I can’t stop thinking about reading. Partly because every time I drive down the street, my neighbor Pam Budge is sitting on her porch reading another great book. And partly because I rarely find anyone else doing the same.

Meanwhile, we’re all fretting about a trembling democracy, fragmenting communities, disintegrating families, a crisis of attention in young people and accelerating cognitive decline in the rest of us.

Clearly, there’s no one solitary contributor to all this destabilization, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some broad patterns to take very seriously.

The screen takeover continues

Ever since the 1960s, when 90% of American families owned a television, scholars like Harvard’s Robert Putnam (“Bowling Alone”) have been measuring signs of worsening community fragmentation.

Now, screens have conquered even more territory—colonizing every pocket, purse and hand. By 2015, roughly two-thirds of American adults owned a smartphone—with the last decade being an entirely new experiment in what it means when our lives are interrupted by a screen-check roughly once every 5 minutes (at least 100 times a day, or more)—including within 10 minutes of waking up for 85% of people.

During this time, lots of attention has gone to what our screen-mediated lives mean—with special attention given to the alarming impact of social media on young people, in particular.

The ‘end of reading’?

Lost in all this has been an enormous casualty: the slow and tragic death of reading.

I’m not trying to be dramatic here. I’m trying to be real. Check out the stats I review in my Deseret News commentary published this weekend—then, tell me I’m overreacting?

If you still think this is too much hand-wringing about “understandable evolutions sparked by the next phase of technology development” then please read this longer masterpiece by Rose Horowitch in the Atlantic: “The End of Reading is Here” (there’s also an audio version you can listen to).

My own focus has been considering the spiritual consequences of collapsing reading rates. “If the written word can spark encounters with sacred realities, what happens when we lose the ability and interest to read anything deeply?”

Here’s a key paragraph from near the end:

If short-form videos have trained the brain to expect a dopamine hit every few seconds, should it surprise anyone if the quiet of prayer and the black-and-white pages of scripture come to feel largely inaccessible and “boring,” despite their promise of opening a communion with the living God?

‘I’m done ceding my brain’

None of this means you and I should be resigned to these relentless, insurgent cultural forces—“well, kids today just don’t like to read … and I can’t even finish a book myself. Oh well.”

No way! In a 2026 New York Times commentary, Georgetown scientist Cal Newport wrote, “I’m done ceding my brain—the core of all that makes me who I am—to the financial interests of a small number of technology billionaires or the shortsighted conveniences of hyperactive communication styles.”

“It’s time to move past fretting about our slide into the cognitive shallows,” he continued, “and decide to actually do something about it.”

In my follow-up analysis, “Learning to read (again) as a way to reclaim and deepen faith,” I tried to summarize some of the best known ways to regain our capacity to read deeply.

Protecting precious time

I wanted to share more here about what our family is trying to do about all this. We’ve already had a reading hour at the end of the night for years now—one of our favorite hours of the day, when Monique and I take turns reading to each of the boys. More recently, Monique and I are finding some success at reading more together at night as well.

Ever since hearing Arthur Brooks’ caution about how phone-first mornings are “neurocognitively programming your brain for the whole day,” I’ve also been doubling down on my encouragement for our boys to make the first hour of the day also “screen-free.”

In a faith context, it was C.S. Lewis who taught years ago that the “real problem of the Christian life comes where people do not usually look for it. It comes the very moment you wake up each morning.” That’s when, he said, “All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in.”

A summer retreat at home?

Although we’ve made some progress, we still find that, as a family, screen entertainment finds a way to intrude into the fabric of most days and moments—“can we watch something??”.... “please, just 5 more minutes of video games!” The one exception is Sunday, when we’ve done pretty well at taking a day-long break from our usual screen-related distractions.

But earlier this summer I was intrigued by writing from Clarissa Mull and Michaeleen Doucleff about the effect a summer distraction break—a “screen-free summer”—had on their families. With my son taking a summer class and my own need for screens in my writing, however, “screen-free” didn’t seem realistic for us.

It’s never been about screens or no screens, as far as the research is concerned. It’s about how we use screens. Even social media is connected with better outcomes when people use it for connection, rather than for passive scrolling.

The World Cup and NBA Finals were over, with the highlights we enjoyed in both. So last night, Monique and I proposed to our boys that we try a distraction-free last 6-weeks of the summer by taking a mental break from our usual screen entertainment.

For any online classes, Duolingo and other learning—as well as work, service and connection with others—screens were still great to use. And “this obviously wouldn’t be a forever thing either,” we clarified: “just an experiment, to try and see what happens.”

The first response was visceral—“No!!” blurted out my 11-year-old—who immediately began making what he called “protest” signs.

His little brother soon followed suit.

Then their wise mother weighed in, “What if God is trying to speak to us, but we can’t hear him?”

We watched part of a talk by President Russell Nelson from 2018 where this Latter-day Saint leader shared: “Oh, there is so much more that your Father in Heaven wants you to know.”

I’ve been sensing lately that there’s more God has in store for us too as a family, but we’re just not ready for it. “The world is too much with us,” my Mom used to read to us growing up.

“Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers”—so much so that the beauty around us “moves us not.”

“We have given our hearts away,” William Wordsworth underscores.

I’m tired of giving my heart away to things that don’t matter! I’m hungry for something more. To feel more peace, power, joy and love….all the good stuff.

As we told our boys, what if this sacrifice of Youtube shorts, Netflix, NBA highlights, social media scrolling, Ryan Trahan and video games, could give us enough space to actually hear God’s voice in our lives?

“So, what would be the reward?” they asked about this proposed summer plan. We’ll definitely have some kind of a fun celebration at the end, but the real reward is something way better than more ice cream or an amusement park. More of God’s peace, joy and love—which Nephi declared is “the most desirable above all things.”

Finally, one of our boys said “okay.” Then another said, “all right.” Then the youngest, who had created the second protest sign, crumpled it up dramatically, and declared, “I’ll do it!”

With his three brothers now on board, our last son said he’d pray about it. (:

I’m excited to see what happens. As my stake president, Shaun Peck, often says, “let’s see what God has in store.”

I just returned from a family trip to Nauvoo, Illinois, where 180 years ago, the man I’m named after was physically paralyzed and driven into poverty with his young family after they were forced to move a 3rd time due to the hatred of their neighbors. Before they could gather all their crops and farming supplies, their farm was burned by people who eventually drove all Latter-day Saints from the state of Illinois and country as a whole.

Buried in 1846 in a mass grave on the Iowa trail, Jacob Hess was one of millions of believers who accepted aching sacrifices for the truth they followed – demonstrating a courage that is rare today, even among the many who like to use those words “truth” and “courage.”

Monique has read to our boys Mark Twain’s history of Joan of Arc and I’ve been amazed in the strength of people I read about in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. As Hugh Latimer nd Nicholas Ridley were about to be burned at the stake in 1555, Latimer was overheard saying: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man.”

He then makes the well-known prediction that they would, by God’s grace, light a candle in England that would not be put out.

We reverence these people’s lives for a reason – Hus, Tyndale, Bradford, Rogers – passing down their lives and teachings as a treasure for the generations. Twain highlights the “miracle” of Joan’s life during a time he calls “the brutalest, the wickedest, the rottenest in history since the darkest ages”:

She was truthful when lying was the common speech of men; she was honest when honesty was become a lost virtue; she was a keeper of promises when the keeping of a promise was expected of no one; she gave her great mind to great thoughts and great purposes when other great minds wasted themselves upon pretty fancies or upon poor ambitions … she was unfailingly true to an age that was false to the core….she was of a dauntless courage when hope and courage had perished in the hearts of her nation.

At the same time we’ve been discussing these incredible stories as a family, I’ve been noticing how often words like “integrity” and “courage” are being used by people disparaging and condemning faith online, who say things like:

• “People are stepping away because of their integrity and honesty to the real truth they’ve found about that horrible religion.”

• “Rejecting family and tradition may be the epitome of courage.”

• “Leaving the church is about following conscience enough to move forward with integrity.”

Based on language alone, one could be forgiven for believing you were reading the words of someone making soul-level sacrifices for higher truths while embodying stirring integrity. But you don’t even have to look that close to realize you’re dealing with something very different.

This comes across in at least three ways.

1. Embracing truth, or undermining it?

Although some of these prominent influencers are also fond of representing themselves as enlightened – having “both eyes opened” – in many cases, they’re actively attacking and undermining truths generations of Christian witnesses suffered and died to defend.

This denial and discrediting isn’t so easy to see when they are so often publicly using a language of seeking truth. But for many prominent influencers, it’s clear they are actively undermining faith in a pattern that is predatory more than anything else.

This is functionally the opposite of the martyr tradition – which centered around bringing sacred truth to light, strengthening others’ faith and sharing it with the world.

2. Standing apart from popular norms, or going along with them?

The martyrs were brutalized in their day precisely because they stood against the moral and intellectual currents of their own age. By comparison, modern narratives promoted about faith transition often encourage not greater estrangement from prevailing culture but greater harmony with it.

Even though plenty about integrity and courage may still be woven into this rhetoric, the practical endpoint often end up being embracing philosophies and lifestyles that are widely popular with the world, rather than standing up for truth “not of this world” that many cultural elites predictably hate.

In a day and age when wearing a costume from another culture can raise questions about misappropriation all this seems to me a legitimately wrongful appropriation of the historic and sacred tradition of courageous truth-tellers as a cloak or masquerade around what’s actually going on.

3. Accruing enormous personal costs, or attractive temporal benefits?

The personal cost of early believers was enormous – even to giving up their own lives. It’s true that for many who step away from faith, there can be significant, aching personal costs, as my friend Betsy VanDenBerghe wrote about for Deseret News.

But when it comes to the loudest voices who actively disparage faith while representing themselves as advancing truth, something very different is taking place.

Indeed, some of the most influential voices have built organizations with substantial audiences, conferences, books, podcasts, and donor support – along with plenty of revenue. As one commentator noted, “the more faith they shake, the more money they make.”

What courage is – and isn’t

Is courage shown in a willingness to be authentic or in remaining true when that becomes costly?

While modern authenticity culture often points inward, true sacrifice and courage point away from self. As G. K. Chesterton taught, “a martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside himself that he forgets his own personal safety.”

Earliest Christians were admired because they showed a willingness to hold firm to truth at a tremendous personal cost – reflected in the word martyr, which means “witness” in the Greek (μάρτυς, martys).

These martyrs weren’t courageous because they changed their minds. They were courageous because they remained faithful despite extraordinary cost.

Integrity quietly lived

Walking the streets of Nauvoo, I was lifted by the quiet faith behind the lives of those who gave up so much – among people who didn’t often speak out about integrity. Like many other pioneers, Jacob and Elizabeth didn’t leave any journals.

These people instead demonstrated courage – burying children, walking away from homes, crossing frozen rivers.

Even giving up their lives.

There are many who step away from faith, of course, who do feel in their own minds and hearts that they are doing so out of a sense of personal integrity, along with a willingness to make hard sacrifices. I’m not denying the reality of those feelings, or the goodness of the people experiencing them.

There is clearly an inner forcefulness people must have to be willing to sacrifice all they once experienced within a faith tradition like our own – and reject all they once knew and believed within it. Some would go so far as to call that a kind of bravery and courage – or integrity.

But are we too quick to use those words? The overarching narrative making sense of faith disaffection comes from somewhere. Rather than simply descriptive of faith dissolution, personal narratives are adopted and taken from available rhetoric.

And the most active proponents of questioning faith are keen to recast disaffection as an inevitably noble act that embodies courage, sacrifice and integrity.

If it’s true courage you want to hear about – or sacrifice and integrity – go back to the stories of people who embody it most.

After refusing to recant, Jan Hus was burned at the stake in 15th century Germany. But he first wrote urging believers, “Seek the truth, hear the truth, learn the truth, love the truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth until death.”

Words like integrity, sacrifice, and courage belong first to these stories – people who endured ridicule, loss, imprisonment, exile, and even death rather than betray what they knew to be true.

History has already made that clear. And we should be careful before borrowing that language for something altogether different.

When we think of the American Revolution, we often picture famous men—Washington crossing the Delaware, Jefferson drafting the Declaration of Independence, soldiers enduring the bitter winter at Valley Forge.

But for my Hess family’s ancestors John and Catherine, this historic Revolution wasn’t a chapter in a history book.

It was their childhood.

John entered the world on January 31, 1767, in the rolling farmland of Derry Township—then part of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania—into a family that had already crossed one great divide.1 Barely fourteen years earlier, as I wrote about last year, his father Frederick had likely endured a dangerous Atlantic crossing in search of land, religious freedom, and a fresh beginning.

