I’ve been reading Dr. Scott Peck’s book The People of the Lie (recommended in a recent post by Dave B. here at W&T). The author, who is also a psychiatrist, shares several different case studies, examples of meeting with families. He explains the concept of the “identified patient,” which means that someone has referred this patient to him to “cure,” and as he talks with the person and their family members, he sometimes realizes that the identified patient is not the only one who needs psychiatric help. Sometimes other family members are the cause of the problems the identifiied patient is suffering.
One such case study involved an adolescent man whose brother had committed suicide the year prior. The identified patient was depressed, his grades had plummeted, and he was visibly anxious yet also presenting with a flat affect throughout the interview. He wanted to go to a boarding school, but he wouldn’t or couldn’t say why he didn’t want to live at home. He had nothing bad to say about his parents or really anything else. He seemed hopeless, and like many adolescents, out of touch with his feelings. With some digging, Dr. Peck discovered that the patient’s parents had given him his brother’s gun (the suicide weapon) as a Christmas present.
Dr. Peck was stunned at the lack of empathy exhibited by the parents in giving their son his brother’s suicide weapon as a Christmas present and met with them. Their answers showed that they took no responsibility for how this “gift” might be received, acting defensive and bewildered at why any blame was being cast on them. They saw themselves as the victims of unfairness, lack of support, no resources as parents, and a son whose behavior was not their problem–it was up to Dr. Peck or the school system or society at large either to fix him or institutionalize him.
Although the parents have identified the child as the one requiring correction, it is usually they, the identifiers, who are themselves most in need of correction. They are the ones who should be the patients.
Dr. Peck, People of the Lie
To children–even adolescents–their parents are like gods. The way their parents do things seem like the way things should be done. Children are seldom able to objectively compare their parents to other parents. They are not able to make realistic assessments of their parents’ behavior. Treated badly by its parents, a child will usually assume that it is bad. If treated as an ugly, stupid, second-class citizen, it will grow up with an image of itself as ugly, stupid and second-class. Raised without love, children come to believe themselves unlovable. We may express this as a general rule of child development: Whenever there is a major deficit in parental love, the child will, in all likelihood, respond to that deficit by assuming itself to be the cause of the deficit, thereby developing an unrealistically neagive self-image.
Dr. Peck, People of the Lie
When confronted with a lack of parental love, the child assumes itself to be the evil, the unlovable, and does not question the parents’ role, having no understanding of what is appropriate parental love and support.
Although Dr. Peck had clearly identified that the parents had likely contributed to the first son’s suicide through their neglect and lack of affection, and were on the way to contributing to their second son’s equally bad outcomes, he also found that their utter unwillingness to accept any blame or guilt for the outcomes made them unlikely to succeed if he could convince them to participate in therapy. To do so would both require an internal admission of error or fault, and would reveal to others that they did not believe they were perfect. The sins of the parents are visited on the children, and the children are not in a good position to recognize or remedy it.
The older I get the more I see that being raised in the Church also means that the Church functions (as does society at large) as another type of parent in our lives. We are introduced into Church culture, as we are in family culture, at an age in which we are too young to identify whether or not we are treated well or how that treatment compares to other cultures. We only know what we know. A fish swimming in water doesn’t know what water is. As a child, I had a sense for what it was like being raised a cis-het girl in my part of the United States in the 70s. I did not know what it would be like to be raised a trans boy in Iran in the 2000’s or a lesbian girl in India in the 1930s.
Only as we become adults are we able to see the flaws in our parents, our culture, and the church, with a broader perspective, and the ability to compare it to other alternatives. And yet, the Church, like a parent, is also in the role of providing feedback and criticism to its members, correcting their behavior as it contradicts the group’s accepted standards.
Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular.
E. Oaks, talk called Criticism, 1986
I remember once as a teen having an argument with my dad in which I corrected something he said, and he did not like that one bit, telling me that it was his job to correct me, not the other way around. I said that if he didn’t accept corrections from me, someone who lived with him and knew him well, he would be impoverished by that lack of open-mindedness, and that it was an indictment of his character, not mine. (Translate that into a back-talking 16 year old’s far less insightful and articulate language). I have no idea at this point what the argument was even about, but I have never forgotten that he said that, or that it implied that any disagreement meant I and I alone needed correction; it was not a two-way street, and he was, by virtue of his role, always right. (In fairness, I do not even think my dad thinks that for real, but it was definitely a part of his dad script, ready to be whipped out in the heat of an argument; his actual behavior was often different as he has always been a curious person, but I was definitely a scrappy teen, questioning authority).
Dr. Peck’s view is that parents (or by extension as I’m saying, churches) who are unwilling to hear or acknowledge criticism, who feel the need to appear to be above reproach, who blame their children (or members), create individuals with low self-esteem or pathologies.
The central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it… Any genuine Christian, therefore, will consider himself, or herself to be a sinner. The fact that many normal and overly devout Christians do not in their hearts consider themselves sinners should not be perceived as a failure of the doctrine but only a failure of the individual to begin to live up to it… All sins are reparable except the sin of believing one is without sin.
Dr. Peck, People of the Lie
One could argue, as did my dad, or even E. Oaks, that a parent (or church) can be criticized or acknowledge error, so long as the source of this insight is not the child or member, whose position is inherently subordinate, but this seems to be just a way to evade responsibility and the need to change. Dr. Peck calls individuals who refuse to acknowledge any error in themselves as “evil,” which feels harsh, but that his term. After all, loads of people hate to admit they are wrong. But as a therapist, if a person refuses to admit any wrongdoing while scapegoating others to deflect blame, that person is not going to change. They will continue to use deceptions to prevent taking ownership of problems they are creating and perpetuating.
Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self image of perfection. . . Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world’s fault.
Dr. Peck, People of the Lie
Which brings us back to the title of this post. In a scenario where parental love is inadequate, where parents value themselves over their children, where parents use deception to prevent others and themselves from criticizing their actions, the “identified patient” is the victim; their distress is caused by the parent figure who is identfying them as the one in need of treatment or correction when the reality is that it is the parent whose behavior must change.
When I first read the story about the parents who gave their son his brother’s suicide weapon as a gift, my thoughts immediately went to the case of Jennifer Crumbly who was just convicted for manslaughter in Michigan for her culpability in her son’s mass shooting incident in his high school. As a former parent of teens, and as a former teen, I felt some sympathy for her. Parents seldom understand what their teens are thinking. Her reasons for not intervening sounded reasonable on some level: she thought he was making a joke when he said he heard voices and that the house was haunted, when the guidance counselor (a mandatory reporter) showed her the disturbing drawings her son made she deferred to the counselor’s judgment assuming that the counselor would know better than she did how seriously she should take it, she didn’t personally like guns but didn’t object to her husband giving her son an automatic weapon for “fun” and considered it her husband’s job to secure the gun, and even the fact that her son was tried as an adult is further evidence that he was responsible, not his parents. It’s also possible that society, which seems incapable of regulating guns effectively, is looking for a scapegoat, and parents are readily available. But maybe Dr. Peck would see parents who didn’t show enough concern for a child in distress, and perhaps he would be right.
Parents are certainly capable of giving inappropriate gifts, and there is obviously something different than a bad gift and one that ruins their child’s life. But parents don’t always know at the time that a gift is bad. The parent in Dr. Peck’s case thought a gun was a good gift for a 15 year old. So did the parents in Michigan. Parents raise their children in a church as a means to provide a support system, access to friends and caring leaders, the path to a good life. But, is raising a queer child in the church a bad gift? Is raising a girl in a church (or country) that treats women as powerless or prizes for men a bad gift? How do parents know in advance? Nobody can predict every outcome. The key is whether the parents truly love their child and have the child’s best interests at heart, responding to emerging needs as they are understood, making sure the child is truly loved and cherished, compensating for mistreatment encountered in the larger culture. Every culture is limited in how well it works for people at the margins, but we don’t tell parents in countries that criminalize homosexuality or mistreat women or lack resources and safety that they are evil for having children.
- Have you ever felt like the “identified patient”?
- Do you think parents are responsible for the acts of their children? Where do you draw the line?
- Is raising your children in the church sometimes a bad gift? Are there other bad gifts parents give their kids? How do you compensate if so?
- Do you see a problem with people refusing to acknowledge their flaws and considering their “victims” to be the problem?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
“Is raising your children in the church sometimes a bad gift?”
This is a question that I continually wrestle with. I am very aware of the problems with the LDS church and the possible harms to youth that can occur when being raised in the church. At the same time, I am aware of human development, moral development, and faith development, and the benefits that kids get from being raised with structure, being taught good values, and being part of a community with friends who have good values and adults who know and care about you. (And I realize that the LDS church is not the only religion/organization with structure, community, and values). Living overseas I feel that our choices are somewhat limited. My wife and I were raised LDS, so we are familiar and comfortable in the LDS church, and have a lot of family ties to the church.
So after weighing everything out, the conclusion that I’ve come to is that the best path for me to raise my kids in is the LDS church. Well, raising them in the church, but without the shame, guilt, fear, and obligation that sometimes gets taught at church, and also primarily teaching them love and equality (combating racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc…). I’ve tried my best to keep all of the good things from the church, and eliminate or reduce all of the bad things from the church.
It’s tricky, and sometimes I wonder if I am making the right choice. But the thing is, my experience is that keeping the good parts of the LDS church has led to really good outcomes (I have a strong marriage. I have GREAT kids. We have a good community and many friends. I feel like my kids are growing up to be kind, moral individuals who live with integrity and authenticity. We have a lot of peace, happiness, and joy. I’ve got a great life and I like the trajectory I’m on.) I have looked, and I’m still looking for a better path for my family that will also lead to these outcomes and I haven’t found one. If anyone can show me a better path to follow that will lead to these outcomes, then I am certainly willing to listen.
For reals, has anyone found a better path?
I co-instituted a number of church accommodations with my tween to get them through 2 hour services just before COVID hit. We haven’t been back since then because the momentum to go back isn’t there, and there is a good chance that that environment would be more mentally damaging for them (or the system – this child can verbally snipe with extreme accuracy).
We have family members who scapegoat children and do not consider the consequences of their actions as the “adult”. I do what I can to help inspire that introspection, lay out honest truths in a respectful/connective way, and insulate those children as best as I can. I also empower them by treating them as active stakeholders in situations, and mentoring them as I can do so.
As I recall, the last couple of chapters of People of the Lie talk about institutions — specifically, that institutions always behave like selfish, narcissistic, even sociopathic persons. You can’t expect much from institutions, even churches. What good comes from institutions is generally from the good actions of one or a few individuals who help others on an individual basis. This is oh-so-evident every time you interact with a cashier or customer service agent who tells you, “I’d like to help you, but the system won’t let me.” I’m sure some readers have heard a variation of that refrain from a bishop.
