NOM

There have been many posts about how the church promotes narcissism, this is not one of those. The church, however, as an entity, has a severe case of narcissist personality disorder. Organizations have a lot of similarities with organisms, and in a world where a corporation gets free speech a church can have a personality disorder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissis ... y_disorder

Wikipedia wrote:Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings.[4][5] People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.

- The church thinks it is the center of the universe, the only way for people to have salvation
- The church can't handle any criticism and latches on to any admiration it receives
- The church refuses to consider feelings of overworked members, homosexuals, apostates
- The church is obsessed with appearance, and plans to become a major religion
- The church takes advantage of their members

Wikipedia wrote:According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[8][11]

Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
Needing constant admiration from others
Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them
Pompous and arrogant demeanor

NPD usually develops by adolescence or early adulthood.

While most individuals I know within the church don't have these traits and think they are bad, it is difficult for me not to see the church as a whole having these traits. The church in this context is some mixture of official statements, correlated materials, things commonly heard in gospel doctrine, and common elements of the culture. It's hard to define, but I think this diagnosis passes the sniff test.

Well, since corporations often take on the characteristics of their leaders/founders it isn't surprising. I think most of the top leaders have mild to diagnosable cases of narcissistic personality disorder also. Look at the way they claim that they personally should never be criticized, should have people all stand when they enter a room, should be treated a rock stars. Sure, they do it for each other as well as for themselves because it is more acceptable to insist on it "for someone else" but don't miss the fact that they are included in the group they apply the advice to. So, consider DH Oakes saying that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true, an HE is a top church leader, he is really saying that he should never be criticized by us lowly peons that could not possibly know as much as he does. They demand a lot of esteem and admiration for "church leaders" and when they ARE a "church leader" they are claiming to deserve that themselves.

Personally, I don't think they could survive being called a PS&R without having a case of NPD, because imagine the hubris of thinking that you speak for God.

alas wrote:Well, since corporations often take on the characteristics of their leaders/founders it isn't surprising. I think most of the top leaders have mild to diagnosable cases of narcissistic personality disorder also. Look at the way they claim that they personally should never be criticized, should have people all stand when they enter a room, should be treated a rock stars. Sure, they do it for each other as well as for themselves because it is more acceptable to insist on it "for someone else" but don't miss the fact that they are included in the group they apply the advice to. So, consider DH Oakes saying that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true, an HE is a top church leader, he is really saying that he should never be criticized by us lowly peons that could not possibly know as much as he does. They demand a lot of esteem and admiration for "church leaders" and when they ARE a "church leader" they are claiming to deserve that themselves.

Personally, I don't think they could survive being called a PS&R without having a case of NPD, because imagine the hubris of thinking that you speak for God.

I go back and forth on whether or not I think certain people in the church embody the NPD that can be seen from the organization as a whole. I met Mr. Oakes and he seemed like a genuinely nice guy. At the time I was one of his fans though, so that makes it easier to be nice to me. As a PH I felt like I was often asked to speak for God, whenever I gave a blessing I tried to be the mouthpiece of God to that person to help them. It's quite possible that I am a narcissist, so maybe that's not a good example . But I don't believe that the thinking that goes into speaking for God requires hubris, though it may be involved for some.

Some of the leadership may have NPD, but I would guess that it is not a majority. The separation of self and title is probably real for some of them, at least for a while.

Linked wrote:

alas wrote:Well, since corporations often take on the characteristics of their leaders/founders it isn't surprising. I think most of the top leaders have mild to diagnosable cases of narcissistic personality disorder also. Look at the way they claim that they personally should never be criticized, should have people all stand when they enter a room, should be treated a rock stars. Sure, they do it for each other as well as for themselves because it is more acceptable to insist on it "for someone else" but don't miss the fact that they are included in the group they apply the advice to. So, consider DH Oakes saying that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true, an HE is a top church leader, he is really saying that he should never be criticized by us lowly peons that could not possibly know as much as he does. They demand a lot of esteem and admiration for "church leaders" and when they ARE a "church leader" they are claiming to deserve that themselves.

Personally, I don't think they could survive being called a PS&R without having a case of NPD, because imagine the hubris of thinking that you speak for God.

I go back and forth on whether or not I think certain people in the church embody the NPD that can be seen from the organization as a whole. I met Mr. Oakes and he seemed like a genuinely nice guy. At the time I was one of his fans though, so that makes it easier to be nice to me. As a PH I felt like I was often asked to speak for God, whenever I gave a blessing I tried to be the mouthpiece of God to that person to help them. It's quite possible that I am a narcissist, so maybe that's not a good example . But I don't believe that the thinking that goes into speaking for God requires hubris, though it may be involved for some.

Some of the leadership may have NPD, but I would guess that it is not a majority. The separation of self and title is probably real for some of them, at least for a while.

Moving from GA level back down to average guy in the church level has got me thinking. The male experience in the church is so different than women's experience, but you are right that the average guy in the church has some times when he is supposed to think he is speaking for God. Obviously not all Mormon men have NPD, although there are some women who would argue that point. So, that is a case where the organization is kind of imposing its NPD onto the average guy, whether or not the average guy would ever think that way on his own.

I was kind of thinking of Oaks and Bednar when I said that many church leaders seem to have NPD. But, how much is the title and how much is they would never make it that high in the church unless they have the right personality? I know some men get terribly uncomfortable with the expectation they are supposed to speak for God, while others seem to glory in it. And it always seemed to me that it was the ones who gloried in it and like the power and authority who seemed to move up in church ranks, while the men who kind of doubt that they are *really* speaking for God that their doubts held them back because it is seen as lack of faith. Rather than honest to goodness humility.

Good thread. Just another example, when we talk about the atonement at Conference or our meetings, the Savior suffered for:

our-
Shortcomings
Imperfections
Frailties

their-
Sins
Wickedness
Evil
Depravity
Worldliness

There's a pretty split dualistic nature in how we view ourselves and others. We never refer to a non-member in terms of "working out imperfections", or to ourselves in terms of "wickedness" and "depravity".

It is very difficult to be against a strong system that tells (male) Mormons that they are especially important & special.