Category Archives: Health

Shame

shame

When I was growing up, I often felt shame. My mother was mentally ill and there was nothing you at all talking about. I carefully avoided anything that could reveal my mother's illness. It was an upbringing in shame and denial. I also felt a great debt. It felt somehow as if everything was my fault and that it was my responsibility to set things right.

At school, alcoholism could be wisdom. "Stina moved away from home. She did not stand out with her parents. Her father dropped. "I remember feeling fond of jealousy like Stina. It would have been so easy to just say that even parents were kidding. But no. Mental illness itself was never talked about. Yes, of course. I actually had a classmate in high school, Fredrik was his name. He told me that his parents were divorced because his mother was mentally ill. Only now at high school he had been told that he had not only a sister, but two more siblings whom no one had told. Fredrik's father had not been able to take care of all four children, without the two youngest he had left away and never told anything about Fredrik and his big sister. I felt terribly sorry for Fredrik and also felt a cohabitation. It was not only me in the whole universe who had a mentally ill parent.

My mother's mental illness made it among others in the fact that she could not clean up, but instead gathered and accumulated. She was not able to throw anything. When other friends took their buddies so I went alone. I could never bring home someone and I had nobody to talk to. When I was maybe twelve years old then expressed my mother very hard and clear to me that if I divulged a single word about how it looked in our home so I would be utkört. I remember the fear I felt. Where would I go? I had nowhere to take my refuge and I had no one at all to talk to.

My siblings were much older than me and them, I could not talk to. Everything was somehow under the lid. In stealth, I tried to clean up as much as I could. One summer I emptied my nephew and my parents' basement in secret. It was basically just rubbish we sorted out and threw the container. Unfortunately, it did not take long, it was just as much junk in the basement again.

When I moved away from home to 19 years old, it was such an incredible relief that I could finally stay somewhere where I could keep in order. I enjoyed being able to win friends and I made a decision to not feel guilty that I was no longer at home and cleaned my parents. Eventually I realized that I actually could do nothing. I freed myself from a lot of the responsibility that I put on myself to be responsible for my parents' lives.

There is an expression in Sweden that I really deny and that's the expression; "It's both pity and shame." It is so incredibly easy to blend these two concepts together. Taste these words yourself: SYND - SKAM.

When I became a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as I learned about sin. What is a shame really? According to our theology is a pity that of their own free will choose to disobey God's commandments or not to act righteously despite knowing the truth. James 4: 17 says:

He who thus knoweth to do good and doeth it not, he sins.

Sin is thus only about one thing; not following the will of God / the good that we know what is right or wrong. Sin is not about what other people do, it's not about making mistakes, though it was not intentional and it is definitely not about shame.

In our church, we have a wonderful theological doctrine that shields us from shame. Unlike all other Christian churches we believe is not for the original sin. Original Sin means that someone else has done wrong and we others can carry the sin and shame. How unfair is not it.

When I read the literature I'll take some of the thoughts of the förkättade original sin as completely poison the people's self-perception. You can find it in Baudelaire For Fleurs du mal as well as in Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter. We are born as sinners, we inherit the sins of others ... How false is not this doctrine! The truth is that we are born completely new and pure without sin and we do not inherit the sins of others.

Most recently I read Jean Paul Sartre's play The flies that just about guilt and freedom of action. Sartre was one of the 1900's greatest existentialists and he stressed that we as humans were free. We are, if condemned to freedom. It means that we do not inherit someone's sin, and it also means that we must take personal responsibility for our decisions. Unfortunately, it seems that Sartre considers that the fact that people can take their fate in their own hands also means that people can feel the anxiety and guilt.

Having the gospel in his life and truly discovering what the gospel means has led me to understand what sin is and I can distinguish between sin and guilt. I know I'm innocent of my parents' behavior, and I do not even charge them for their way of living. Mental illness is no sin in itself.

The gospel has really meant a lot in my life and one of the things is that I have because of the gospel has come to realize that I can not take responsibility for other people's decisions and way of life, but is responsible for my own decisions and the way we live and I do not need to feel guilty, but can let God take care of my negative feelings. All I have to do is start afresh and learn to listen to the Holy Spirit's promptings.

Of course, all this is a process. When I was 28 years and met my current husband, I felt a great shame to tell him about my parents, how my mother was and how it looked in my childhood home. It is only in his forties that I have come so far in my development that I no longer feel shame, but can distinguish between my life and my parents' lives and tell you about my upbringing.

