... and changing the rules to be a bit more "mormon christian" was misguided and uninspired by god.

No, I can't believe it!!!

Alcoholism & drug addiction run in my family. So does mental illness.

AA was the worst thing that could be subjected on my sister, who is a schizophrenic, as well as an alcoholic & crack addict.

AA & faith based "recovery" only made her worse. They told her to go off her psychiatric meds, or at lease convinced her that she shouldn't be on them.

On the other side of this is my alcoholic father. I really think at the age he is now in his 70s, that he would be better off having a drink a couple of times a month. He has been stone cold sober for over 40 years now, & honestly, it didn't really do him any good. He should have found a way towards conservative drinking.

What way is that?

I know that alcohol use is a predictor for suicide, but I have a couple of relatives whose periodic use of alcohol, benzos and weed that kept them checked out for months at a time may also have prevented them from killing themselves during crisis. They later got a decent handle on their mental/emotional difficulties and quit the substance abuse without any mortal/divine intervention or fabulous epiphany.

Don't jump on me for saying this, it's just like, my opinion, man.

Thanks for posting this, it was a very interesting read.

Thanks for posting this, Tal. It isn't reasonable in this day and age that AA is the only solution for addicts. Some people need combinations of solutions to become healthy.

Science adds info all the time to help people (genetics, medicine...) To rely only on the God/sin/shame/start over AA model doesn't work for every personality.

Some exmos can head into addiction if they aren't cautious. I have seen this with a former friend. The lies in Mormonism/pretending something is factual can carry over to denial of substance abuse-covering behavior and ignoring the elephant in the room... Good luck to anyone who is struggling. Read the article Tal linked, if AA isn't helping.

A good parallel to Mormonism. A one size fits all program. If you fail within said program you just weren't good enough to make the cut.

Interesting and good read.

That's exactly what I was thinking!

As a student nurse in my Psych rotation I saw that a condition of discharge was for a patient to stand up in a group and state their diagnosis and discuss other personal details about their lives and mental health. If they didn't do it, or wouldn't, they were kept in the Psych ward. It was thought (at the time) that it was a sign of "recovery" that they follow this requirement.

Everybody eventually did it, to get out.

I remember thinking, with horror, that if I were a patient there, I would never be discharged, as I was/am not the type to get into group stuff like that about personal things. I do not "recover" well in a group. I find that my thoughts and feelings about specific painful events or realities are very personal and not shared easily. It doesn't help me for strangers to try and analyze and then fix me.

Funny how it could be seen that I wouldn't benefit from RfM in that case but the differences are huge and I do find it beneficial. Not that I divulge personal, sensitive stuff usually. It still feels too tender for me. I don't like someone misunderstanding what I'm saying and then having to get into an agonizing discussion about a sensitive matter. Not everybody is like that and hence the range of posts we get here. But. Some may come at things tangentially, like me, and the writing of their post and good replies will help them as much as someone who spills their guts about their issue and receives specific, personal replies. It's funny how even though you can be anon here some of us still find it hard to open up completely.

So. Yeah. One size doesn't seem likely to help everybody, whatever the issues are. And our time in Mormonism certainly demonstrates that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2015 02:06PM by Nightingale.

And let's not forget the untrained bishops who are suppose to help members with their problems.

WOW. All this talk of people using chemical crutches to get themselves through life and attendant crises. Then there was me.
When I felt stress and pressure, I just took it head on, the way that MORmONISM said I was supposed to. Sure, there were times I was in utter agony, dealing with the emotional equivalent of having my face bashed in, but I could always take solace in knowing that I was following the MORmON program - the one that says that pain is good for me. After a couple of nervous break downs from being on the tread mill, I still don't use psychoactive chemicals (beside the stuff called food that I have to have), but I do have a new approach to things. IF LDS Inc needs something done, then they have to do it themselves because I am no longer doing anything for them. That has given me quite a break that I needed. Through all of it, I still wonder who is more stressed out, the people who used the intoxicants, or me ? But the big picture does tell me that stress is very real.