As a falling barometer of where society is headed at the moment, consider just how prevalent lying has become. Lying can screw up a kid or a family, as discussed by Dr. Peck, but it can also screw up a society by debasing political culture and other social institutions. Once upon a time, we could rely on news channels, the media, to at least provide reliable information, albeit with a slant. But the lawsuits against Fox News, which they LOST (and it is really hard to lose a defamation suit) shows that even the news media has bought into the culture of dishonesty. I blame Trump for popularizing the practice of lying, repeatedly and without shame, but he is certainly not the only practitioner.
Thanks for this post, hawkgrrrl. You’ve put together so many interesting ideas!
The idea of the identified patient reminds me of a college class I took years ago on deviance. The bulk of the class was spent discussing theories about what makes people deviant (e.g., mental illness, economic incentives?), but the part I liked best was at the end when the professor talked about theories that considered identification of deviance to be a function of power. The question wasn’t what makes people deviant, but who gets to define what deviance is in the first place. This seems a lot like the identified patient problem. In Soviet Russia, if you wanted things the government didn’t want you to want, you were clearly mentally ill and needed to be sent to Siberia. In the US today, along similar although less authoritarian lines, we largely respond to depressing circumstances not by considering how to make the circumstances better, but rather by medicating ourselves to not care so much.
(Sorry, I guess that doesn’t really have anything to do with Mormonism.)
The example of giving the gun of the child who committed suicide to his brother reminds me of some of the things our Utah Legislature is doing to deny a problem.
Two bills just passed or are being voted upon with strong support which reminds me of this: 1. The law against social media companies “because of suicide and lowering self-esteem and self-worth of teens.” This bill is being passed all over the country and specifically attacks TicTok but also requires changes with Facebook and Instagram. 2. The second bill seeks to take cell phones out of student hands in schools.
Like a parent seeking therapy for a sick child, the state has determined the sick child is the student and the problem is social media but they aren’t looking at the system that causes suicide and depression among our youth. I look at social media as an amplifier of the echo chamber we tend to live in with our families and friends. There’s the promise of being part of a bigger world but in reality, the slights that might happen at home become magnified on social media. I think of LGBTQ kids who are put down at home and also on social media vs. similar kids who have support and love at home and what their social media looks like. In other words, the high rates of suicide and depression are not caused by social media but kids don’t have the resources to find solutions when it’s someone so close that is making their world a little hell. I’m sure there are exceptions where a child commits suicide and they are part of a “good” family but I wonder if a child would really go so far as to commit suicide if their parents really understood, loved, and accepted them for who they are and provided a safe, secure place of refuge.
I’ll readily admit what I’m saying may not work in all cases but many times we ignore problems when we look for connections and try to find answers in these sad cases. It’s easier to shift the blame to someone or something else.
The same goes for the cell phone bill. Sure there’s a problem with cell phones in schools. There has been for twenty years. Schools have worked on it for years with parents all that time. But, who got the cell phones for the students in the first place? It was the parents. Students under 18 (or is it 21) can’t get cell phones themselves. There must be a reason parents want their children to have cell phones. The state identifies the one needing help as the teachers and they don’t need the help because they are dealing with it already and have been for years and the state misidentifies where the problem comes from by blaming the students because it’s politically unpopular to point at the parents.
I like this article because it got me to thinking how often we misplace blame when we see a patient in need of help.
Ziff, I think your comment has a lot to do with Mormonism—members are told to doubt their doubts, pray harder, and limit their reading to approved sources (medicate themselves not to care so much), and those who ask too many questions or suggest changes (deviants) are, at best, relegated to minor callings or, at worst, excommunicated (sent to Siberia).
In the church the identified patient is any one who questions, let alone leaves. If you see a problem in the church, it doesn’t matter if the problem is real and obvious, seeing the problem makes you evil, under the influence of Satan. If you pray about the BoM, and get no answer, then, obviously you prayed wrong. If you see a problem in the church and dare to point it out publicly, church leaders think you are so evil that the church has to spiritually use capital punishment by excommunicating you.
aporetic1: Someone observed that the Church is really fantastic as a community through your adolescence but then it’s mostly terrible. I’m not quite sure that’s a bright line, but there’s an element of truthiness to that, meaning that we really are youth-focused. Plus, as kids, everything revolved around us, retaining us, welcoming us, but as adults, we are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Even now, some of my lifelong friends are those I met in YW. Almost nobody is still in the church, but the friendship remains. And yes, I agree with you that all churches are kind of the same in terms of issues, so when you have experience with one, you at least know what you are in for as a parent. My queer child did, however, express some confusion before they came out. They knew we were allies, but they knew that the church saw them as the problem, second class, unhealthy, disabled basically for being who they are. They heard anti-LGBT messages in the place their parents brought them weekly, and that was at least confusing if not psychologically damaging.
Dave B: That’s actually good to know because I don’t see how that conclusion is escapable. There was an economy podcast I listened to a few years ago who took Mitt Romney’s line and finished it for him: “If corporations are people, those people are psychopaths with only one goal in life: to maximize profits.” I’m about 60% through the book, so I have that to look forward to. What a fascinating read, so thanks for recommending it.