His son John would never know the old country. To him, Pennsylvania was simply home. But to his parents, America was still a remarkable gift they had sacrificed dearly to obtain.

Two years later, on October 25, 1769, Catherine was born farther southwest in Washington Township, on Pennsylvania’s increasingly rugged frontier—in a place that was officially a part of British Colonial America.

Neither child could have known they would soon witness the final years of Britain’s American colonies. Within a decade, everything they knew would change.

John’s Pennsylvania

John’s family lived among prosperous farms settled largely by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians and German immigrants. Wheat fields stretched across gentle hills, cattle grazed in rich pastures, and churches served as the center of community life.

Although peaceful by the late 1760s, the memories of frontier violence were still fresh. Only a few years earlier, during Pontiac’s War, terrified refugees from western Pennsylvania had streamed eastward after devastating raids. John’s parents had watched neighbors organize local militia companies and keep muskets close at hand.

Security was never taken for granted. As John learned to walk and speak, another conflict quietly gathered strength—not on the frontier, but between Britain and her colonies—triggered by the Stamp Act (1765) and then the Townshend Acts (1767) the year John was born—which unleashed growing resentment toward King George III.

The famous October 31, 1765, front page of “The Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser,” displaying skull-and-crossbones to protest the British Stamp Act, which took effect the very next day.

Adults debated politics in taverns after church meetings while newspapers carried troubling reports from Boston. At home, however, John’s parents belonged to a small German Baptist Brethren congregation that emphasized simple living, peace, and wholehearted devotion to Christ. Those convictions likely shaped how they experienced the coming Revolution—surely making it more emotionally complicated than others living through these events.

Catherine’s frontier

Catherine’s childhood began in a different landscape. Washington Township, in what later became Franklin County, lay much closer to the edge of settlement. The forests stretched westward toward the Appalachian Mountains, and beyond them lay territory still fiercely contested during the years following the French and Indian War.

Life demanded resilience. Families cleared forests by hand, built log homes, raised livestock, and depended heavily upon neighbors.

Even after the French threat had ended, uncertainty remained. Stories of raids and frontier fighting were common conversation, and nearly every household knew how quickly peace could disappear.

The war arrives

When the first shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, John was eight years old—and Catherine was five.

Neither carried a musket. Yet the war entered their lives immediately, since men from both communities joined local militia companies. Neighbors disappeared for weeks or months at a time.

Church services increasingly included prayers for the Continental Army. Every harvest suddenly mattered, since Pennsylvania's farms became one of the Continental Army's greatest strengths. Flour, cattle, horses, wagons, blankets, and clothing all flowed eastward to feed and equip the struggling army.

Children often helped fill the gap left by absent fathers and older brothers. John’s own parents likely faced difficult choices in this regard. Like many Brethren and Mennonite farmers, Frederick appears to have believed deeply in caring for soldiers with food and shelter while refusing to take up arms himself.

Frederick’s other son and John’s brother, Henry, was listed as a “non-associator,” showing evidence the family was not willing to fight.

Broadside soliciting recruits for George Washington’s Continental Army, 1775 – Connecticut Historical Society

For a boy of eight or nine, watching his father quietly follow his conscience in such divided times could have become one of his earliest lessons in courage.

A world turned upside down

The year 1777 brought the Revolution startlingly close, when British troops captured Philadelphia. This forced the Continental Congress to flee first to nearby Lancaster and then to York—bringing the nation’s government within a day’s ride of young John’s home.

Overnight, the quiet farm country of central Pennsylvania became a vital artery of the Revolution—part of its logistical lifeline. Supply wagons rolled through the region carrying grain and livestock toward Washington’s army.

Rumors traveled even faster. Would the British march farther inland? Would Lancaster fall? Would their farms become battlefields?

No one knew. When Washington’s exhausted army settled into winter quarters at Valley Forge, farms across central Pennsylvania became essential to its survival. Flour, grain, livestock, and hay flowed eastward from counties like Lancaster, where John was growing up.

Although he was nearly a hundred miles away, the hardships of Valley Forge reached into his community through constant demands for food, wagons, horses, and labor.

Growing up too soon

Most children measure time by birthdays. John and Catherine likely measured theirs by the progress of a war:

• John turned nine the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.

• He was ten when Philadelphia fell.

• Eleven during the terrible winter at Valley Forge.

• Fourteen when news arrived of the victory at Yorktown.

• Sixteen when peace was finally declared in 1783.

“Freeman’s Journal,” October 24, 1781. Patricia D. Klingenstein Library, New-York Historical Society, Newspaper Collection.

Catherine’s memories would have followed a similar rhythm. Her earliest recollections were not of an established nation, but of a people becoming one.

Their generation never knew childhood without uncertainty.

Building a new nation

When peace finally arrived, John was a young man of sixteen. And Catherine was thirteen.

The country surrounding them had changed forever. They had been born British subjects—and they entered adulthood as citizens of the United States.

The forests remained. The farms still needed tending. Yet the government above them, the flag they saluted, and the future they would build together belonged to an entirely new nation.

In time, John made his home in Washington Township, where Catherine had been born. Six years after the war had ended, they would wed in 1789 at 22 and 20 years old—raising their family among the same valleys and ridges that had shaped Catherine’s childhood, eventually settling on what became known as the Middour Farm near Quincy.

They had experienced both hope and sorrow after the war’s ending. As the new nation found its footing, John’s older brother Jacob had died in 1786 at only twenty years old. We do not know the cause. Whether illness, an accident, or some lingering consequence of the difficult years surrounding the Revolution, the loss surely impacted the family. Years later, John would name one of his own sons Jacob.

When John died at the Middour Farm on April 29, 1819 at age 52, he left behind more than land or a family name. He left a legacy he could scarcely have imagined as the world of his childhood slowly disappeared around him.

The British colonies of his birth were gone. His parents and grandparents who came from Europe had long since passed away. His beloved brother Jacob had been gone for decades.

Yet the nation that had grown up alongside him endured. John had been born the son of immigrants in Britain’s American colonies.2 He died an American citizen, leaving children and grandchildren who who would know the Revolution not as an epic memory, but as their own family history.

Catherine after John

In 1828, according to research by Naomi P. Hebbert in 1973, nearly every surviving child signed deeds settling John’s estate—a final family gathering preserved not in letters or diaries, but in courthouse records. One by one, you can imagine sons and daughters signing deeds acknowledging their portions and relinquishing any further claim to the family farm, allowing it to remain intact for the next generation.

John’s death did not appear to end Catherine’s stewardship of the family farm. Court records show her actively managing her dower rights for several years afterward before transferring them to their son John. Even in widowhood, she remained at the center of the family’s affairs.

The Hess children largely remained rooted in the valleys where they had grown up. Several daughters had married nearby: the Middours, the Whitmers, the Snowbergers, the Shoaffes, the Goyers. They weren’t scattered across America. They were still neighbors—suggesting a tightly knit Pennsylvania farming community (although some did leave, like Jacob mentioned in the final section below).

Catherine, for her part, lived until 1846, dying at age 76—another 27 years. After John’s death, she appears to have spent her later years in the household of her daughter Barbara and son-in-law Jacob Middour—the very farm that remains in Middour family hands today.

During those years, Catherine no doubt raised younger children, watched grandchildren arrive, and saw America transformed. By the time she died, she had seen a generation of Hess children raise families of their own.

Catherine appears never to have remarried. Whether by circumstance or choice, she remained John Hess’s widow for another twenty-seven years.

During that time, she watched grandchildren fill the farmyard where her own children had once played. Roads improved, canals linked distant states, railroads began crossing Pennsylvania, and the young republic she had watched being born grew into a confident nation.

The America Catherine left in 1846 would have been almost unrecognizable to the little girl born a British subject in 1769.

Catherine and John’s descendants become Latter-day Saints

During this same remarkable period, Joseph Smith had helped restore the Church of Jesus Christ—and was murdered 2 years before Catherine died.

John and Catherine’s son, Jacob, became one of the early converts to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1834, along with his wife and young children after moving to Ohio.

Catherine would have been about 64 years old. We don’t know what she thought. Did she rejoice? Did she worry? Did she understand?

History is silent. But she almost certainly knew.

Less than a quarter century after Catherine’s death and nearly a century after Frederick Hess crossed the Atlantic seeking the freedom to worship according to his conscience, John and Catherine’s grandson, John W. Hess, returned as a missionary freely preaching the restored gospel to the same Pennsylvania valleys where John and Catherine had built their home.

Carrying an expanded gospel message from the one his grandparents had cherished, John walked roads they had traveled, visited communities they would have recognized, and preached within sight of the farms where the Hess family had first taken root nearly a century earlier.3

It was a remarkable homecoming. The grandson returned not simply to his ancestors’ land, but to the place where their story in America had begun.

There are desperate men and women everywhere, of all ages, who genuinely want something to stop in their lives. Alcohol. Drugs. Overeating. Overspending. And porn.

So, they understandably focus on it. And fight it. And try to control it….exasperated and sad when it keeps coming back – like a never-ending nightmare.

Primed for porn

As long as our gaze is fixed on the isolated problem – how to resist it, how to overcome it – don’t be surprised if that nightmare continues for another couple of months or years, even many years.

But what if our gaze expanded? For instance, let’s face it: If your life is driven by distraction, saturated by screens, self-absorbed in fantasy, organized around pleasure, running away from discomfort, spiritually unanchored, isolated, cynical, resentful, chaotic, exhausted, physically depleted, emotionally wounded, quietly sad, and lacking a noble purpose, why wouldn’t you be more prone to chase whatever stimulating escape you can find?

Of course, there are plenty of people who are lonely, depressed, exhausted, spiritually adrift, and never develop compulsive patterns. But generally speaking, a life like that sets people up to struggle.

‘This is about our whole self’: Reordered to something higher

The opposite is also true. Imagine a life oriented in the reverse direction of all of the above … what then?

A “free-hearted” person is not merely someone who says no to porn – but instead, someone whose whole life is being reordered toward something better and something higher.

Matt Dobschuetz’s book, “Porn Free: Becoming the Type of (Person) That Does Not Look at Porn,” prompts a fundamentally different, whole-life approach to healing from pornography struggles – or anything else compulsive for that matter.1

My friend, therapist Jill Manning knows the difference between deep recovery and more superficial, behaviorally-managed abstinence. What the latter person doesn’t understand, she told me in a recent interview, is that lasting healing ends up touching every part of life – how you think about relationships, time, love, the body and even spiritual matters.

“We’re not just stopping something or removing something,” she said. “We are replacing it with different relational behaviors, different patterns of lifestyle, different attitudes. This is about transformation and changing hearts — not just addressing an isolated piece.”

“This is about our whole self…..We’re not just here to renovate or fix up a part of you.”

If this has been a struggle for you, ask yourself: am I becoming the kind of person for whom porn makes increasing sense? Am I becoming the kind of person for whom porn becomes less and less congruent with who I am?

Searching your own heart

To help people answer this question for themselves, I’ve been working on a typology built around precursor patterns making it more (or less) likely for someone to use pornography – drawing on two different lines of evidence:

• First, available risk and protective factor studies that reveal patterns of greater vulnerability (or protection) to compulsive pornography use, something Clay Olsen and I spent lots of time on when we were developing Fortify years ago.

• Second, patterns across narratives from men and women who have actually found lasting freedom.

To be clear, this is not some kind of a “good person/bad person” contrast. It’s instead simply a discernment tool to help people gain insight on the many levels of lifestyle patterns and life experiences that lay the groundwork for either a continued compulsive struggle OR the incredible sweetness of lasting freedom.

Also, fair warning: If you struggle with something like this, part of you is going to hate and fight this. Why? Because it’s so much easier to think and believe and assume that recovery is all about finding the secret sauce or silver bullet answer to “get you to stop that one harmful behavior!”

Wouldn’t that be nice to just quietly stop the habit, and not have to look at anything else going on in your life?

Let’s dive in.

14 ways of being priming someone for the incredible joy of lasting freedom

1. A person who relishes connection with people

Have you ever met someone whose presence is tangible and sweet – and who you can feel in your bones relishes you? It’s wonderful to be around those people – but even more wonderful to become one yourself.

Imagine everyone you know feeling that same thing – “wow, I loved that time with that guy….I can’t wait till I get to talk with her again.” For that kind of person, the unique dreams and hopes of someone else are precious to them – as are the goodness and unique qualities already present in that same imperfect person.

• How close are you to being this kind of a person already?

• If you feel distant, what’s one step you could take to reach for – and “practice” – this way of being? Sometimes just making a little more time – not booking it so tight – can help your body ease up to be able to be more fully present with someone.

• Pray for this gift – even with “all the energy of your heart” – to be able to share pure love, true love. Once you receive that heavenly capacity, everything else changes for the better.