For my sister, psychiatric medication is not a "crutch". Her chemical imbalance is very real, & very serious. She can't function unless she is on them, & meeting with a psychiatrist regularly. When she isn't doing this, she goes off the deep end.

These drugs that curb cravings work.

I find it frustrating, most people turn to "addictions" because they feel powerless and out of control. If you look at the first step in the "recovery" all it does is re-enforce the powerlessness, providing not a solution, but something else to use as a crutch. How about teaching individuals they are powerful and they are capable of controlling there own thoughts, emotions and desires all by themselves. And perhaps not teaching normal human behavior as a "sin" would be helpful(sexuality).

http://addictionrecovery.lds.org/steps/1?lang=eng

If you don't suffer from addictive disease, that's a reality that's difficult to communicate to you. The best analogy I heard about having a craving and being powerless to resist it is, "Next time you have diarrhea, don't use the commode."

Or words to that effect.

This article greatly exaggerates the value of naltrexone (which has merit), but then the Atlantic is strictly a tabloid that caters to the histrionic crowd in search of simplistic solutions.

If you doubt that, consider the article it ran a few years ago called "The Diffusionists Have Landed." That one promoted pseudo-scholarly claims of pre-Columbian Old World/New World contact, and you'll never guess who one of the chief contributors was...

Yep, that's night, none other than the orignial Tapir John himself, John L. Sorenson, the emeritus BYU anthropologist who concocted the "Limited Geography Theory" to explain inconsistencies between actual science and the BOM.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon606.htm

There's more folks; the cover story in this month's issue, the one that is linked on alcoholism, has another beaut, only this time it isn't "Anti-AA," it's anti-Semitism...

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

Pass the Dramamine, please.

Farfromhere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it frustrating, most people turn to
> "addictions" because they feel powerless and out
> of control. If you look at the first step in the
> "recovery" all it does is re-enforce the
> powerlessness, providing not a solution, but
> something else to use as a crutch. How about
> teaching individuals they are powerful and they
> are capable of controlling there own thoughts,
> emotions and desires all by themselves. And
> perhaps not teaching normal human behavior as a
> "sin" would be helpful(sexuality).
>
> http://addictionrecovery.lds.org/steps/1?lang=eng

That language will make sense ONLY to people who have never suffered from and tried to overcome addiction. Every addict thinks they are "capable of controlling their own thoughts", in fact most addicts think they are super-powered and in control.

generationofvipers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That language will make sense ONLY to people who
> have never suffered from and tried to overcome
> addiction. Every addict thinks they are "capable
> of controlling their own thoughts", in fact most
> addicts think they are super-powered and in
> control.


Not true, I have endured my "dark night of the soul", suffering from several years of addiction and sever depression stemming from childhood trauma. It was when I changed the way I thought of myself, the world and the way I viewed it all that my perception changed. I realized I control my thoughts, actions and more importantly my beliefs. I had to change my beliefs before I came to a place where I was capable of being authentic and not hide behind substance. Labels are only useful to justify behavior, depression for example. It was a relief to be diagnosed with it because then it wasn't my fault(the devil made me do it). I have learned however it was a byproduct of my perception, both conscious and subconscious. Now, I do not speak for those in the minority who have legitimate chemical/neurological issues with the brain. I do believe however those are, as I said the minority.

They're different, and I've had experience with both. PTSD does involve survival reactions to trauma (addicts often medicate their crises; get enabled, and use them as excuses to justify their habits), and actual helplessness is a factor.

Working through, grieving the losses, and moving beyond are common elements, and claims of a "one size fits all" thinking amount to simplistic analysis, however.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2015 06:20PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're different, and I've had experience with
> both. PTSD does involve survival reactions to
> trauma (addicts often medicate their crises; get
> enabled, and use them as excuses to justify their
> habits), and actual helplessness is a factor.
>
> Working through, grieving the losses, and moving
> beyond are common elements, and claims of a "one
> size fits all" thinking amount to simplistic
> analysis, however.


Thanks for using the bs detector again and chipping though it
to give us the unadulterated truth.

CAb Ride to the Top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, Tal. My son is an alcoholic. This is very useful information. I'm going to ask my doctor about naltrexone.

