testing the reasonableness of the "automatic/hot thoughts" by listing evidence both in support of and not in support of the thoughts; 6) The patient formulating alternative/balanced thoughts; and 7) The patient rating their current moods/emotions.

The beauty of CBT is that once the counselor has educated the patient about the CBT process, and the patient becomes more practiced in using the process, the patient can self-help, and may then only require periodic sessions until the counselor is satisfied that the patient is ready to handle things entirely on his/her own.

If you would like me to briefly walk you through a scenerio to give you an idea of how it works, just let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

All good, but don't you have to go deeper than that in order to help people?

Yes, obviously.

Briefly, the way it works in CBT is to examine some of the more significant and troubling events that the patient has experienced in the recent past as well as currently. This examination consists of: 1) The patient briefly describing what occured just before and during the event; 2) The patient distinguishing and naming the emotions/moods experienced during and/or after the event; 3) The patient rating each mood/emotion in terms of severity; 4) The patient answering the key question: "What was going through your mind at the time" (referring, of course, to both words and images). The intent here is to dig deeper, past the obvious thoughts, and vet the near indetectable "automatic/hot thoughts" that are driving or intertwined with the mood/emotions; 5) The patient testing the reasonableness of the "automatic/hot thoughts" by listing evidence both in support of and not in support of the thoughts; 6) The patient formulating alternative/balanced thoughts; and 7) The patient rating their current moods/emotions.

The beauty of CBT is that once the counselor has educated the patient about the CBT process, and the patient becomes more practiced in using the process, the patient can self-help, and may then only require periodic sessions until the counselor is satisfied that the patient is ready to handle things entirely on his/her own.

If you would like me to briefly walk you through a scenerio to give you an idea of how it works, just let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I have the idea from this and previous posts from you. I'm skeptical about the idea of rating moods/emotions. It's purely subjective, for one thing, and assigning degrees to everything in our experience is nonproductive because there are no degrees. CBT imay be helpful to many as far as it goes, but in your practice, it's bound to be contaminated by religious agenda. That's why I still think you should confine your efforts to believing Mormons.

[_wenglund]

All good, but don't you have to go deeper than that in order to help people?

Yes, obviously.

Briefly, the way it works in CBT is to examine some of the more significant and troubling events that the patient has experienced in the recent past as well as currently. This examination consists of: 1) The patient briefly describing what occured just before and during the event; 2) The patient distinguishing and naming the emotions/moods experienced during and/or after the event; 3) The patient rating each mood/emotion in terms of severity; 4) The patient answering the key question: "What was going through your mind at the time" (referring, of course, to both words and images). The intent here is to dig deeper, past the obvious thoughts, and vet the near indetectable "automatic/hot thoughts" that are driving or intertwined with the mood/emotions; 5) The patient testing the reasonableness of the "automatic/hot thoughts" by listing evidence both in support of and not in support of the thoughts; 6) The patient formulating alternative/balanced thoughts; and 7) The patient rating their current moods/emotions.

The beauty of CBT is that once the counselor has educated the patient about the CBT process, and the patient becomes more practiced in using the process, the patient can self-help, and may then only require periodic sessions until the counselor is satisfied that the patient is ready to handle things entirely on his/her own.

If you would like me to briefly walk you through a scenerio to give you an idea of how it works, just let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I have the idea from this and previous posts from you. I'm skeptical about the idea of rating moods/emotions. It's purely subjective, for one thing, and assigning degrees to everything in our experience is nonproductive because there are no degrees.

The rating of emotions is not a part of the formal diagnosis, but rather a minor part of the intervention. Its function is simply to increase emotional/mood awareness and for the patient to informally measure emotional/mood progress. So, the subjectivity and precise determination of degrees is of no real consequence.

CBT imay be helpful to many as far as it goes, but in your practice, it's bound to be contaminated by religious agenda. That's why I still think you should confine your efforts to believing Mormons.