2. A person who also treats energy, time and money as precious enough to use carefully

One of the biggest vulnerabilities we’ve found in studying both substance abuse and pornography addiction is how people use their time and money. But why would that matter? Maybe because wasting time – like wasting money – is indicative of something deeper going on.

A willingness to lay aside important, meaningful matters, for whatever passing distraction or pleasure catches our fancy. “I want to do that! I want to have that! Now!” Can you see how that’s the same kind of ‘spirit’ driving any addictive-compulsive pattern?

Interestingly enough, then, even if you are still struggling with bigger issues, beginning to approach time and money not with scarcity, but with a grateful attentiveness, can “prime” you for a life of freedom.

• Do you set a schedule and try to keep it? If not, what kind of calendaring system could help you get started this week?

• Do you know how much money is coming in – and where it’s going? Rather than feeling like you have to figure out every dollar and penny, try just calculating two things: total funds coming in each month + total fixed payments that must be made monthly. The difference between those two will be a perfect place to start being more attentive.

3. A person who allows their life to be ordered and who values steadiness and consistency

Closely related to seeing money and time as precious resources is a larger sense of order in how we live overall. In the absence of that order, we eat whatever we want, spend whatever we want, and do whatever we want. By contrast, an ordered life is oriented around larger questions: What should I be doing? Who do I have obligations to support? What does God want for me – even right now?

Compare that with a life of following whatever we want whenever we feel like it…. And if we don’t? Oh well. Can you see how much that sets us up for more serious compulsive patterns?

• How “chaotic” does your life feel – meaning, pushed and pulled here and there? Imagine how it would feel to have this start to change.

• How much do any of these words feel like they describe your life today: steadfast, diligent, grit, resilience, persistence? What would it take to become more of that kind of person?

• How much do you scaffold your daily life around custom-designed structure and boundaries?

4. A person willing to practice disciplining appetites, impulses, urges and cravings

Notice the language: “willing to practice disciplining” – which is very different than “disciplined!!” As we’ve been discussing already, impulses come to all of us to eat and drink whatever feels good, to watch or look up anything that feels interesting, to sleep as long as we’d like, to say whatever we want. In some of our worst moments, we immediately follow strong, passing thoughts and feelings – blurting out whatever comes to mind, clicking on any video that looks interesting, checking our phones all the time, and eating whatever we darn well please.

Quite apart from pornography specifically, this way of living exercises and primes all the same dopamine-spiking brain pathways that sexual compulsivity will be glad to dominate. But what would happen if we “practice discipline” in other areas of our lives – not just in time and money management, but also in family communication, in our diet and physical activity and yes, also in how many times we check our phones, check the news, or “take a break” to surf YouTube or social media?

This kind of life is about orienting yourself to something higher than immediate feelings and becoming a person with a deeper center – or a higher focal point. But the fact is, for some people – and let’s be honest, for many of us, at some point in our lives – there is nothing higher or deeper than the immediate pleasure they might feel.

Do you have something higher than your own pleasure and deeper than your own impulses around which you can orient your life?

When you think about learning to resist impulses and appetites, does that feel freeing to you – or oppressive?

What other appetites generally speaking, would you say drive parts of your life and days? Does food, drink or other substances preoccupy your mind and heart – what else?

5. A person not afraid of reality, including when it’s really hard

Reality is not always so easy for many of us – especially when life circumstances seem really hard. So it can take some courage to just stay with what is real – especially when surrounded by so many opportunities to jump ship and chase an escape.

It doesn’t even take hard things in our life to be intrigued by the allure of endless chances to chase distractions, pleasures, entertainment. Pain adds afterburners to that temptation. It takes tremendous courage to just stay and be present – and not run away – when things are really hard.

Pema Chödrön, author of “The Places That Scare You,” points out how rare it is to be encouraged to “move closer, to just be there, to become familiar with fear….the advice we usually get is to sweeten it up, smooth it over, take a pill, or distract ourselves, but by all means make it go away.”

It takes a kind of courage to do otherwise, and to stand in your life. Although it can take some practice, people find a new kind of delight when reality has become more interesting than fantasy. You really can find out for yourself the joy that comes when real-life presence is more satisfying than stimulation and more beautiful than counterfeit comfort. When that happens, pornography gradually loses its power because reality has become enough.

• When you look at your life as a whole, how often are you running away from what you feel inside? Answer honestly – all of our hearts need that kind of honesty.

• How often do you quit to do something more enjoyable when you feel overwhelmed by a task?

• What would it take for you to discover that pain doesn’t have to be an emergency, loneliness and boredom don’t have to be pushed away, and discomfort can actually be a teacher? When you learn this, urges become information rather than commands. Your freedom begins the moment suffering no longer dictates the next choice.

6. A person continuing to learn and grow in lots of different ways

Once you’ve graduated high school or college, the joke goes, there’s no need to read any more books. It’s not really a joke though – some people really do conclude “I’m good – just the way I am….why waste time trying to learn something more, or develop a new skill?”

That kind of arrogance blinds us to so many lessons that could enrich our lives with a little more humility and curiosity. People who find lasting freedom never stop learning and growing, especially when they’re struggling – but also afterwards. “How long can rolling waters remain impure?” Joseph Smith once said. In fact, they don’t…not for long. Because flushing our mind and heart with new truth and beauty and growth and goodness, has a way of dislodging even the most stubborn residue and old clutter.

• Do you enjoy learning new things? If so, how often does that happen? If you’re not interested and open and curious about learning new things, why do you think that is?

• Are you growing in different dimensions of your life, apart from whatever appears to be directly related to compulsivity? If not, why do you think you’re resisting growth?

• Laying aside, again, anything explicitly tied to sexuality, what areas of growth and learning does your heart feel drawn towards – or your mind curious about?

• What steps could you take to bring to pass more learning and growth in your life – classes, books, mentors, practices that could help awaken new progress in your heart and mind overall?

7. A person who keeps turning away from wrong and being accountable about actions

Closely related to daily learning and growth is the ancient practice of turning back towards goodness and God, when our hearts have drifted somewhere else.

Rather than just feeling bad, I like to think of repentance as a kind of mindfulness practice. Just like the mind wanders – and we can bring it back, over and over again. So also, can our heart wander … over and over.

Bring it back. Gently and firmly. Over and over again. To a place and Person that can actually nourish that heart – and bring it to its highest happiness.

• Can you still tell inside when you’ve made a choice that is wrong? If that’s hard to answer, why do you think that sense has been dulled – and what can you do to begin to rehabilitate it?

• Are you tempted to simply say, “Oh, this is just going to be my life?” or “this is just who I am?” Resist that! And don’t give up hope for lasting healing and change.

• How focused are you on your own heart and need to change – versus fixating on what others need to adjust to make your life more comfortable and blaming them for what you are feeling?

• When was the last time you felt the burden of sin lifted off of your shoulders – and replaced with sweetness and peace?

• Do you see a trajectory of genuine progress in your repentance – OR are you settling into a pattern of going right back to the compulsion, soon after you’ve made sincere commitments? Realize there’s something called false repentance – and it’s worth taking seriously

• Do you see any signs in your life of false repentance – what Charles Sturgeon warned as “a repentance that needs to be repented of”?

8. A person willing to share heart and challenges with trusted individuals

It’s possible to be connected with people, even many people and “close friends” – without ever really going there in sharing what’s really going on in our lives. Do you know what that’s like?

The opposite is not becoming an open book for everyone – or pouring out all the difficulties of your life on social media. The true opposite is having a few trusted friends whom you do more than simply trust in theory. You show that trust by letting them know what’s really in your heart – confiding in them any challenges you’re really facing.

The fact is that most free-hearted people have not found purity alone. They have cultivated relationships where truth can be spoken, burdens can be shared, and repentance can be supported. They understand that secrecy is where bondage grows, and honesty is where freedom begins.

And that’s why they do not normalize hiddenness or double lives. They are willing to be known in the places where healing is most needed.

• How often do you keep secrets from people you love?

• Do you sometimes use lies to protect yourself – and try to protect others too?

• What would it feel like to no longer live hidden – where someone knows your real story.

• What would this kind of sharing and transparency look like in your own network of friends? Who would that include – and how would it work?

9. A person who prioritizes the needs and suffering of others in how they orient their lives

Most people who have been teenagers know what it’s like to orient most every minute of each day around our own needs and desires. But then we’re supposed to grow up, right?

Only many don’t – with an increasing number of adults willingly and proudly adopting what used to be reserved for “narcissists” – “I need to be more focused on my happiness – and what’s going to be best for me!

The opposite of this is living a life of meaning, purpose and service – getting outside of ourselves in some of the many ways there are to lift people around us.

• How much of a sense of meaning and purpose do you currently have in your life?

• What could it mean – and what would it take – to have a life organized not around a particular impulse, but instead around creating, building, serving, loving and giving? Can you feel the energy even a sentence about that life gives off? In a life like this, porn gradually becomes irrelevant because life has become too meaningful to leave.

10. A person who possesses their soul in patience and kindness

Anger is fuel on the fire of addiction – and something that compulsive patterns likewise fuel. This is something people struggling with alcohol have taught in the AA Big Book for many years:

“Resentment is the ‘number one’ offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease...We found that it is fatal … If we were to live, we had to be free of anger.”

But when we get in a dark place, anger becomes almost second nature – lashing out at anyone or anything that we don’t like or who makes us feel uncomfortable. A life of that kind of “aversion” is a life of suffering, period.

The opposite is a life infused by gratitude, patience and long-suffering – where we are “not easily provoked” like Paul taught the people of Corinth.

• Do you struggle to get along with others – and find people wanting to get away from you?

• How often do you inadvertently come across as aggressive to others or controlling?

• Do you often feel irritated by others and get annoyed by small things?

• Are you tired of a life driven by so much anger? How much are you willing to yield to receive something better?

11. A person not scared of silence and stillness – and who begins to appreciate them

It’s become increasingly common to have people who can’t be alone with their own thoughts – who have to “have some noise on” around them. Our fast-paced society trains our brains in this direction, one short-form video at a time.

• Are you still able – and willing – to read a book? If not, when did you lose that capacity – and what are you willing to do to gain it back?

• How often do you “practice” being still? Are you willing to start – if you knew, really knew, you could regain this capacity?

• When you’re around other people, how present are you able to be with them?

12. A person who taps into the love, peace, joy and power of God

That boring question “are you religious?” misses out an even more important question: In all your experiences pursuing faith or spirituality, how often did you tap into a deeper love, joy or peace?

If not, can you blame people for stepping away from faith? And for those who experience this otherworldly peace, joy and love – wild horses couldn’t drag them away from that faith.

• If you haven’t felt this kind of transcendent peace and joy from your connection with God – or love too – why do you think that is? Do you tend to feel deeply in other parts of life, or do you tend to not feel as much?

• If this isn’t something you experience with God, where do you tend to feel most in your life? For many people, this can be about discovering a new source of comfort, love and connection – as well as confidence and power.

13. A person who delights in truth and goodness overall

When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, he said, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light…”

The seeds of people’s stuckness were embedded in their own heart. They wanted the darkness – and “loved it” – seemingly more than anything else God could offer them.

That’s a little frightening, but a clear reality for many people today. But it doesn’t have to be. Even if your heart longs after some of that darkness, you too can become someone different: a person who loves light and goodness.

• Searching your own heart, how much of your own desires are tied up in goodness and light – compared with darker passions?

• If there was a way to fall in love with light and goodness more, would you want it?

• How would your life change if the deepest desires of your heart could also change? By the way, if you’re worried about the impossibility of “forcing yourself to feel” a certain way – stop worrying. This is work God can do in you. And as John taught, even “If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts.”

14. A person who sees divinity in themselves and others

When you look inside, do you see something divine – and infinitely precious? How about when you look at others around you?

As long as women are seen as a “piece of meat” – and largely worth how they look, don’t be surprised if you relate to the many people around you out of that core instinct.

It’s possible to come to see and feel otherwise. But not by analyzing. This is another gift you need to receive.

• When was the last time you remember looking at someone and being struck by the beauty of their heart and spirit?

• When it comes to attraction, do you know how to pursue a “whole-souled attraction” towards someone else?

A whole-life approach to recovery

This isn't just about porn.

This is about the kind of human being you're becoming.

When you look at all the questions above, notice that we’re not asking about pornography anymore. We’re asking about all of your life.

That’s huge, especially because pornography almost disappears from center stage – just like it needs to in your own life.

• Instead of “How do I stop looking at porn?” this is about “What kind of life am I quietly becoming and cultivating?”

• Instead of fixating on what is wrong, this is about getting more curious and focused on: what is growing?