I'd suggest a support group for families and friends such as Al-Aon (there are secular versions, but stay away from Narconon; that one's a front for Scientology).

I had to literally fight my family--and wrote a them a letter that would make some of the trollslaying I've done here look tame--to get them to attend enough meetings to get through some of their denial. That involved me, but in addition I have a brother who's in the end stages and isn't likely to quit. My youngest sister is also an MD with a Master's in alcoholism counseling who lectures widely in her area of speciality involving addictions. Her husband's alcoholism "bloomed" around ten years ago, and she took the tough stance, got him to several rehabs (he's an atheist), and he's recovering now. He did take Naltrexone for a time; he only communicated with me once, and the marriage didn't survive.

My sister also attends Al-Anon regularly. My mother hates it when she misses hers.

The American medical industry really wants to cure no one. They only want to "treat" people, and preferably for life. Add to that creating a "disease" that requires the entire family to go through life long "treatment"

Alcoholism, a "disease" concocted by the recovery industry, that actually had to go to a hand vote for acceptance by the American Medical Association. The "disease" declaration only passed that vote after a lot of lobbying, particularly by AA evangelist Marty Mann.

Google the success rates of AA, and you will find a less than 5% success rate according to THEIR OWN numbers.

That was really helpful, and compassionate. What is your comprehensive solution? A leper island? Outer darkness?

really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was really helpful, and compassionate. What
> is your comprehensive solution? A leper island?
> Outer darkness?

I used Rational Recovery.

The Sinclair Method in conjunction with Naltrexone is extremely effective, with a 78% verifiable success rate. It has been around for years, yet consistently discouraged by the recovery industry, mostly because the industry uses AA methodology in over 90% of US rehabs. Of course people that use the AA methodology are required to evangelize for the faith as stated in the 12th step.

Of course they counter that the steps are simply suggestions, yet they are not when their slogan is "Do the steps or die"

Additionally, people join the AA religion due to very real threats of incarceration, employment termination, child custody termination, and we are now getting reports of the withholding of human organs for failing to participate and convert to this faith.

I'm seriously glad it worked for you. I didn't see your tx plan in the posts. More people should know about the agnostic/atheist/modern medicine treatment available. How do you maintain?

really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm seriously glad it worked for you. I didn't see
> your tx plan in the posts. More people should know
> about the agnostic/atheist/modern medicine
> treatment available. How do you maintain?


There really is no need to "maintain" if you do not buy into the faulty "disease" model. I drank too much. Way too much, to the point I was drunk every single day of my thirties.

I choose not to drink now. That is it. I choose not to drink so that my thinking capacities work better, my relationships are better, and I certainly am far better off financially.

I stopped drinking in 2007. I did go through a horrible rehab, which extended my stay because I have "Cadillac" insurance. All of my classmates that I was in rehab with are now dead, or drunk.

I survived because I did not buy into the AA crap, mostly because the faith reminded me so much of Mormonism.

Did you drink after you left Mormonism-if so, was it immediately a problem? Family history at all? If married, did it wreck your relationship/divorce? If married, did your partner enable/try to ignore the behavior?

High proof or beer or both? Did you become angry or violent, or quiet/depressed? Did you drink not to feel feelings or loss of some kind? How similar were your co-alcoholics in tx program? Do you ever worry about a relapse, still crave it? Do you have a high IQ, as many alcoholics seem to have, ADD/hyper?

(Wondering/saw someone hopeless, then forced into AA, where many relapse...) Great you're still on the planet! Thanks...

The particular details of my drinking are not that important.

my life changed after reading the Orange papers. Google them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2015 10:26AM by deco.

* facepalm *

I suggest 90 meetings in 90 days. If you're not satisfied, your misery will be fully refunded. With interest!

I'm sure AA is better than nothing, and kept people out of jail, in their jobs and with their families. However, it does nothing to resolve the underlying problems that lead people to drink. The term "dry drunk" refers to people who are still addicts, but no longer drinking. They haven't solved their addictive behaviors or psychological needs, just stopped their one major and obvious addiction.