Ziff: Your analogy of the identified patient in political situations reminds me of another example. Abusers consistently blame their victims. To quote Taylor Swift: “Look what you made me do.” It’s one of the easiest ways for an abuser to get out of trouble, by implying or stating outright that their victim is crazy and making it all up and is mentally disturbed, or to quote Trump about prosecutors in his criminal suits “deranged.” Likewise, most women know that when a man refers to his ex as “crazy” it’s a red flag that he might be an abusive jerk.
Anna: Exactly, which is why the Oaks quote (which I’ll charitably theorize might look very slightly better in full context than the soundbites) is so damning. We know church leaders have lied about various things or hidden unflattering truths, like every human organization since the dawn of time. So overtly blaming critics is a bit rich, IMO. I wouldn’t work for a company whose leaders said that criticizing them was against the company rules.
I’ve learned through painful experience that if we want our children to remain in the Church, they must become “church-savvy.” I helped them become aware that Bishops and up are generally “company men.” Company men will do things they are told to do even when a rational person would identify such actions as harmful. Leaders can be less than helpful in regards to building a good spiritual life. My children need to be aware that church programs do not fit everyone, that the church is an imperfect structure. It is O.K. to turn down callings and say “No.” They need to identify what is truly edifying for themselves. It is completely possible to respect and even revere the good that is available in the Church while simultaneously holding harmful individuals and troubling aspects of the church at arm’s length. God never requires the embrace of evil and destruction.
Old Man: I’ll add to your life lessons learned at Church one more really important one: Don’t answer questions that are nobody’s damn business. Second lesson, most things are nobody’s damn business.
Angela, your first rule should read, Lie about any questions that are nobody’s damn business.
The problem with simply not answering is that the asker thinks he has every right to things like exactly what underwear you wear and when, and just refusing to answer doesn’t cut it. You have to give the answer he wants, even if he knows damn well it is a lie.
Example, I had a friend when we lived in Florida, where the combination of garments and summer heat and humidity gave most women infections in unmentionable places. Most of us just suffered. But she showed up to church weekly in sleeveless sun dresses. It was obvious to the whole ward she wore normal underwear. But she always had a temple recommend. One day, another woman openly asked how she kept a temple recommend when she didn’t wear garments. She said, I just tell the bishop that I do. And the bishop always signed her recommend without asking about it. I made the mistake of trying to explain that the garments made me suicidal (long story involving me being a sexual abuse survivor.) But the bishops always insisted that was no excuse, and demanded I wear them…and I guess just go ahead and off myself. So, the obvious lie goes over better than a difficult truth.
That’s not lying. That’s just sustaining your leader by giving the answer they need to hear. 😉
Thou shalt always answer interview questions briefly, with no details the increase vagueness or suspicion. Yea, yea or nay, nay will suffice.
Bishop: “Do you wear the garments as instructed?”
Sister Jones: “Yes.” She doesn’t need to explain medical issues or heat intolerances! That just muddies up the issue and places the Bishop in the role of decider. Sister Jones is the decider. The Bishop is the recommend signer. Let the man do his job.
“Yep, as instructed by common sense!” or one could also enjoy mentioning the unmentionable at great length and in detail. But I fully agree with Anna that any personal choice in answering or not, telling the truth or not, is fair game. But my overriding opinion is that I don’t enjoy the temple, much less the status of women therein, so why play stupid games only to get stupid prizes?
Question 13: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
First off: There is no specific instruction about how to wear the garment in the temple endowment.
Typically the only discussion of this occurs in the bride’s room before the first time you are endowed. That instruction varies according to when you received it and from who, so I think you can use your own discretion.
It think we make a mistake when we infantalize ourselves in front of bishops and stake presidents, requiring them to give us all the direction we think we need, imagining now we have total certainty that we are 💯 clean and right before God. The truth is, you can ask God if any accomodations you give yourself are okay, and you can accept whatever answer you receive or give yourself, just as well as you can ask a leader. The leader isn’t going to get better answers than you get on things that you have more information and you have personal stewardship over, like your body and your underwear.
I appreciate leaders that treat us like adults. In an interview a few years ago the member of the bishopric read the question than said, “We are both adults here, so don’t answer that.” Questions about underwear that lead people into inappropriate conversations about underwear should be eliminated.
Besides, it’s no one’s business that I cut off the lace, wear them inside out, skip them entirely occasionally for a variety of reasons, or wear them til there’s holes in them or whatever. We aren’t Jewish people counting steps on the Sabbath day or, avoiding touching a menstruating woman. Don’t make up or follow these kinds of rules. It’s not spiritual or religious really, and it doesn’t promote following Jesus Christ. What it does promote is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and unrighteous dominion.
“ With some digging, Dr. Peck discovered that the patient’s parents had given him his brother’s gun (the suicide weapon) as a Christmas present”
Freakin unbelievable!!
Parents and adults tend to underestimate the power of their words (and actions) upon children. Children have little experience or understanding about love—and especially unconditional love that a parent ought to have for their children. Unconditional doesn’t mean a parent supports everything—like bad behavior—that their child does.
There were a few key moments in my life growing up that supported my belief that I was unlovable—or that my parents didn’t really care about me. (I did not grow up in an abusive situation). When I was probably around 6-7 yrs old, I hid in the broom closet to see how long it would take for my dad to notice I wasn’t around. I got tired of being in the closet pretty quickly and just came out.
Between 4th and 5 th grade we moved to a new house in a different school district.
It was a hard adjustment for me—especially moving away from my best friend. I was somewhat shy and it wasn’t easy for me to make friends. One day my mom said she was going to pick me up from school, (which was weird because me and my sisters always walked to and from school). She wouldn’t tell me why she was picking me up. So, she picked me up and we drove to a place that had a sign “Family Counseling” outside. When I saw the sign I started crying— it underscored all my fears—there was something wrong with me.