• Instead of asking, “How much are you struggling with pornography?” this is about exploring “What kind of person are your daily patterns quietly training you to become?” – pouring attention into how the deepest relationships in your life are being formed? (with everything else – including pornography – becoming one downstream expression of that larger developmental story).

This shifts the focus from eliminating a symptom to cultivating a life. Instead of regarding pornography as the primary issue, this treats pornography as one visible indicator of a much deeper developmental trajectory – one reflected in formative dynamics operating beneath the surface of your life that you may not have noticed before – at least not in their relationship with compulsivity.

Maybe that’s the greatest shift of all. Recovery isn’t finally about becoming someone who no longer looks at pornography. It’s about becoming someone who has discovered a richer way to live. Someone whose loves have been reordered. Someone who is increasingly captivated by what is real, beautiful, true, and good.

Pornography (like alcohol, drugs and many other fixations) may once have seemed irresistible – but over time it simply becomes out of place in a life that is filling with something better.

It’s about becoming the kind of person whose heart is steadily being reclaimed by truth, love, beauty, service, courage, and God. As those deeper loves grow stronger, pornography doesn’t simply become forbidden – it becomes increasingly foreign.

That may be the most exciting thing about lasting recovery: not merely the absence of compulsion, but the presence of a new heart.

Other related work:

We usually talk about pornography in terms of right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, addictive or not addictive. Those are all important questions. But there is another question that I believe matters even more: What kind of person does pornography train us to become?

What many may not realize is that pornography does not merely show us something. Over time, it teaches us to see differently, desire differently, relate differently, and live differently. Like every repeated habit of the heart and mind, it forms us. The question is: How?

That’s what I explore below: not merely what pornography does in a moment, but what recurring pornography use appears to make of a man or woman over time.

‘This is just who I naturally am’

This inquiry may sound strange to those who believe our desires simply reveal who we already are —and that whatever we feel, want, crave, or choose should be welcomed and celebrated as our authentic self.

But what these people are missing is that we human beings are not only expressing ourselves. We are also becoming ourselves.

Every repeated choice leaves a mark. Every place we direct attention, every private ritual or indulgence, every focus we return to again and again teaches the heart what to love, the mind what to expect, and the body what to seek.

Pornography is no exception. Instead of merely consumed and then forgotten, this highly intensive media trains. It habituates. It forms.

So more than simply asking “Is pornography wrong?” or “Is pornography addictive?” I think we need spend more time exploring: What kind of human being does pornography viewing shape over time?

Rather than just speculating, I offer below some data-driven answers to the question, thanks to the work of my late colleague Gary Wilson, who I wrote about for Deseret News after his passing (“The atheist who warned the world about porn addiction”).

This remarkable man poured the final years of his life into an incredible website, “Your Brain On Porn” that changed the public conversation about this issue and still remains today among the best repositories of the available evidence.

Based on the preponderance of research detailed there, here are seven things we can safely say about the kind of human being that recurring porn use produces:

1. A human being who is sadder and more anxious

2. A human being who is less able to show love

3. A human being who is more willing to be aggressive and treat women poorly

4. A human being who is more isolated

5. A human being who is more confused and less able to see reality clearly

6. A human being who is less connected with spiritual practices and God

7. A human being who is less emotionally free

In order to make clear how much scientific backing this has, I dig into some of the relevant literature and hyperlink the studies so you can review them yourself. Then, I highlight a few larger takeaways at the end (skip there if you don’t need to see any of the research).

7 Ways Porn Shapes How a Person Lives

1. A human being who is sadder and more anxious

On his website, Gary Wilson noted that “over 85 studies link porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.” See for yourself, starting with depression:

• A nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years) found that “online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression.” (2005)

• Pornography users “compared to nonusers, reported greater depressive symptoms, poorer quality of life, more mental- and physical-health diminished days, and lower health status.” (2011)

• “Participants in the cybersex group were more likely to report being depressed than participants in the addicted/no cybersex group.” (2012)

• “Adults who had watched an X-rated movie in the past year were ….less likely to report being happy with their marriage or happy overall.” (2014)

• “The ratio of depression was 2.8% in the subjects who used pornography less than 1 time/week, and was 14.6% in those with a frequency of more than 3 times/week.” The authors noted, “After adjustment with physical activity and sleep quality, the frequency of pornography use was still positively correlated with the scores of depression, anxiety and stress.” (2017)

• “Even after controlling for a variety of demographic factors, impulsivity, pornography acceptance, and the general perception of sexual content as pornographic, the accumulated total viewing of sexual content was still significantly linked to higher levels of depressive symptoms as found in previous studies. (Importantly, even those people who didn’t think the sexually explicit material they were viewing was “pornographic,” they were still more likely to report higher depression). (2018)

• “Depressive symptoms were associated with pornography use”—with associations that “held beyond age, gender, and moral disapproval” and “persisted stably over 2 years.” (2026)

• Among college students, compulsive porn use/problematic porn use was associated with depression. (2026)

Anxiety was more likely among porn users as well, such as one 2015 study that found compulsive porn users were “significantly more likely to report a history of anxiety problems.”

• “Cybersex compulsives and at-risk users … invest an inordinate amount of their time, money, and energy in the pursuit of Cybersex experiences with negative intrapersonal ramifications in terms of depression, anxiety.” (2005)

• “Frequency of viewing was significantly related to each psychosocial variable [depression, anxiety, stress, social functioning], such that more viewing was related to greater problems.” (2012)

• Individuals with compulsive sexual behavior reported “more depressive and anxiety symptoms, higher levels of stress, poorer self-esteem, and higher rates of social anxiety disorder” compared with those not engaged in these same compulsive patterns. (2013)

• Even though individuals with major psychiatric conditions were excluded, porn addicted subjects “had higher depression and anxiety scores.” (2014)

• “Hypersexual behavior was related to higher scores on measures of …both depressed mood and anxiety.” (2015)

• “Psychiatric comorbidities, especially mood, anxiety, and personality disorders, are the rule rather the exception for people with compulsive sexual behaviors.” (2016)

• “Those who reported pornography addiction …reported poorer physical and psychological health.” (2016)

• “Heightened depressive symptoms…”lethargy and amotivation,” “elevated social anxiety” all showed up as themes among porn users in a 2023 study.

• “Mentally and emotionally, Early Engagers (saw adult material for the first time around age 14 and began a regular viewing habit by age 18) reported the highest rates of psychological distress. They scored higher on screening tools for depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts than the other groups.” (2026)

These mental health associations show up among teenagers too:

• Porn use was associated with “low mood” and “unexplained anxiety” among adolescents. (2017)

• “Adolescents’ exposure to online pornography was associated with depressive symptoms.” This longitudinal study provides especially robust “empirical support for the long-term effects of intentional exposure to online pornography on depression over time.” (2018)

Bottom line: When junk media is where people spend their emotional energy, time and attention, they feel worse about their lives. This shows up in the correlations with self-esteem:

• Problematic Sexual Behaviors “was associated with worse quality of life, lower self-esteem, and higher rates of comorbidities across several disorders.” (2016)

• Nelson et al. (2010) suggested that higher levels of self-worth were related to lower pornography use patterns. The present study’s findings reinforce the negative correlation of self-esteem and pornography use.” (2017)

• “Multivariate analyses revealed that increased pornography use was associated with greater dissatisfaction with muscularity, body fat and height; greater eating disorder symptoms; more frequent thoughts about using anabolic steroids; and lower quality of life.” (2017)

• “Greater consumption of (sexually explicit material) was directly related to more negative body attitude and both depressive and anxious symptomology.” (2017)

• Among women, pornography consumption in the last month was significantly related with lower self-esteem. (2018)

Given all this, it should not surprise us to see the opposite pattern also appearing:

• Among young men, “those who did not use pornography (compared to those who did) reported … higher levels of self-worth and identity development regarding dating and family, and…lower levels of depression.” (2010)

• “Young people who do not have sexually explicit content on the Internet have a higher level general self-assessment than young people using this content with frequency several times a month. This translates into more confidence in yourself and a better opinion about yourself and a stronger sense of your own values.” “Test subjects shunned by erotica on the Internet are also characterized higher level of identity integration than other participants in the research.” (2018)

One qualification: Could all these problems be leading people towards porn?

It’s tempting to look at all this and say, “well sure, if you struggle with depression, anxiety, attention problems, isolation, sexual problems—wouldn’t you be more inclined to use porn?”

That’s true, of course, and certainly also happening. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the direct influence of porn on all these same areas. Both are happening. In fact, Wilson notes there are also “over 90 studies demonstrating internet use & porn use causing negative outcomes & symptoms, and brain changes.”

2. A human being who is less able to show love

“Over 80 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction,” Gary Wilson noted. Here are just a few examples:

• “Cybersex compulsives,” reports a 2005 study “invest an inordinate amount of their time, money, and energy in the pursuit of Cybersex experiences with negative intrapersonal ramifications in terms of depression, anxiety, and problems with felt intimacy with their real-life partners.”

• One 2014 study found that adults who had watched an X-rated movie in the past year were more likely to be divorced, more likely to have had an extramarital affair, and less likely to report being happy with their marriage or happy overall. The researchers also found that, for men, pornography use reduced the positive relationship between frequency of sex and happiness.

• “Problematic porn use was linked to far lower scores on lower sexual passion, sexual satisfaction & life satisfaction. In comparison, the group that scored highest on all these measures had the least problematic porn use.” (2019)

By contrast, getting porn out of people’s lives is correlated with an increased or returning ability to love:

• “Abstinence renders people more altruistic. Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic.” (2016)

• “Students who do not use erotic sites, experience more social support, they feel more loved and accepted by relatives than their colleagues reaching for erotic content on the Internet. This translates into their more optimistic assessment of their future relationships.” (2018)

Both men and women are impacted

Every study Wilson found exploring the sexual/relational impact of porn with males demonstrated a negative impact. While a handful of studies report little effect of women’s porn use on their sexual and relationship satisfaction, he emphasized that “many do report negative effects” (check out his review of 45 studies focused on pornography’s impacts on female arousal, sexual satisfaction, and relationships).

Romantic attachment impacted

More than simply influencing the “feeling” in a relationship, the impact of porn appears tied to deeper attachment patterns:

• “Frequency of pornography use and problematic pornography use were related to greater gender role conflict, more avoidant and anxious attachment styles, poorer relationship quality, and less sexual satisfaction.” (2014)

• “Men’s frequency of pornography use was …positively linked to negative affect indirectly through romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance, and …negatively linked to positive affect indirectly through relationship attachment anxiety and avoidance.” (2014)

Sexual function disrupted

Wilson covered “over 50 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli” (adding that “the first seven studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions”). Here are a few examples:

• Compulsive porn users were “significantly more likely to report a history ….of sexual functioning problems (71% vs. 31%) with delayed ejaculation being the most commonly reported sexual functioning problem.” (2015)

• “Hypersexual behavior was related to higher scores on measures of sexual excitation, sexual inhibition due to the threat of performance failure, trait impulsivity.” (2015)

• Common themes included “subsequent decreased quality of sexual intimacy with real partners,” “reduced sexual drive when offline,” “diminished sexual functioning,” “reduced orgasm functioning and sexual satisfaction with real partners.” (2023)

3. A human being who is more willing to be aggressive and treat women poorly

More than 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views, according to Wilson. One larger 2016 review looked at 109 publications that contained 135 studies between 1995 and 2015, concluding:

Regular, everyday exposure to this content is directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.

In another 2015 meta-analysis Wilson cites, “A Meta‐Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies,” the authors examine 22 studies from 7 different countries and conclude:

Consumption was associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Associations were stronger for verbal than physical sexual aggression, although both were significant. The general pattern of results suggested that violent content may be an exacerbating factor.

So no, porn use hasn’t reduced rape rates, Wilson added. Remarkably, more than 100 100 studies link porn use to sexual aggression, coercion & violence. (See also his write-up, “Rape rates are on the rise, so ignore the pro-porn propaganda.”)

Three other relevant studies:

• One 2014 study found that “participants who were more physiologically aroused by and spent more time viewing the non-consensual sexual imagery nominated significantly later stopping points on the date-rape analogue task.”

• Among men in the UK, “those who reported pornography addiction were much more likely to engage in a variety of risky antisocial behaviours, including heavy drinking, fighting, and weapon use.” (2016)

• One 2019 study found porn viewing leading to “unethical behavior” in other areas (business)—which they explained as connected with “increased moral disengagement from dehumanization of others due to viewing pornography.”