Could you go through my explanation of the CBT process above and point out where and how you imagine that I might contaminate the process with my alleged religious agenda? (Hint: I can't even if I wanted to--which I don't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

All good, but don't you have to go deeper than that in order to help people?

Yes, obviously.

Briefly, the way it works in CBT is to examine some of the more significant and troubling events that the patient has experienced in the recent past as well as currently. This examination consists of: 1) The patient briefly describing what occured just before and during the event; 2) The patient distinguishing and naming the emotions/moods experienced during and/or after the event; 3) The patient rating each mood/emotion in terms of severity; 4) The patient answering the key question: "What was going through your mind at the time" (referring, of course, to both words and images). The intent here is to dig deeper, past the obvious thoughts, and vet the near indetectable "automatic/hot thoughts" that are driving or intertwined with the mood/emotions; 5) The patient testing the reasonableness of the "automatic/hot thoughts" by listing evidence both in support of and not in support of the thoughts; 6) The patient formulating alternative/balanced thoughts; and 7) The patient rating their current moods/emotions.

The beauty of CBT is that once the counselor has educated the patient about the CBT process, and the patient becomes more practiced in using the process, the patient can self-help, and may then only require periodic sessions until the counselor is satisfied that the patient is ready to handle things entirely on his/her own.

If you would like me to briefly walk you through a scenerio to give you an idea of how it works, just let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I have the idea from this and previous posts from you. I'm skeptical about the idea of rating moods/emotions. It's purely subjective, for one thing, and assigning degrees to everything in our experience is nonproductive because there are no degrees.

The rating of emotions is not a part of the formal diagnosis, but rather a minor part of the intervention. Its function is simply to increase emotional/mood awareness and for the patient to informally measure emotional/mood progress. So, the subjectivity and precise determination of degrees is of no real consequence.

CBT imay be helpful to many as far as it goes, but in your practice, it's bound to be contaminated by religious agenda. That's why I still think you should confine your efforts to believing Mormons.

Could you go through my explanation of the CBT process above and point out where and how you imagine that I might contaminate the process with my alleged religious agenda? (Hint: I can't even if I wanted to--which I don't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I refer you to your comments on the church court thread. You couldn't help but insert church agenda because that's the basis of your conscious beliefs.

[_Mister Scratch]

Could you go through my explanation of the CBT process above and point out where and how you imagine that I might contaminate the process with my alleged religious agenda?

Sure, Wade! I'd be more than happy to do that! See below:

Briefly, the way it works in CBT is to examine some of the more significant and troubling events that the patient has experienced in the recent past as well as currently. This examination consists of: 1) The patient briefly describing what occured just before and during the event;

Even if the patient were to cite some problems with the way the Church had presented itself, you would blow these off with some apologetic excuse. (E.g., "The Church was only acting in good faith!")

2) The patient distinguishing and naming the emotions/moods experienced during and/or after the event;

In the past, you have done little more than say, "These emotions are your own fault, and only contribute to a cycle of pain."

3) The patient rating each mood/emotion in terms of severity;

Yeah, I saw you do that in your interview with Tal.

4) The patient answering the key question: "What was going through your mind at the time" (referring, of course, to both words and images). The intent here is to dig deeper, past the obvious thoughts, and vet the near indetectable "automatic/hot thoughts" that are driving or intertwined with the mood/emotions;

The problem here is that, from your perspective, the Church could never, ever be at fault. Thus, your application of this technique would be warped by your love for your "most precious and dear" Church.

5) The patient testing the reasonableness of the "automatic/hot thoughts" by listing evidence both in support of and not in support of the thoughts;

Oddly, the Church will magically never be at fault at all. Ever. Not even in a tangential sort of way.

6) The patient formulating alternative/balanced thoughts;

Which, incidentally, will always have nothing to do with accepting the Church's complicity.

and 7) The patient rating their current moods/emotions.

In other words, Dr. Wade has successfully convinced the "patient" (read: "apostate") that all his/her emotions were his/her own fault, hence his repeated attempts to deflect every single criticism aimed at the Church back onto the person.