So she walks me in and then leaves. I’m ushered into a small room where an older man is sitting— my “counselor.” He then proceeds to tell me I’m crying to “ get my own way.” Boom! All my fear of being unlovable is accurate. He never asked me any questions about how I was feeling. From then on, he had me listen to tapes— which I closed my brain to. To me, he was just a jerk that didn’t know anything about me. At the same time I know now that my parents must’ve told him something bad about me. After going there weekly for 2 months it was decided I didn’t need to go there anymore.
Thirty years later I asked my mother why she took me to the counselor. She told me it was because I was crying a lot. Duh! I was crying because we had moved and I didn’t have any friends—yet.
Is raising your children in the church sometimes a bad gift? Are there other bad gifts parents give their kids? How do you compensate if so?
Yes
My youngest son feels he was emotionally abused by the church. And I agree. He didn’t like the scouting program. He chose not to go to BYU, instead to go to one of the top schools for his major. He had multiple local ward members tell him he was making a mistake. Once in college, he was attending the LDS institute and started bringing his nonmember girlfriend too— until a leader told him he needed to break up with her. (Because she was a nonmember). That was the end of his relationship with the church.
It seems too often we worship “the church” and ignore Jesus’ example of reaching out to those deemed “unworthy.”
I’ve made it my mission to teach my grandchildren that their parents will always love them— even if mommy or daddy ( or grandmas/grandpa) get grumpy or mad when they misbehave they are loved. I taught that to my Primary class as well.
Wow, this is a throwback and I’m delighted there are others out there who have read People of the Lie, and recently. I stumbled across it in the mid 1990s, about 15 years after it was published in 1982. I read Peck’s The Road Less Traveled in the late 80s, a decade after it was published, and enjoyed it. The opening of The Road Less Traveled that reads something like, “Life is difficult. …once you accept it, the fact that life is difficult no longer matters,” is memorable. That notion stuck with me. I guess if Peck isn’t the father of the self-help genre, he certainly gave its popularity a big push forward.
If I recall, for a time in mid-life Peck lived in a convent, which may have informed his Christian sensibilities. One thing I recall that was controversial about Peck’s book, People of the Lie, is that the idea of “evil”, spiritually speaking, doesn’t fit well within the psychiatric field. Evil I think is more comfortably viewed as a moniker for anti-social and even sociopathic phenomena like abusing power to willfully harm others, or actions and behaviors designed to harm others and take pleasure in it, but sans the idea of God and the cosmic tension between the forces of good and evil. I guess what I’m saying that instead of addressing evil philosophically, Peck views it as a religious concept. In that way his book veers off path and was criticized for it, even dismissed by some. Still, the book and its ideas and examples worked for me (except in the beginning the book where I think he lays out some of his beliefs, which I vaguely remember as being odd). But it’s been so long ago…my memory may be off.
I thought the book was a valuable take on human twistedness and ills, and I also liked the vignettes and footnotes. In fact, the footnotes led me to Erich Fromm and many of this writings. I especially enjoyed Fromm’s The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, To Have or To Be, and Escape from Freedom. (Some of Fromm’s published works are collections of his writings so there is some overlap among them.) I guess I have Peck to thank for putting in meaningful footnotes that lead me to seek out Fromm and others Peck cites.
As far as the book’s premise being applied to our church experiences? Yes, it’s a great lens to apply particularly when we think about the dysfunction of the institutional church and how it uses power to silence dissent, abuse segments of its members, and to gaslight. The idea of the “identified patient” is a useful description of how the church’s male leaders, at the general and local level, define members who may be suffering or who have transgressed. It’s a much richer and useful way to frame what we would otherwise call gaslighting, which is so used today it seems to have lost some of its edge. Analysis of the identified patient seems to me to enable a more robust understanding and more meaningful and empowering way to discuss of our church’s dysfunctional nature.
BigSky: It doesn’t take a very long discussion with former Mormons to realize that most of them are pretty much the same people they were when they were church members, and their happiness level is similar or possibly better for making a change they desired, but it also doesn’t take long to find out that for many of them, possibly the majority, they are treated by former ward friends and their own family members in many cases as if they are the “identified patient,” the one who is sick but doesn’t know they are sick. However, most of them are clearly not in distress or flailing about psychologically. It seems that too often it’s those who are still members who can’t deal with the fact that someone they respect(ed) no longer believes. Therefore, that person must be the problem, spiritually sick, whatever.
I too found Peck’s Christian lens in the book to be a little idiosyncratic, but I’ve been able to translate it into a more general framework to understand the points. I agree that his (mis)use of the term evil would probably be what we would call “narcissistic” or “sociopathic.” In fact, there’s a current political social trend that fits the description fairly well of people who take no personal responsiblity and instead see themselves as victims airing grievances and seeking revenge.
BigSky
Evil and Scott Peck. I have never given any credence to anything Peck says. I dunno, 30 years ago, he spoke at Sunstone and said he participated in exorcisms. I thought what a whack-a-doodle and put him on automatic dismiss.
Me reading this post:
*intense feelings on related subject*
My father incorporated corporal physical discipline at times when I was a kid, and even now, I vacillate between being protectively adamant that it wasn’t abuse, and deeply suspicious that it slipped into that occasionally.