This association between pornography use and aggression also appears among adolescents. For instance:

• “Compared to non-pornographic Internet site users, infrequent pornographic Internet site users were twice as likely to have abnormal conduct problems; frequent pornographic Internet site users were significantly more likely to have abnormal conduct problems.” (2009)

• “Mesch found that greater quantities of pornography consumption were significantly correlated with lower degrees of social integration, specifically related to religion, school, society, and family. The study also found a statistically significant relationship between pornography consumption and aggressiveness in school.” (2009)

In a 2012 review of the research, “The Impact of Internet Pornography on Adolescents,” the researchers state:

Collectively, these studies suggest that youth who consume pornography may develop unrealistic sexual values and beliefs. Among the findings, higher levels of permissive sexual attitudes, sexual preoccupation, and earlier sexual experimentation have been correlated with more frequent consumption of pornography…. Nevertheless, consistent findings have emerged linking adolescent use of pornography that depicts violence with increased degrees of sexually aggressive behavior.

They continue:

Girls report feeling physically inferior to the women they view in pornographic material, while boys fear they may not be as virile or able to perform as the men in these media. Adolescents also report that their use of pornography decreased as their self-confidence and social development increased. Additionally, research suggests that adolescents who use pornography, especially that found on the Internet, have lower degrees of social integration, increases in conduct problems, higher levels of delinquent behavior, higher incidence of depressive symptoms, and decreased emotional bonding with caregivers.

Narcissism and personality disorders

Two studies highlight the impact of long-term porn use on deeper elements of personality:

• “The hours spent viewing Internet pornography use was positively correlated to participants’ narcissism level. Additionally, those who have ever used Internet pornography endorsed higher levels of all three measures of narcissism than those who have never used Internet pornography.” (2014)

• More broadly, one 2018 study on internet use and “dark personality traits” found that “online sexual use” was related to dark personality traits (machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and spitefulness).

Gary Wilson asked, “How would these traits differ after an extended period of time without porn.”

4. A human being who is more isolated

Studies consistently find a connection between regular porn use and loneliness:

• “Results showed a significant association between Internet pornography usage and loneliness.” (2005)

• “Results from our analyses revealed significant and positive associations between pornography use and loneliness.” (2017)

• “It was further revealed that a significant direct relationship between loneliness and sexual compulsivity exists.” (2017)

• “Analyses also revealed that the higher the prevalence of pornography use, the higher the prevalence of sexually related online activities, and the higher the loneliness and insecure attachment orientations (anxiety and/or avoidance).” (2018)

Shyness also shows up: “Shyness was positively associated with solitary sexual behaviors of masturbation and pornography use for men.” (2013)

And individuals with compulsive sexual patterns also show “higher rates of social anxiety disorder” (2013) and “elevated social anxiety.” (2023)

This can show up in how adolescents connect with family members:

• “Lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver” among young people involved in porn. (2005)

• In relation to family functioning, “mutuality, communication and harmony were negatively related to pornography consumption.” (2012)

Interestingly, some of this may improve when pornography use stops. As one 2026 study reported: “We found that those individuals who did not use pornography or did not masturbate during the past year had significantly lower levels of mental distress and loneliness than those who did.”

5. A human being who is more confused and less able to see reality clearly

The number of studies linking porn use and poorer cognitive outcomes is striking, especially those focused on executive functioning. Wilson, who highlights altered prefrontal circuits and sensitization in porn addicts, called poor executive functioning in the presence of addictive cues a “hallmark of substance disorders” and a “key brain feature occurring in drug addicts.” This involves “hypofrontality” which is reflected in temporarily “decreased cerebral blood flow and reduced metabolic activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brain.”

Poor executive functioning is reflected in a number of studies:

• “Hypersexual behavior was positively correlated with global indices of executive dysfunction,” one 2010 study reported—in line with the fact that “patients seeking help for hypersexual behavior often exhibit features of impulsivity, cognitive rigidity, poor judgment, deficits in emotion regulation, and excessive preoccupation with sex.”

• One study found men with cybersex addictive tendencies showing evidence of decreased ability in “exerting cognitive control over a multitasking situation that involves pornographic pictures”—suggesting this may “be one mechanism in the development and maintenance of cybersex addiction.” (2015)

• Problematic sexual behaviors (PSB) “was associated with ….deficits across several neurocognitive domains, including motor inhibition, spatial working memory, and an aspect of decision making.” (2016)

• Another 2016 study found that people with problematic sexual behaviors exhibited neurocognitive deficits, including poorer executive functioning.

  The authors conclude, “it is possible to trace the problems evident in PSB and additional clinical features, such as emotional dysregulation, to particular cognitive deficits.”

The most immediate consequence of such poor executive function is the classically poor decision-making associated with addiction, which a 2013 study found was worse “in the presence of sexually explicit images.” These researchers concluded that “sexual arousal interfered with decision-making.”

Struggles to remember and learn

• “German scientists have discovered that Internet erotica can diminish working memory,” Wilson summarizes from a 2013 study that found “working memory was worst during the porn viewing and that greater arousal augmented the drop.” They conclude: “Results contribute to the view that indicators of sexual arousal due to pornographic picture processing interfere with working memory performance.”

• Sexual arousal may also distract attention from consequential information: “Sexual arousal could reduce their attention and physiological sensitivity to monetary losses.” (2018)

• One 2017 study highlighted a “lack of a learning effect by the sexually compulsive group when they were sexually stimulated.” They added, “These data support the idea that sexually compulsive men do not take advantage of the possible learning effect from experience, which could result in better behavior modification.”

These same cognitive impacts show up with adolescent studies, including working memory:

“Our results showed diminishing memory capability on pornography addiction. Working memory is known to have an important role in maintaining goal-oriented behavior; therefore, our findings suggested that pornography-addicted juveniles may have a problem in doing so.” (2019)

Porn use also correlates with basic academic struggles:

• “Watching horror, action, or pornographic films was associated with lower test scores.” (2008)

• A longitudinal study over a six-month period found that “an increased use of Internet pornography decreased boys’ academic performance six months later.” (2015)

• Most students who are involved in pornographic activities do not do well in academics and most times even procrastinate their work. (2019)

For both adolescents and adults, the larger impact on concentration, focus and attention shows up as well:

• Visiting porn sites were associated with lack of concentration. (2017)

• A 2018 study found that “excessive Internet use has an impact on the development of cognitive deficits similar to those found in ADHD.”

• A 2023 study likewise found “cognitive deficits shortly after using pornography.”

• Compared with young adults without compulsive sexual behavior, those who struggled compulsively had higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. (2013)

• “Due to the structural immaturity of the adolescent brain and relative inexperience, they are unable to process the myriad nature of sexual content online which may lead to attention problems, anxiety, and depression.” (2017)

6. A human being who is less connected with spiritual practices and God

Pornography use is often associated with a measurable thinning of prayer, worship, spiritual confidence, and religious participation—which has been documented largely by Samuel Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma. Here are several of his findings:

• Perry in 2017 found in “Does Viewing Pornography Diminish Religiosity Over Time?” that people who viewed pornography at one point in time reported “more religious doubt, lower religious salience, and lower prayer frequency” at at later time point compared to those who never viewed porn.

• His study among young Americans, entitled “How Viewing Pornography Shapes the Religious Lives of Young Americans,” explored “whether viewing pornography may actually have a secularizing effect, reducing young Americans’ personal religiosity over time.” Data over time show that “more frequent pornography viewing diminishes religious service attendance, importance of religious faith, prayer frequency, and perceived closeness to God, while increasing religious doubts”—an effect that holds for both boys and girls and is especially strong for teenagers.

• In another 2017 longitudinal report by the same team, married Americans who never viewed pornography prayed with their spouses more often than average, while moderate users prayed together less.

• In “How Pornography Use Reduces Participation in Congregational Leadership,” Perry reported in 2019 that the more frequently people viewed pornography at an earlier point in time, the less likely they were to hold a leadership role or serve on a committee in their congregation over the next six years—even after controlling for religious commitment and other factors.

7. A human being who is less emotionally free

I wish this point were the most obvious. But because of an ongoing, concerted effort to portray pornography and sex addiction as somehow “controversial,” it has become a fraught subject.

But it shouldn’t be. Consider how nearly all of the dozens of neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) published on porn users and sex addicts support the addiction model, as Wilson made clear on his website.

Those findings, by the way, “mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies,” as Wilson underscored. Likewise, “over 60 studies report findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction).”

Accompanying this evidence of addictive escalation to more extreme material, Wilson identified an additional 15 studies reporting withdrawal symptoms in porn users. For instance, one 2023 study found pornography users speaking about a “need for greater stimulation over time,” and shifting frequently to other kinds of images “typically to heighten or maintain arousal.”

Over 30 literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world “all support the addiction model,” Wilson added—providing further confirmation.

Addictive features aside, there are also many studies documenting decreased impulse control associated with porn use. For instance:

• “Porn use increases impulsivity and may reduce certain executive functions (self-control, judgment, foreseeing consequences, impulse control).” (2017)

• “Erotica users…. exhibited more impulsive choice patterns …than erotica non-users did.” (2008)

• “The more pornography that participants consumed, the more they saw the future rewards as worth less than the immediate rewards, even though the future rewards were objectively worth more.” (2015)

• “Hypersexual behavior was related to higher scores on measures of …trait impulsivity.” (2015)

• “Subjects who do not use erotic content have a greater sense of self-control than their peers … who use from erotic sites several times a month and more often….It’s about greater control over your emotions.” (2018)

• “Impulsivity … (was) significantly higher in porn-using college students.” (2023)

Porn users are also more likely to experience other kinds of compulsive-addictive patterns. One earlier 2005 study, for instance, found more “substance use in the previous year” among adolescents using pornography. Other similar studies of adults found pornography use associated with:

• More “compulsive buying, pathological gambling, and kleptomania.” (2013)

• More “heavy drinking” and “using illegal drugs (and) gambling.” (2016)

• “More symptoms related to problematic drinking, cannabis use, and gambling” (2026) and “more alcohol abuse.” (2026)

The opposite pattern also appears: abstinence from porn may strengthen self-control and delayed gratification. As a 2016 study concludes: “Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards. Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks.”

Two important qualifications

1. Pornography is one of many influences

None of this is to suggest that deep sadness, anxiety, isolation, aggression, spiritual disconnection, or compulsive patterns have simple causes. Human beings are complex, and suffering rarely has only one explanation.

Nor is this meant to overwhelm or shame anyone who has struggled with pornography, especially those who are already weary of their own struggle. These people should be the most aware of how porn use has shaped their lives, but they can’t always see it after a certain amount of time.

For many of them, they start to fall into “this is just who I am” or “this is just how life is” or “people around me are just hard to deal with” or “God isn’t there for me”…little realizing how much porn may have shaped this all.

2. Family members, especially children and spouses, are also ‘trained to become’ different in concerning ways

Porn use also profoundly influences the kind of person surrounding people become as well, with many studies confirming concerning impacts on family members of someone using pornography. Here’s just one example:

“Current and previous partner pornography use were related to higher (eating disorder) symptomatology, adjusting for age and women’s reports of being bothered by this use. Partner thinness-related pressure and previous partner pornography use were associated with ED symptomatology both directly and through thin-ideal internalization, whereas current partner pornography use was directly associated with ED symptomatology.” (2019)

There’s so much more here that needs to be understood and explored, but outside the scope of this article.

Key points

I hope several conclusions are clear from the foregoing evidence.

First, pornography does not merely show a person something. Over time, it teaches a person to become someone.

Recurring pornography use, as illustrated above, forms human beings who are sadder and more anxious, less able to show love, more willing to be aggressive and treat women poorly, more isolated, more confused and less able to see reality clearly, less connected with God, and less emotionally free.

Second, as reflected here, the most serious cost of pornography may not be what sexually explicit material elicits in a moment, but what it quietly makes a person become over time.

Thus, it may be helpful to shift public discourse away from asking only, “Is pornography wrong?” and toward asking, “What kind of person is this training me to become?”

Third, I hope this insight could make a difference for those walking their own inspired path of recovery. Freedom is not doing whatever desire demands. Freedom is becoming the kind of person whose desires are increasingly ordered toward love and goodness, truth and transcendence—to become, as Matt Dobschuetz puts it, “the type of man that does not look at porn.”

The most important message

If you would like to become sadder, more anxious, more isolated, less capable of love, more willing to be aggressive, more confused about reality, less connected with God, and less emotionally free, the research suggests one reliable way to move in that direction: keep giving pornography your time, attention, imagination, and heart’s desire.

But if you want to become more whole, more clear-minded, more connected, more gentle, more loving, more spiritually alive, and more free at the deepest levels, then pornography is not merely a private habit to “manage.” It becomes a formative influence to resist.

Don’t give into despair—hope always!

The hopeful news is that human beings are not only formed by what has happened in the past. We are also formed by what we choose next.