Suicide deprives you the opportunity to get everything to get better

suicide Certainly, this picture is good and important? "Suicide does not remove the fact that life could be worse. Suicide removes the possibility of ever getting life to get better. "

I got this image as a fb status some time ago, and today I got another link to a chat site for anyone who is considering suicide. How important it is that we share this information, for who knows who feels bad right now?

https://mind.se/chatta/

A while ago, I commented on a closed website for relatives of people with Asperger's syndrome as well as those who themselves have been diagnosed. One of my children have aspergers so therefore I am a member of the group. A young guy expressing how bad he was feeling and I actually wrote a comment that he was important and that he himself must change attitude to himself. Sometimes it is enough to realize that they must change their approach, many will help a belief in God and that there is a meaning to life, but for some it is more serious and requires psychiatric help. I myself am deeply grateful that I have learned through my church that we have free will in our lives and that we must change our attitude if it is destructive. Above all, I am grateful for my faith and for the purpose and love that it gives me. It's so boring in Swedish society, we have all the material in abundance, we have security, education and health care. But we do not take some of the water that never runs dry that does not make us thirsty again. Only Christ can give us that. I am also grateful to be a member of a church where mental illness is not shameful coated and ignored, but taken seriously. We are recommended not only spiritual support, we are also encouraged to seek professional help.

How they reason that Mormon politicians?

in.How they reason that Mormon politicians? Sometimes when I hear the arguments of politicians who are members of the Church, both in Sweden and abroad, so hit me the idea of ​​how different they may be. There are liberal Mormons, conservative Mormons. If the church has a certain attitude on an issue, it can be expected that this attitude is reflected in the current politician? No, it's not. For example, to church officially supports for illegal immigrants generous Utah Compact. My Romney's settings to illegal immigration makes you start to wonder if he even heard of Utah Compact. Of course, he has it, but he chooses to follow the party line.

Another question concerns whether as Mormon politicians should let one's own ethical stance reflect off on political decision-making. If I for example have a restrictive attitude to abortion, should I support this politically? Various politicians various reasons and reason also in various ways during different phases of life. Harry Reid became the recently criticized for being a democratic politician. He represents a party that is for same-sex marriage and abortion. Mitt Romney has from the beginning been in favor of the woman's free will to perform the abortion, but has in recent years made a U-turn. How can it be so?

There are two things to be considered as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first is of course that you try to spread the gospel, the good message, and try to live as Jesus has lived. One strives for a world in which the family is at the center, where everyone's equal worth is emphasized and where all life is the creation of God and must be protected. It's one side of the coin. The other side is specific to our church. It is the doctrine of man's free will. We believe God requested a plan of salvation in a prexist before we were born down to this earth. Two people offered their services. First, Lucifer was the one who wanted to force man to salvation and then take credit for what he had done. Then came the Jehovah - or Jesus Christ - and offered to give his life for mankind to atone for man's sins and let the man himself have the opportunity to opt between good and evil. The honor for this would be attributed to Heavenly Father. Yes, as you all understand, Jesus won the plan of salvation and Lucifer was cast out of heaven as an unbelieving angel. This doctrine helps members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also freedom of choice. We need to give people the right to choose his life and get to what we would regard as destructive decisions.

These approaches aukualiserades to me recently when an active politician in Sweden, who is also a member of the church, asked the following question on a discussion forum. Have the doctrine of the importance of human free will in the back of the head so hang you with the reasoning:

I think a lot about what should be done because I have become deputies in the municipal public health. This spring, "we" (I was not even then) a letter from the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association, where they pleaded for the municipality to introduce tobacco-working, citing, inter alia, to allergies and asthma as particularly sensitive children may react to smokers and snus users who breathes out his tobacco air.

When we got it in the social welfare committee (of which I was then deputy), I imagined negative to this because it would have far-reaching consequences, it is not just the children who are affected by the so-called protection such a policy would entail. There, as proposed would apply to all workplaces in the municipality, which I saw as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of people to destroy their body.

What do you say others? Is it reasonable that the municipality may require even employees refrain from tobacco during work hours?

Sure, it may seem surprising that a Mormon politicians in Sweden does not support the proposal that involves the Swedish population greater hold on what we in the Church calls for the Word of Wisdom, that the Church's law of health which among other things requires that we, as members may not use tobacco . I usually try to imagine how I would probably have acted if I had not been a member of the church. I might as allergies, do not see how a limited spatial opportunity for smoking, to infringe upon human free will. To me it is obvious that we must have a society that takes account of their fellow men, and to smoke in a public place is not to take into account. In addition, dies about 500 people in Sweden each year as a result of so-called. passive smoking. This member has in any case been running question of free will to a head.