My brother and I had the fear of god as part of our relationship with our father. The latter has obviously mellowed with age, but I don’t think either of us remember those moments of physical nor verbal discipline fondly.
Icing on the cake: though my parents don’t often harp on my bother’s own parenting style, when they do find something to criticize, it’s that he ‘doesn’t use corporal punishment enough‘.
A “narrow” comment: Dr Jennifer Finlayson-Fife says that evil is when someone doesn’t see or understand their own potential for evil. Or something like that. It echoes Dr Peck. We all have a good side and a bad – everybody – and I believe that includes organizations like the LDS church.
As a parent I’ve definitely felt like I should be the patient. Once my wife and I nearly drove a child into permanent hatred of us due to well intended but misguided suggestions from church leaders regarding sexuality. Also, related, in the post Mormon space it’s common to hear that we are cycle breakers. That is to say that we are often the first to leave and to break the abuse cycle – and that it’s *hard* to break the cycle.
I read the book when it was new, so years ago and so I was a bit afraid to comment on the book itself. But I also read it from the view of three college degrees in psychology related fields. And at first I objected to using the word evil for people like the parents who gave their depressed son a suicide weapon, because psychologists just. don’t. use. THAT. word. But then I saw how he was using it for people who don’t fit any psychological diagnosis, but just refuse to see the harm they do. Oh, like D. H. Oaks and his prideful “we do not apologize”. What other word fits? What diagnosis would you give those parents? Look it up in the Diagnostic S. M. (I think they are at 5 but I no longer keep track of psychiatric stuff after burning out) They do not seem to have a mental illness, just an evil unwillingness to see the harm they do. So, approaching it from a psychology perspective, I was at a loss for anything else to call people who say they “love” LGBT and still can tell parents not to let their child’s life partner visit their home. Really, you want to call D. H. oaks a psychopath? A narcissist? A Sociopath? No, he just doesn’t fit the diagnosis. But he still causes LGBT people to commit suicide, families to apart, children to refuse to have anything to do with their parents for years, and cause hateful feelings among members of the church. And he just refuses to see his own hateful attitude. Things Oaks has said caused a 10 year rift between me and my brother’s family, one niece to cut her parents out of her life, my daughter’s parents in law to refuse to even meet her for 7 years. So, yes, Oaks causes harm he refuses to even see. The man is evil and I don’t have a better word for the likes of him, even with my education.
Yes, Toad. The ones who break the cycle of abuse are the identified patient. I spent years in counseling trying to keep my sanity, raise my children without abuse, and keep my marriage together. But the church told me things like the counseling was “wallowing in it” and the fact that I was even harmed made me worse than the one who caused the harm. So, to the church, my struggle was what was bad, and my father’s easy brushing it all aside was “repentance”. The church made everything worse and harder for me, but coddled my father.
And I am in the same boat as Canadian Dude, on physical abuse. I mean, the sexual abuse is obvious, but did my parents also cross the line on physical abuse? And it was and still is hard to accept that my mother was physically abusive and emotionally abusive, and I could probably prove neglect if I was willing to be honest. I am more willing to label my father physically and emotionally abusive, because he is already the bad guy, but couldn’t I have at least one parent who loved me? So, calling my mother abusive was really hard.
@Anna. It’s so incredibly difficult to think “I’m the problem it’s me” to quote Taylor Swift again. Once my wife, my daughter, and I were in counseling all together my daughter was weeping uncontrollably at the draconian things we were requiring her to do in fear for her own soul and eternal salvation. I remember the exact moment when I had to contradict my wife and say “nope we’re not treating our daughter this way any more.” Also me leaving the church almost ended our marriage. 3/4 kids are gone and the other is very progressive. Breaking the cycle is the hardest thing I’ve ever done, and until my therapist said perhaps I should feel proud, it never occurred to me.
It basically requires me to admit all the crappy things I’ve said and done which nobody likes to do. Also requires me to admit my parents were emotionally abusive – just like I was – which is also super hard. I still believe they are basically good people doing the best they can but that sometimes their best sucked. They seem to know this subconsciously because how could I consider LDS, history, and culture as BS without considering them at least complicit? To this day I’m still angry at them and I love them and I have difficulty reconciling that I can feel both emotions.
Suzanne Nielson: I too am beyond skeptical of exorcisms, and that’s news to me that he spoke at Sunstone or participated in those, but I should mention that there’s a fantastic pocast episode of You’re Wrong About that discusses exorcisms. The interesting thing is that even if they are bullsh*t they actually (checks notes) work…on a psychological level, meaning the ritual has the intended effect, even if it’s not factually casting out demons. It’s an interesting discussion, and none of those involved in the podcast are Catholics or believers. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zQjitm4Md5Mg7ELPjFd7t
Two great quotes from host Sarah Marshall: “It feels like capitalism masquerading as religion” and in talking about movies like The Exorcist and Amityville Horror “These movies are saying ‘here’s a problem, and only Catholicism can solve it!'”
Toad & Anna: Your comments have been great, so thank you for the personal sharing. I find it valuable. One thing I appreciate in the book is him pointing out how difficult it is for adolescents to understand their feelings, particularly as relates to things like their family (and I hypothesize, their church community). I’m sure there’s also an element of Stockholm Syndrome (which probably isn’t a real thing, but colloquially I’ll call it that). Your parents are both your caregivers and possibly also the source of abuse or mixed messages or whatever, and their approval feels so, so important.