The same heart and mind that can be trained toward escape, objectification, isolation, and compulsion can also be retrained toward beautiful presence, love, self-command, truth, and sweet communion with God.

If you know someone grappling, please encourage them to keep learning, keep growing, keep changing, keep getting up —and above all, keep being hopeful. Don’t give up! Lasting freedom can absolutely be yours. As my dear friend Vinny, likes to say, “if you knew how good deep recovery is, you’d put on your track shoes and race to get there!”

Pornography may shape a person over time, but it does not have the final word on who anyone can become—no matter how long it has messed with your heart and mind, or obscured a future of the sweetest joy, love and peace.

Don’t give up on lasting freedom until you find it. It’s time to “arise from the dust” and reach for the living God’s help to “shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity.”

I’m doing a lot more writing this summer on non-obvious influences on an individual’s capacity to connect with God and experience anything transcendent at all. Thursday, I spoke with Pepperdine University scholar Jessica Hooten Wilson, who writes about the cultural forces leading an entire generation to lose interest in reading. What does it mean for your relationship with God when you lose the ability to be alone with sacred writing?

I’d welcome a chance to hear your own stories, either in writing or on a phone or Zoom interview this summer. Here are some of the questions I’m exploring—but maybe you see something else that might be missing?

Tell me if you’ve seen or experienced any of this before:

1. When an inability to read (via disinterest or impatience) hollows out faith

Have you noticed your own ability to read decreasing in recent years? If so, you’re not alone—this is common in our screen-based, smartphone-fixated society. A surprising number of Americans admit not reading much at all. If that applies to you, how do you think it’s impacted your own faith and spirituality, if at all? Have you seen others you care about stop reading? Have there been any accompanying changes in their spirituality?

2. When counselors inadvertently undermine faith

An inspired, qualified counselor can do miracles. But in collaboration with an excellent therapist in Georgia, I’m writing to educate people on signs that a counselor may be (often unintentionally) undermining faith. Have you ever seen that happen before? It’s subtle enough that we believe people are missing the influence almost entirely. But it’s there. No counselor comes from an unbiased, neutral position—and a surprising number of popular views in psychology today are like battery acid when it comes to active, vibrant faith. Very interested to hear any of your experiences.

3. When pervasive suspicion corrodes faith

Most people believe in some kind of conspiracy, which makes sense with the level of corruption in society today. But what happens when someone comes to believe there is malevolence and villainry around every corner? And what happens when our view of the world becomes so dark and sinister that the plain and precious truths of the gospel no longer feel all that relevant and exciting anymore? I’d love to hear any experiences you’ve had or observed.

4. When your faith is impacted because you ‘just can’t feel much’

One of my summer projects is a set of short meditations and accompanying monograph called “Feeling Again”—breaking down all the (known) reasons any of us can come to not feel much about life or relationships (or God). It’s astounding how many things can dampen emotion—from past trauma or acute betrayal, to current stress, an insane pace of life, continual distraction, chronic illness, certain medical treatment, addictive patterns, intense despair, anger or fear, meaninglessness and isolation. I’m curious whether you or someone you love has experienced a noticeable lack of feeling. If so, how have you handled that—and has it had an impact on your faith?

5. When you overcome doubts, instead of them overcoming you

In writing recently about overcoming doubt, I’m seeing a lot of misconceptions about what that means and doesn’t mean. Have you ever had an experience of your own in overcoming doubt about otherwise beautiful realities or truths—that, at the time, you may not have been able to see clearly? What did that involve and look like?

Thank you for sharing either below in the comments or by reaching out at jzhess@gmail.com. I’d be happy to jump on a phone call, but if you’re able to share your experience in writing, that would be amazing.

Since the recent Washington, D.C., summit on antidepressant tapering, I’ve been intrigued by the public discourse that’s taken place on how to make sense of it all. There’s a lot to be learned by sitting back and just watching a big discussion taking place — whether through formal “discourse analysis” or more of a basic content analysis, like the one I share below.

For the most part, bigger legacy media outlets continue not to take much of this very seriously. As far as many outlets are concerned, everything associated with RFK is a clown show — even when he happens to be raising some important questions. As a result, we see ominous headlines like:

• The Strange Alliance Trying to Remake American Psychiatry1 (New York Times)

• RFK Jr. Is Coming for Your Antidepressants (Daily Beast)

What I personally found most interesting was what ordinary readers were saying about efforts to encourage safer tapering. Drawing on a sample of hundreds of comments from a New York Times article on the recent “Mental Health and Overmedicalization Summit,” I decided to go deeper in exploring the many disagreements and significant complexity involved.

Across the many fascinating comments, three broader takeaways stand out:

1. There are many across the ideological spectrum who agree there needs to be more support and research for those curious whether gentle tapering from one or more psychiatric medications could be helpful.

2. There are also many others who can’t seem to get over the idea that this issue is now connected to Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump — with their frustration and fear seeming to overwhelm any curiosity.

3. There are many important questions being raised by people with concerns about this initiative and the approach being taken by this administration.

Within these broad brushstrokes, I break down sub-themes that seem worth highlighting, sometimes bolding a particular part of a quote that deserves special attention. You’ll notice again this is not a short-form article. Like the original report, I’m trying to put in-depth information in your hands, especially for those interested in the topic.

Where could your empathy and understanding most grow?

By way of preface, it seems to me having a broader grasp on the complexity of this conversation could provide more grounding and humility for anyone involved, no matter your view — maybe especially as you have a chance to hear out deeply a point of view you don’t share.

So consider skimming a little, and focusing on the parts that could benefit you the most. For instance:

• Firmly pro-medication: If you think the impetus behind this effort is naive, unscientific or even reckless, spend some time in section one below. You’ll probably come away with a little more empathy and appreciation for how some of this might be helpful.

• Firmly anti-medication: If you think the questions around antidepressants and tapering are simple, and simply a function of greed, power or ignorance, try skipping to the third section — where an assortment of really important concerns are raised about this initiative.

• Done with Trump/RFK: If you are so done with President Trump and RFK that you could scream — and sometimes actually do — the first section will be helpful to you as well — especially in seeing this isn’t just about conservative politics. It’s about people experiencing deep suffering — reaching out for some additional support.

• Supporting Trump/RFK: If you’re generally a supporter of President Trump and RFK and struggle to hear the kind of opposition they face without losing your cool, take a deep breath and work your way through the second section recapping people who are expressing their concerns about how this administration is going about this.

My own take-away is that the more sensitive and important a conversation is, the more grounded, humble and open to different perspectives we all need to be. Few conversations need that kind of a foundation more than this one. That’s what motivates me to share this in-depth tour of the public conversation happening. I have a feeling it could invite more humility, empathy and openness for anyone willing to listen in. It certainly did for me.

Three bigger themes in the conversation about safer antidepressant tapering:

1. There are many across the ideological spectrum who agree there needs to be more support and research for those curious whether gentle tapering from one or more psychiatric medications could be helpful.

There’s no shortage of people expressing appreciation for these efforts to learn more and provide support to those needing this kind of help. That starts with a number of people who shared their own experiences tapering off (or trying to taper off):

• “I was on anti-anxiety and antidepressants and still wasn’t feeling well. My psychiatrist said I would be on them for my entire life. I stopped taking them [note — this should be done gradually if you’ve been on for years] while starting up a strict exercise and nutrition regime. I’m much better now. I know I am prone to anxiety and depression, and if I ever stop exercising regularly or (start) eating poorly I will fall back. It’s like an assailant walking behind me and waiting to pounce. This is my incentive to explore all food options and understand how they affect my well-being. I frame it as an interesting, exciting journey to optimize my life.” (anonymous from Chicago)

• “I’m not a fan of Health Secretary Kennedy, but I agree with him on this. Fifteen years ago I was prescribed an SSRI with assurance that it is not addictive. I tried quitting at least three times over the course of the years. I did so very, very slowly and gradually reduced the dosage. Each time I had dreadful ‘rebound effect’. Look it up, if you don’t know what it means. It’s the worst state of emotion I ever experience and far, far worse than I ever felt before taking them. Truly dreadful. I don’t blame my MD prescriber because I assume he had been assured by the pharmaceutical manufacturer that their product was non-habit forming. Now I am resigned to taking the SSRI every day because the thought of going through that withdrawal and rebound again is truly frightening.” (CC, OR)

• “I slowly weaned myself off an anti-anxiety and depression medication about a year and a half ago after 20 years and am so glad I did. None of this is easy….. After so many years of taking meds and working on issues, the anxiety was resolved enough to leave the meds. The depression is a daily struggle and I’m not sure how much difference the medication made in the long run. It does dull you to a certain extent and the side effects are not all known. I’m grateful I was able to get off them but each person needs to make their own decision. This is an extremely personal and complicated decision. It would be nice to have a more holistic approach to everything in medicine. A lot of doctors in this country tend to just throw drugs at the problem and deny even the most basic of natural answers like diet, exercise, sleep, stress and vitamins, etc. A stronger social support system would help everyone.” (Anonymous)

It was interesting to see the different pathways to ‘feeling again.’ For instance, similar to this person describing how the medication “does dull you to a certain extent,” others recounted how gentle tapering had helped them be able to feel more again in life:

• “I have been on and off antidepressants most of my life. I recently stopped taking fluoxetine after taking it for about 6 years. It was like waking up from a dream, the medicine had blunted me emotionally so much. It helped immensely when I needed it 6 years ago, but taking it reflexively after its utility had declined was not to my benefit.” (Anonymous in San Francisco)

• “I finally got myself off of them a year ago and I can finally feel again.” (anonymous)

• A mother from New Mexico, Ana, writes: “I was on antidepressants through my college years, which blunted my emotions, made me act like a different person, lose interest in school and generally have a worse than bad time—a passionless, emotionless time where I drank heavily just to try to feel something.” She described the process of getting off the medications as “awful” — and how it took 2 years to “rebuild my sense of self and heal my brain.”

Then others pointed out that in their experience, the antidepressant had helped them feel again:

• “I’m 31. I’ve been on SSRIs since I was 16. When I experienced my first major depressive episode, I had a robust support system: friends, loving parents, engaged teachers, a fantastic therapist, and a personal trainer my parents hired to come help me exercise three times a week. Even though I had every type of support imaginable, I still could not crawl out of that cave. I felt like a ghost stuck in my own life. And then I started Lexapro. I still remember the feeling of the sun warming my skin the first time I went to the park a week or so after starting the meds. For the first time in forever, I could actually FEEL it. I felt like a little kid waking up from a nightmare in their mom’s arms.” (AM, South Carolina)

• “Back in 1992, Prozac saved my life. Over the course of several weeks my life went from solid gray to a rainbow. I’ve likened it to the scene in Wizard of Oz when Dorothy opens the door and the movie goes from black and white to color—only in slow motion. It basically gave me all of my emotions back; it was neither a happy pill nor did it blunt my feelings. Since then I’ve been on a number of different meds, benefiting from them all to one degree or another. Some have been difficult to get off of, most have not. I’ve also benefited from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, as well as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.” (Michael Spence, San Diego, CA)

Others described being encouraged to taper too fast:

• “I think that starting the discussion on the overprescribing of antidepressants is helpful. I was prescribed one (and truly needed it) but I never felt that my primary who I met only once before actually explained my symptoms. After years of therapy, I tried to quit. The first time, I had such bad brain zaps. The second, I had to go back on in a day or two because my irritability was so bad. Now my third time I am finally getting more support. Each other time I was told to just take a pill cutter and cut my dose in half! [way too fast, according to the best research] My medicine was and is lifesaving, but we truly have a problem in America with how mental health is treated by medical professionals.” (Ann)

• “While I am concerned about some of RFK Jr.’s suggestions, I actually affirm him here. As a former psychiatric patient, I have had multiple experiences where psychiatrists would simply pull me off of a medication or tell me “You can stop taking the medicine” WITHOUT methodically tapering me or providing me tapering advice. This led to much worse mental and physical health struggles than before I took the medications. Paid professional tapering could save lives.” (Eli, California)

As reflected here, several expressed concern that people are getting on meds too quickly and tapering too quickly — both without awareness of the potential effects of doing so.