Below a few youtub clips where Mitt Romney first advocates the right to free abortion and then change the matter. Probably, he has commuted from the doctrine that man has a free will to the more general Christian view that we will spread some kind of ethics in society. In his statements, one of the thirteen religious articles in the church also echoes

  • We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to our own conscience, challenges, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they want.
  • We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. http://www.mormon.org/swe/trosartiklarna

[Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes&w=420&h=315]

[Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr9DmX01tJk&w=560&h=315]

Why have we not domestic adoption?

Adoption

In Sweden, the debate in the HBTQ movement is about the right to use host / surrogate mothers. Personally, I am against this, not for religious reasons, but simply because there is money to earn and people to exploit. To me, host / surrogate mothers appear to be equal to donating organs to afford their survival. Because if we skip people like Anna Wahlgren who seemed to think it was a small thing to feed children, the rest of us remain women who realize that it takes a lot of power and energy to wait and feed children. The body is worn and is not for use as any kind of children's factory. When I talked to a lesbian colleague about host / surrogate mothers, I met with a consistent reaction. She also thought it was about exploitation.

On TV4 politicians blog I staggered as follows:

Host / surrogacy (I do not use the word surrogate for it is derogatory)
It is basically impossible for gay couples to adopt. There are no children available. (Source: http://politikerbloggen.tv4.se/2011/06/23/hbtq-personers-rattigheter-en-bit-kvar-att-ga/)

When I read this, I will be so surprised. What do you mean there are no children available? It had certainly been if there had been a choice for Swedish women. Some time ago I came across a post on a parents forum. It was written by a woman who had broken up with his girlfriend. She already had two children from a previous relationship and did not want to keep the baby as she waited. Her comment was that she wished she could adopt her child, because it felt wrong to kill the child.

It amazes me that more voices are raised in Sweden concerning eligibility for adoption and adopt indigenous children. Where is the freedom of choice? Or are considered women who do not want to perform an abortion when they do not feel they are unwilling or unable to keep their unborn children as "brainwashed," "oppressed" and so on and so on.

Personally, I understand very well the women who do not want to undergo an abortion. I myself have faced the same choice, agreed to an abortion, but then luckily changed my mind. In my case, my doctor insisted on an abortion because my baby had a birth defect. Sometimes I still feel anxiety before that I might have conducted an abortion.

Then think tank this instead. I do not want my children, but begrudge another child instead. There is little that I have written that if any of my children are dying to get their bodies used to save the life of another child. What is more valuable than giving life to someone else?

But you might say. think of bearing a child and then leave it off. Yes, but first, it's actually a choice, and secondly, I can not for my life figure out what would be the difference emotionally and physically to wait and give birth to a surrugatbarn which then was removed. Yes, is not it so that it "feel " this is my eggs that I carry on instead of something implanted egg.

So I do not see domestic adoptions as anything other than a win-win project.

There are plenty of childless couples, both within the LGBTQ and among heterosexuals who can not have children. More childless predicted it will be too because chlamydia is increasing among the population and untreated chlamydia can lead to sterility.

The cost of a conventional adoption can be up to 190 000 for an only child. The question of adoption, thus becomes a class issue. It can not be denied. In addition, the waiting time is long for those who choose not to take a child with disabilities. It can then take around 5 years and then want many couples also have two children. In the end, this will be difficult, both for economic reasons and due to that we should not be over a certain age to get the right to adopt.

Of pure curiosity, I poured into an adoption website in Utah. There the cost of adoption was stated. They had carefully written that there would be costs for living bigger, etc., ie costs that had existed if they had the opportunity to bring children to the world themselves. But the actual adoption cost landed on 20 dollars! Suddenly, the issue of adoption is not something that only rich is able to. With native adoptions, everybody can have the opportunity to take care of one or more children.

Costs to Foster and Adopt

Generally the cost to adopt through the foster care system is nominal compared to other adoption avenues.

Up front, there are fees for background checks associated with being licensed (generally less than $ 20). Der kan også være omkostninger forbundet med at bringe en bolig i overensstemmelse med statlige bestemmelser. These vary widely. Finally, there are legal fees associated with the adoption proceedings. The State reimburses up to $ 2,000 of these costs - which generally covers costs to families.http://adoptuskids.org/for-families/state-adoption-and-foster-care-information/utah#foster

I know that a lot actually drives the issue of the right to domestic adoptions. It is the Christian Democrats. Maybe there are some people who do not want to take the pliers in which the Christian Democrats suggest, but the fact is there are women who would have preferred to adopt away and there are childless couples who want to adopt - whatever any of them have political color. Why not let the issue become rainbow-colored and allow all parties to be involved?