There’s a concept of nurturing parent vs. critical parent that I also think about often. In a marriage, if one parent is more critical, the other often compensates by being more nurturing (and vice versa), but within us we also have our own inner monologue of either nurturing thoughts or critical thoughts. These concepts are all child-centric, but those Peck is calling “evil” are not child-centric. They really only see things in terms of how it impacts them, not the child. Criticism or nurturing can both be used to help the child grow and develop (theoretically, if the criticism is part of an overall parenting schema that includes approval and affection). But utter disregard or neglect are neither nurturing nor critical because they don’t engage with or consider the child.
Re: exorcisms. Peck did a later book titled “Glimpses of the Devil.” In the course of the book, he recounts one or two cases where the nature and depth of the difficulties faced or embraced by the patients were so deep that he characterized their condition as possession and the therapy/cure (which I don’t believe was complete) as exorcism. It wasn’t an overt religious framing. I’m a little fuzzy on the details, but the terms “secular possession” and “secular exorcism” might be appropriate for his account (although he did not use those terms).
A quick aside: it’s interesting that for all the talk in LDS discourse about Satan, his minions, and evil spirits flitting around the earth looking for bodies to possess, there is pretty much zero public discussion (in Conference or the curriculum) about possession or LDS exorcism. You hear a story or two from time to time, but the official Church seems to consciously and deliberately and carefully avoid the topic of exorcism.
I don’t know about Peck and exorcism. Maybe placebo effect would be an explanation for why it seems to work, or maybe the same as shock. The brain/body could do the exact thing it does in cases of electric shock, insulin shock, or hallucinogen induced episode. Scientists do not understand for example why electroshock cures depression, but it works. Or why hallucinogens fix depression and some other mental health problems. But something seems to “fix” whatever the chemical imbalance in the brain is causing the mental health problem. Usually these are temporary, so, I think whatever exorcism/placebo does would also be temporary.
So, rather than rejecting Peck as a quack, or gullible idiot, I would call him an experimenter, exactly the same as the people currently experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs as a cure for PTSD. They seem to work, so something is going on.
There is just SO much we do not know about how our brains work. So, one thing I have learned is not to outright dismiss some of the really weird theories. For example, controlled eye movements can cure PTSD, so why *not* exorcism?
Have you ever felt like the “identified patient”?
Yes, when I said my father was abusive and had some type of mental disorder, everyone blew it back on me. I was ‘too sensitive’ and ‘I needed to accept people for who they are’ and I should ‘stop living in the past’ and also ‘use the atonement and get over it.’
Do you think parents are responsible for the acts of their children? Where do you draw the line?
This is a difficult question to answer. I internalized a lot of behavioral patterns from my parents and started dragging those patterns into my own parenting. I realized what I was doing, and through therapy and hard work, was able to change those patterns. It was really hard to admit that I was doing the same things my parents were doing. It meant I had to acknowledge that likely my parents were also raised with dysfunctional relationships. It also meant acknowledging that I understood my parents, and was guilty of the same things. I couldn’t be around them without falling back into those patterns. Rooting out my parents’ influence on my own parenting changed everything about my life. I hold my parents responsible for the bad parenting they taught me by example. Why? Because I had to acknowledge the source before I could overcome it. Trying to keep it vague and ‘gosh I just came up with this on my own’ wasn’t honest enough to get into real change. To forgive someone, you have to be honest about what they’ve done, and sometimes that means you stop minimizing it and acknowledge just how bad it was. I couldn’t change my own parenting while trying to continue to respect and love my own parents. No, they didn’t do the best they could. The best someone can do is acknowledge a past problem and apologize for it. I didn’t expect them to be perfect parents, but I did expect them to listen to me and apologize when we were all adults.
Is raising your children in the church sometimes a bad gift? Are there other bad gifts parents give their kids? How do you compensate if so?
The ‘bad gift’ I internalized from church was the covenant path stuff, including hetero marriage and being a good wife. I failed miserably, and also felt I failed god.
I looked at my oldest son and knew he wouldn’t hit any of the covenant path milestones. He’s got some emotional, social and cognitive challenges. I never wanted him to feel like he’d disappointed me (or God). Wanting to keep him away from absorbing those expectations was a big factor in quitting Church.
Do you see a problem with people refusing to acknowledge their flaws and considering their “victims” to be the problem?
My father. Anyone who tried to ask for an apology or talk out a problem was attacking him and refusing to understand him.
Since the conversation has come around to discussions of the devil / Satan / Lucifer, and Janet just commented, I wanted to give her a shout out for her mention of the Lucifer series on Netflix. I hadn’t watched it before and now I am deep into season 1.
Don’t let JCS or the folks at T&S know, I am sure that it will confirm all their worst suspicions that reading W&T is the path straight to hell.
There’s a fine line here. I’d be doubtful about anything that smacks of charging the Savior–or his servants–with being in cahoots with Beelzebub. And I think the best way for us to avoid crossing that line is to identify ourselves as the patient; to recognize that we–and I include myself–are a product of a culture that has zero tolerance for criticism. To paraphrase Dave Chappelle: the whole country has turned into [a bunch of wankers].
I got a healthcare business administration degree a few years ago. I have also been heavily involved in case-managing mental and physical health concerns for my husband and eldest child. I am also in my 40’s, and I am getting information about how my parents’ health is changing/declining.
My brain goes from “identified patient” to “patient-centered care” to “caregiving [and gender], caregiving [and logistics]”.