• “Many who receive these drugs don’t know how they were intended to be used, don’t understand the endpoints that were evidenced, and are too often not provided balanced contemporary information regarding affective disorders in making decisions. It’s honestly heartbreaking from the research side” (Another scientist, Maryland)

• “I observe that many patients abruptly discontinue their SSRIs or SNRIs without consulting their prescriber despite having been told about the risk of discontinuation syndrome. Verbal or written consent about side effects or potential withdrawal symptoms is important. However, I wonder how many patients really pay attention to what they are hearing or reading. That being said, informed consent should be provided for all medications as there are so many non-psychotropic meds that can cause significant untoward neurological effects.” (Ann-Marie, Maryland)

• “Discontinuing Benzodiazepines could use some much needed attention. Take them for a couple of weeks and you’re addicted. Some doctors don’t seem to know this. But they prescribe them anyway.” (Mowgli, from New Jersey)

Some expressed interest in considering tapering, but admitted being fearful of withdrawal effects:

• “Those of us who have used and benefited from SSRIs nevertheless know that withdrawal symptoms may be worse than those of the disease….I am now at a point where I feel stable and experiencing no real blues or any of the typical effects of depression. I would like to try to go off them. But, but, but, as I alluded to, I don’t want to face the withdrawal.” (anonymous)

• “I would love to quit my antidepressant, but I’m highly addicted to it. Even when I’ve tried to titrate off of it, I still get incredibly unsettling brain zaps. I truly hate it.” (Hank, Portland, OR)

Some admit feeling like they are in a situation where they cannot get off (at least, not with better help in how to gently taper over a longer period):

• “I take Celexa and Seroquel….I do not know why they put me on Seroquel, actually. But I’ve been on it for over twenty years and cannot get off it b/c I can no longer sleep without it. I’ve told my psychiatrist this (not the same one who put me on it who’s long gone) and he said with such a low dose that I’m on, it shouldn’t be a problem getting off it, but it is. It really, really is… in my case with a drug I have to take now and can’t get off and didn’t know the reason for the prescription in the first place it’s frustrating.” (hmsmith0, Los Angeles)

• “I have been on antidepressants for over 30 years and have found it very hard to taper off and discontinue them, even with doctor’s assistance, due to the extreme withdrawal symptoms. I would love some actual help. What is missing in RFK Jr.’s plan are accessible, affordable, medically sound methods to get people through the lengthy, painful pharmaceutical withdrawals and transition to viable, more organic alternatives. The lack of information here is a big concern.” (JJS, Boston)

Parents, families, and caregivers describe their experience having to navigate tapering for themselves:

• “This is fantastic news! Other countries are decades ahead of the U.S. medical establishment in training prescribers how to help taper patients. The dearth of info here is astounding. For those who choose to go off, they deserve doctors who understand deprescribing. I’ve been tapering my teen off an SSRI over the last 18 months. We are two months away from the finish line. Her psychiatrist and family doctor were utterly useless so I had to do my own research. Because of the work of Dr. Mark Horowitz I’ve been able to minimize her withdrawal symptoms. The practice of putting millions on drugs that cause dependency without support to safely get them off is absolutely criminal.” (KW, Evanston)

• “A big problem with SSRIs, SNRIs and benzos is people try to quit and even with what they think is a reasonable taper, often directed by a primary physician, find themselves slammed with unbearable depression and/or anxiety they mistake for their “real self” returning. It’s actually withdrawal, but they’re convinced they need the drug more than ever and return to it. I watched two close friends go through this. Withdrawal can be anguishing, even in measures, but can eventually offer more of a sense of pride and self-ownership than ever. See Benzobuddies online forum for indispensable support, they now include quitting antidepressants.” (gw, usa)

• “Many people I know who have been on antidepressants describe near debilitating experiences trying to get off them, with little to no help from their prescribing physician. The ‘brain zaps’ are very real, severe dizziness. It’s easier for doctors to refill and for people to continue taking these drugs rather than deal with the transition.” (Lan, California)

A variety of professionals describe welcoming better tapering information, slow taper protocols, and informed consent:

• “As a psychotherapist, I applaud this wholeheartedly” (DL, U.S.)

• “I am an LCSW, and I talk with clients about exactly this all day every day… social connection, exercise, less screen time, mindfulness, meditation, creativity. It’s a step in the right direction. I’d also say making it easier for people to get therapy would be really helpful.” (Stephanie Adams, Murfreesboro, TN)

• “As a psych NP, I rarely prescribe SSRIs. Statistically they do almost nothing for depression, once you include the many negative studies that the pharma companies didn’t publish….RFK Jr. is still wrong about most things though” (Mr. Wick, Ohio)

• “I am shocked by the number of children in our community who are in therapy and on medication…. In one case it is a mentally ill parent who needs help but the child, who once had an amazing facility with emotion is now rendered unable to empathize or access emotion.” (Mental health care professional, New York)

• People stay on antidepressants for decades because they start tapering down and have significant withdrawal symptoms. It’s not like a blood pressure medication where each week I’ll reduce my dosage by 25%. The tapering with antidepressants needs to be in tiny, minuscule increments. (this person encourages people to check out Outro Health — an online platform developed by leading researchers with physicians who will work with you using the safest hyperbolic method). (Debra, A social worker in ATL formerly in NYC)

• “After decades working as a therapist in the mental health system, I want to say, it’s about time (way past time!) that Americans get more accurate information about the side effects, discontinuation challenges and the need for very slow tapers — with knowledgeable doctors (most trust Big Pharma taper guidelines which are way too abrupt and still not well researched) — off SSRIs. I’m hoping the understandable concerns about Kennedy’s leadership at the federal level will not confuse or lessen the importance of the information being discussed. Our for profit Big Pharma system cannot be trusted to provide full and unbiased information so people can make the best decisions for their mental health with their doctors. MUCH more sound science, accurate tapering data and accountability is needed with pharmaceutical use especially in psychiatry.” (East Coast therapist)

Several people highlighted identifiable gaps in what people know — compounded by the natural confusion many people feel about the experience:

• Catherine from Denver highlights the clear need for more research: “Pharmaceutical companies should be required to do studies about how to taper off these medications as part of the approval process. Before they start these medications, patients should be informed about the issues they will encounter when and if they decide to stop taking them. Right now people who want to reduce or stop taking these medications have to figure out how to do it relying on anecdotal information from other patients. Not everyone wants to take these medications for the rest of their life.”

• Indigo from the Pacific Northwest admits it’s mighty hard to tell what’s really happening on a personal level: “These medications can exacerbate mental health issues too, and unfortunately the only way to tell if the medications are the cause is to stop taking the medication; and the only way to test is to increase the medication. Both are not ideal.”)

• And an anonymous commenter emphasized how unclear the larger picture continues to be: “There are a lot of anecdotes about both the helpful and harmful sides of antidepressants but notably very little on the aggregate effects. Are Americans being overprescribed, resulting in net harmful outcomes? Or do they actually need more treatment? Or are they consuming about the medically warranted amount? Nobody — not individuals, not doctors, not professors, not epidemiologists — seems to have a clue.”

• A commenter called “carmel fruit farmer” in NY wondered why people aren’t paying attention to the research that exists: “It is shocking to me that this research (showing the drugs are not generally effective long term) is widely ignored, but perhaps because they often bring short-term relief, doctors don’t suffer any consequences from prescribing an ultimately ineffective treatment.”

• “The difficulty many patients have stopping SSRIs (as well as SNRIs and tricyclic antidepressants) is underappreciated by general practitioners.” (JC, Brooklyn)

• David in Washington, D.C., shared his belief that there were “many hundreds of thousands of people who are hit by serious withdrawals from SSRIs which were never warned by their prescribers. Prescribers often then routinely attempt to blame these new symptoms on relapse and deny what patients are experiencing. I have personally spoken to hundreds of people this has happened to. This is a system failure.”

As reflected here, many of the positive comments were not anti-medication. They were pro-support. Commenters described being started on medication too casually, kept on it too long, given too little information about side effects, or left to figure out withdrawal on their own. They also often framed the initiative not as a reason to take medication away, but as a long-overdue attempt to give patients informed consent, individualized guidance and a realistic path off medication when they no longer need or want it. As reflected here and below, these people draw on their experiences to raise meaningful questions, such as:

• What would a trustworthy evidence process look like — especially when patient stories point in different directions?

• What evidence should guide this — anecdotes, population data, clinical expertise, patient experience?

• Are medication harms being addressed too late — after people are already dependent?

• Should tapering research, informed consent, and discontinuation planning be required before medications become routine long-term treatments?

How do we know who should stop? Susanna in Canada wondered: “It may well be that SSRIs are overprescribed, but he offers no empirical evidence as to who should stop and who should continue, and further, he wants to lump everyone in the same group…..It is difficult to know which cases need a short course and which are long-haul. Blanket pronouncements are likely to do a lot of harm.”

In other words: Can policy distinguish between overuse, misuse, underuse, withdrawal harm, and life-saving long-term treatment?

Some wondered whether we’ve been too quick as a society to ignore other ways to support those with depression:

• “I was depressed at some point in my life and after talking about it for 3 minutes with my doctor he immediately jumped to antidepressants. Not diet, not exercise, not social contact. But pills. This experience has been echoed by most of my friends. This country is obsessed with a quick pill to solve an issue. …Those are 99% of the time not the solution. Very few people have exhausted all the options that would make them require those pills.” (Bernard, California)

• “If your gut is out of balance, your mental health is too. Fixing your gut microbiome is a game changer. Also, express your feelings and thoughts, exercise, eat healthy foods, be of service to others.” (Frank, austin)

• “Instead of treating underlying situations like loneliness, social media induced distractions & anxiety, people are simply seeking solace in antidepressants. The next big thing that is already here is weight loss drugs. Anyone that has without an iota of conviction to limit eating, or make healthy choices in food and exercise is now jumping on the Ozempic bandwagon. I applaud Mr. Kennedy is at least trying to address this.” (Columbus, OH)

A self-described middle-aged woman from Massachusetts described her relief and excitement that more attention is being given to this: “As someone who has tried many psych meds and had withdrawal, I’m thrilled to see a push towards other things that have clear benefits, both short- and long-term: nutrition, exercise, social connection, & therapy (CBT, EMDR, DBT, IFS, ACT, ERP, etc., etc.). I’m (saddened) at how quickly providers reach for pills, multitudes of them. I have seen many people on 2, 3, 4 different psych meds — what on earth are providers thinking?!”

But a number of people expressed broader, more cynical levels of distrust in the system as a whole:

• “1 in 6 Americans take an SSRI, and the APA has the audacity to push back at the suggestion that they’re overprescribed.” (RGB, OR)

• “My wife is a Pharmacist and dispenses antidepressants to hundreds of patients each week. I can tell from our casual discussions (no names taken) that there is drug pandemic in this country. People are getting prescribed these mind altering medicines way too easily. A lot of them are often too young.” (Columbus, OH)

• “Pharma’s mission is to get you on their medications and make you life long customers.” (Richard, Boston)

• David from Washington, D.C., pointed out that “Over half of U.S. psychiatrists (55.7%) accept industry payments from pharmaceutical companies totaling over $340 million between 2014 and 2020.”

• “My gut tells me it’s possible that the system could be corrupted by profit-seeking pill manufacturers who get doctors to over-prescribe their medications in an arrangement that benefits both of them at the expense of patient safety and health. But I’d rather have regulatory decisions in this area made by qualified medical experts looking at data” (Christopher Walker, Tainan, Taiwan)

• “1 in 6 take SSRIs, Big Pharma has totally rigged the system. A tiny tiny amount of the population needs SSRIs. The rest, NO,” wrote Frank in Austin — pointing to 2008 research showing antidepressants barely outperforming sugar pills in trials.

• “Wow this caused me to sit up and take notice. The Trump admin of all people taking steps on the huge antidepressant overprescribing issue?? Seems like bizzaro world but here we are. This dirty secret is simple: it’s faster and more profitable for providers to just hand out pills than to dig deeper and find behavioral solutions.” (Ro, San Francisco)

• “Psychiatric meds are vastly overprescribed in North America and often without a psychiatrist involved or only briefly at the outset of treatment before you’re handed off to a family doctor and an LCSW. The reckoning can’t get here soon enough.” (AM, Canada)

• “The fact that (Kennedy is) not a doctor is a monumental qualification. The Pharma companies own this country.” (Swede, midwest)

Other related questions were raised — such as whether screenings catch struggling kids early, or create false positives and unnecessary treatment? And who decides?

“Regarding mental health screening- there are many clinicians who are advocating removing these screenings because of the very high number of false positives they produce. The screening process for many mental health conditions is very broad and subjective and can lead to the unnecessary drugging of children which carries its own risks.” (David, Washington, D.C.)

Some begrudging acknowledgment that Kennedy was at least right about this:

• “I find myself agreeing with Kennedy on this issue (for once), as research indicates that these drugs are not generally effective long term.” (carmel fruit farmer, NY)

• “I’m no fan of Kennedy, but there’s some truth to what he’s saying….there’s a point where many want to stop taking the medication, but it’s really really hard.” (Debra, A social worker in ATL formerly in NYC)

• “Kennedy may be off on a lot, but this topic isn’t one of them.” (Pum1917, Vancouver, BC)

• “I hate RFK Jr. He’s very dangerous. But I also think SSRIs are overprescribed and their risks (though not often life threatening) are not sufficiently discussed. The side effects are real. While I’m not advocating or suggesting Kennedy is right, there is truth in what he’s espousing.”