Us as people do not balance well the tension of being “a patient” [requiring accommodations, support, and care plans] to also being “a caregiver” [brainstorming and implementing accommodations & care plans and being supportive]. At best, resentment piles up for having both roles. At worst, the “patient” assumes they are entitled to uncommunicated accommodations and care plans, and “going the extra mile” supports and takes it personally that they are not.
For me, learning to “take care of myself”, to “put my own oxygen mask on first” and balance my expectations of the amount of care-giving and support I can offer to others while being my priority “patient” has been a necessity.
Going slightly off topic here with some of you, but is an interesting side thread that does tie in. “Spirit World Encounters in Mormon Utah“ is a fascinating podcast recently released by Radio West. Host Doug Fabrizio interviews Erin Stiles who is a professor of anthropology at the University of Nevada, Reno about her book, “The Devil Sat On My Bed: Encounters with the Spirit World in Mormon Utah.” Link to follow.
https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowest/2024-02-06/spirit-world-encounters-in-mormon-utah
Jack, first you criticize some of us for criticizing the “lord’s anointed” (which Oaks is absolutely not) and then comment on how our society has become a bunch of “wanks” who can’t take criticism. Wow, just wow. Or maybe wahahahahawahahaha. Oaks is one of the biggest “can’t take criticism” there is, and I am totally sick of the church telling members that we are the problem, when really, it is the abuser. I have every right to object to unrighteous dominion, and blaming others because one doesn’t want to look in the mirror is unrighteous dominion. Refusing to repent when called to repentance is arrogance and pride.
I told some of how Oak’s words harmed my family, but you can’t accept that as reality and still think Oaks is God’s servant. Not until he repents and apologizes to my family. Christ said if we have anything against our brother that we are *supposed* to go to them and inform them, and *only* if they repent are we to reconcile. So, if they repent not, we have no obligation to be reconciled. If Oaks wants me to consider him a servant of Christ, he can damn well act like one.
That is what allows the “troubled teen” industry. And it’s no coincidence that the driving force behind that abomination is the Mormon church.
Cory,
Study after study shows that religious people–including Latter-day Saints–live more happy and healthy lives than those who aren’t religious.
10ac – woo! I got someone to watch Lucifer! Now I will go to hell too. I really liked the show until a couple of plot lines in season 2 squicked me out. I should have just skipped a few episodes and seen if the psychological torture stuff let up later, but instead I got sucked into Roswell New Mexico instead. (aliens, not Christians)
I grew up reading all sorts of fantasy, and it was all based on Tolkien or Greek or Egyptian mythology. It’s just now as an adult that I’m seeing all this media inspired by Christian mythology, only without Christ. Lucifer, Good Omens, Supernatural, the Sandman (in some episodes). Not conversion stories, or faith and repentance stories, but shows that explore the pagan side of Christianity – the things that Christianity absorbed as it spread around the globe. The demons and witches, the symbols and stories. I felt like it was almost blasphemous to watch/read things like that when I was a believer, but now I can step back and look at it as a culture that inspires a lot of literature.
anon – thanks for linking that podcast. I’m listening to it now.
@Anna and others – I am totally on board with how you feel about DHO. Just reading about him here or in other contexts makes me feel my BP rising and one reason among others that I know I can’t possibly make it through another TR interview. Two interviews back I told the bishop just seeing his picture on his office wall made me want to slap him in the face (not the bishop – DHO)
I was asked to give a sacrament meeting talk a little while ago so I managed to come up with a talk about tribalism, superstitions etc and link it to how we exclude others that are different to us with very direct implications to the LBGTQ community and how much this differs from Christ’s ministry. The stake counselor who gave me my last TR interview, who is also in my ward, was on the stand and I don’t think he was happy and saw him turn to talk to my SIL bishop. I asked my son in law about it later but he minimized it by saying they’d had a big bust up in another ward over LGBTQ issues which led to releasing the bishopric and RS presidency. This stake councilor’s wife, who I have admired though don’t know well, gave a talk last week that was breezy and non concerning and then suddenly made a swift about turn by saying “I just love DHO so much – he always tells it like it is” and then proceeded to give a quote from his awful 2018 GC address on gender. It stung and honestly felt it was directed to me and my talk.
These men may be decent people in other areas of their lives but I hold them responsible for the many suicides that have occurred because of their words. And as others have said – we are commanded to repent but they seem to think they are immune to that requirement themselves .
If there is a God, I can’t believe in one that others his offspring this way. Same with the priesthood ban for blacks or subjecting women to polygamy.
Jill Hazard Rowe had a great podcast with one of DHO gay grandsons that seriously broke my heart. I will share a link for anyone interested.
Human Stories with Jill Hazard Rowe/ Jared Oaks
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/human-stories-with-jill-hazard-rowe/id1468623842?i=1000619119938
“These men may be decent people in other areas of their lives but I hold them responsible for the many suicides that have occurred because of their words.”
I don’t usually ask for references from commenters–but you may want to be prepared to back up such a heavy handed claim. There are many folks out there–like me–who won’t take what you’re saying for granted.
And on top of that, there is a much larger group of people — who are taking there own lives by the tens of thousands every year — for whom the words of Elder Oaks would be a salve. Should he be silent when his words could reduce the number of suicides among that group–which is at about thirty thousand a year?
Jack: “Show me the sources!” Also Jack: “Here’s a bigger claim without sources!”
Brian,
I said–in so many words–be *prepared* to show your sources. I can easily do that for my claims–if need be.