• “Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I wanted to hate this given RFK’s wild absurdities, but his quotes seem almost reasonable about using these medications as an option as opposed to the default treatment. They have a place (and they’ve had a place in my own life) but unfortunately he has a decent point here.” (Mike, nyc)

• “This is long overdue, so I applaud RFK on this though he’s mostly a crank. Almost 17% of the population being on daily psychiatric medications is a stat that should alarm all of us. The ease on which these prescriptions are doled out over the recent decades is nothing short of criminal negligence. These medications have their place in therapeutic care, but they are used and abused far beyond that. Providing resources to help people taper off of these is a great idea, hopefully there is actual substance and resources behind this proposal. Imagine if an adversary targets SSRI factories around the world. A widespread and sudden shortage would render many people incapacitated.” (Rory, Alexandria, VA)

• “Kudos to Secretary Kennedy. Taking a drug for too long can produce irreversible mental and physical adaptations.” (Sequel, Boston)

• “Sounds like a positive step. I believe several books have been written by people, particularly women, who thrived subsequent to weaning off these drugs. However, Big Pharma et al. won’t take such revisions lightly.” (David Cohen, Roslyn Heights, NY)

• “Great idea!...SSRIs are not suitable for anything other than temporary treatment if so. A recent Lancet study found them effective no more than 15% of the time compared to a placebo.” (Conservative Liberal, CA)

As you can see above, whatever reservations they may still have about the messenger, a striking number of commenters welcomed the underlying goals: more information, more informed consent, more attention to withdrawal, and more support for people who want to taper safely.

These positive comments were rarely simplistic endorsements of Kennedy. More often, they were qualified affirmations from people who had experienced the problem directly. Indeed, the most compelling positive comments were often personal rather than ideological. They came from people who had struggled to discontinue psychiatric medications, people who felt poorly informed before starting them, parents who had to research tapering protocols themselves, clinicians who had seen overprescribing or inadequate guidance firsthand, and patients who held two truths at once: these medications can be lifesaving for some and harmful, blunting, or difficult to escape for others.

2. Many other people can’t seem to get over the idea that this is (now) connected to Robert Kennedy Jr. and Trump — with their frustration and fear seeming to overwhelm any curiosity.

Even though the research and advocacy involved in helping support those tapering spans decades and even though those who have benefited from these efforts span every belief, political background or worldview, the fact that Trump and Kennedy (and Tucker) have been responsible for bringing it more into the public eye appears to irreparably stain the whole issue for many.

The strongest pattern here is a much broader political reflex, rather than simple disagreement about antidepressants, withdrawal, or overprescribing. Many readers seemed to interpret the entire initiative primarily through their distrust of Kennedy, Trump, MAGA and the current administration. That distrust often overwhelmed any curiosity about the substantive questions around long-term prescribing, withdrawal, informed consent or non-drug supports.

Some reflected a belief that nothing good can come from this administration — with their overt hostility towards RFK and Trump reaching a point that they openly acknowledge they cannot see anything positive or consider anything good coming from these efforts:

• “This man is a danger to society. He needs to resign. To my reckoning he has not one idea worth a salt.” (Steve Mason Ramsey NJ)

• “Lunatics and grifters, ALL of them in this administration,” writes KG in Louisville, KY. “RFK Jr. might have a couple of sound ideas regarding health and well-being every once in a while….A Magic Eight ball could guide U.S. healthcare policy just as effectively.”

• “Of all the truly ridiculous things that are going on in the United States under Trump, RFK Jr. being in a position of great power in the health care field is the most ludicrous and dangerous” (bstar, baltimore).

• “RFK Jr is the last person on earth I would take advice from on my medical care.” (JD, USA)

• “Why should we believe one word that comes out of the mouth of anyone in the Trump administration? They constantly lie, lie, lie. Kennedy is no different. He has an agenda and he will say what he thinks he needs to say, as well as take unilateral action, to accomplish that agenda. He has been a disaster for Americans’ health.” (JenD, NJ)

• “Kennedy has absolutely no business occupying the job he does. As is true with the entire Trump cabinet.” (Patient Zero, Portland, OR)

Others emphasize how this seemed to be another example of this administration rebuffing expertise — and speaking where they don’t have any credibility to do so. As reflected below, the administration’s questioning of other experts and push-back on other widely accepted conclusions leads many to feel deep suspicion about this seemingly happening again:

• Cynthia Andersen writes, “First off, RFK Jr is not a medical doctor and has no business in addressing medical issues. Like POTUS, he refuses to consult or acknowledge experts in the field.”

• “If RFK Jr. would stop practicing medicine without a license and promoting junk science and “junk scientists” we’d all be less depressed.” (Susan, Paris)

• “This guy has NO business dispensing medical advice!” (Debbie in NC)

• “Kennedy should keep his hands off our healthcare. He’s not a doctor or health professional of any kind.” (Steven Carters, Oceanside, CA)

• “Might as well take your health and medical advice from the first random person you meet on the street, for all this guy’s qualifications. Antidepressants save lives. RFK Jr.’s advice won’t.” (JLC, PNW)

• “Who is Bobby jr. to tell patients what they need or don’t need. That’s for one’s physician to decide.” (Wind Dancer, Cheyenne, Wyoming)

‘Even if antidepressant overuse is real, RFK is the wrong messenger’ some effectively say. For instance, one immunologist from Malvern, PA writes, “While Mr. Kennedy may be right about inappropriate use of SSRIs, I’d rather get my guidance from qualified mental health professionals.”

Implicit in these concerns is the question: Who decides when medication is needed — patient/doctor, or federal officials? How can the initiative support informed choice without becoming pressure, restriction, or interference?

“Only a patient and their psychiatrist may decide when and if it makes sense for the patient to discontinue psychotropic medications,” writes an individual from Maryland. “The remainder of this dialogue and numerous lay opinions is irrelevant.”

For some, they made clear their feelings that this administration is part of why they feel depressed: “I suspect that Kennedy is now a major source of depression for many people,” said Bodger in Atlanta. “I know that I get really bummed out when I see or hear or read or even think about him although I doubt that there are any pills that would help.”

There were many other similar sentiments:

• “With all due respect, does anybody really think that the right time to forego antidepressants is while Trump and his minions are running the country into the ground? As far as I can tell, we’ve never needed them more than we do right now.” (NT, Saint Paul MN)

• “Imagine the next 2.5 years under the Trump administration without antidepressants.” (VV in Connecticut)

• “Most people are probably taking antidepressants to survive this unhealthy political climate, managing rising costs/low pay, and the absence of meaningful healthcare” (EGT, NYC)

• “Just the idea of Kennedy makes me depressed.” (Jim London)

• “If we could throw out the Trump administration, that might enable a lot of us to throw out our antidepressants” (Todd, WA)

• “Here’s the deal: you and your administration step down and I will quit taking my antidepressants” (Seaskiguy, Seattle, WA)

• “The use of antidepressant medications should substantially ease up with the eventual demise of MAGA and the Trump Administration.” (Steve, Le Chien)

• “Guaranteed that the number of antidepressant prescriptions will drop precipitously once Trump and his minions, including Kennedy, Jr., are no longer in a position to ruin people’s lives.” (N christopher smith, virginia)

• “It will be so much easier for everyone to quit antidepressants when the entire Trump administration is a bad memory. Just the thought of it is a balm.” (W C Maddog, WC. Pa)

• “Americans are depressed, freaked out, and sleep-deprived because Donald Trump is in office.” (Portland)

• “I rely on antidepressants to help me cope with the constant stream of difficult and distressing realities we’re facing—cruel mass deportations, children being separated from their families, attempts to suppress free speech, efforts to silence the media, actors, and late-night hosts, economic instability, war, mass layoffs, the blatant enrichment of the President and his allies, the Epstein files, and so many other troubling issues.
  Antidepressants and therapy are the only things helping me maintain some sense of optimism—that things might eventually return to some form of normalcy, and that I’ll be able to move through the world without feeling weighed down by the level of hatred we’ve endured over the past two years. In the meantime I will gladly take my daily little blue pill!” (Debbie, Connecticut)

• “What Trump is doing is systematically raising anxiety and depression levels throughout the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) with his reckless aggression and threats to other parts of the world, his raising prices here through tariffs and energy, his wanton destruction of national treasures (selling and leasing public land for his whims or cronies’ profit), his authoritarian tactics, his suppression of democracy...and many other things to list here. And, because Republicans are standing by and doing nothing to ameliorate any of the effects of these policies. Those plummeting approval ratings? That’s where you’ll find anger, fear, and despair. I personally know people who have felt they will have no choice other than suicide when the Republicans cut Social Security and Medicare to pay off their tax cuts and wars of choice. And I’m a psychiatrist, by the way….” (Dumbstruck, Vermont)

• “Now we have more people feeling depressed and/or having a feeling of helplessness thanks to this very government.” (Opus, Cape Cod)

• “Psychotherapy and SSRIs are the two component glue that holds my sanity together. Recently, I’m having lots of sessions with my therapist that are focused on the overwhelming sense of dread whenever I remember that people like RFK Jr. exist and wield incredible power. My therapist, in turn, recently upped my meds.” (Rhode, Island)

• “Psychotherapy and SSRIs are the two component glue that holds my sanity together. Recently, I’m having lots of sessions with my therapist that are focused on the overwhelming sense of dread whenever I remember that people like RFK Jr. exist and wield incredible power. My therapist, in turn, recently upped my meds.” (Rhode, Island)

Again, some saw this as another example of this administration harming the American people:

• Val in New Jersey insisted this was another example of this administration “just continu(ing) to ‘pick’ on the people who they should be serving.”

• “RFK Jr. should mind his own business,” Mary in Indiana says. “I know what works for my own mental health not the government. He should work on himself before exploiting society.”

• “I’d be open to the conversation on if there is an overprescription crisis” writes Caitlin in Texas. But added, “These are life-saving drugs and these matters should be handled with care but this toddler is taking a sledgehammer to the system and hoping it works. It doesn’t matter to him who gets hurt in the process.” (Caitlin, Texas)

Given their deep hostility and distrust to the administration, many could only see the outcomes of this tapering as a possible disaster. For instance, Thurston Howell III in Los Angeles wrote that if this “ill-advised policy…causes a person who needs antidepressants to lose access, that person can become suicidal and/or dangerous and, at a minimum, lose interest in functioning appropriately and being productive. Stigmatizing them and jeopardizing their access to the drugs is both cruel and dangerous.”

In the wake of this all, some pushed back: wondering, are we really being fair with this proposal — or dismissing it reflexively due to our political passions?

A smaller number of commenters argued that many readers were rejecting potentially legitimate concerns precisely because the wrong political messenger had raised them. For instance:

• Bernard in California noticed this same theme: “Thus, anything RFK Jr says is automatically bad and dismissed. If he said apples were good, most people here would stop eating apples.”

• Elle writes, “Those of us who are desperately seeking a quick end to the current MAGA regime accomplish nothing when we launch ad hominem attacks on any and every Republican. Let’s lead by example, let’s be reasonable, let’s refuse to be cruel. If one or two good things can come out of this administration, that’s a win for us all.”’

Several asked why this is a ‘conservative issue’ — rather than a liberal one (which it’s been more so for decades) — and wondered what would happen if the politics were reversed:

• “MAHA has outflanked the Democrats. Being skeptical of big pharma should be a liberal issue. It was prior to 2020. 16 percent of people is too much to be on daily SSRIs. I was overprescribed them as a child.” (Sal from New York)

• “If RFK was a Democrat, this left wing readership would be cheering him on.” (Swede, midwest)

• “Something tells me if this was being pitched from a trusted left leaning outlet the reaction would be quite different.” (Reader, Tribeca)

Several wondered whether the outrage was inflated far beyond what reality called for — and wondered whether critics were too quick to condemn something with potential real benefits:

• “Psychiatric medications have a role in care, but we will no longer treat them as the default, we will treat them as one option, to be used when appropriate, with full transparency and with a clear path off when they are no longer needed,” Mr. Kennedy said. That actually sounds quite reasonable. But judging from the most liked comments here, one would think that he’s coming for your meds. (Rio Grande Valley)

• “Outrage over what? These recommendations are just calling for more information, safer deprescribing and informed consent. No one is trying to take your SSRIs away. Sheesh.” (Numa, Ohio)

3. There are many important questions being raised by people with concerns about this initiative and the approach being taken.

The fact that politics has clouded this conversation shouldn’t surprise anyone (is there a single issue in America where this hasn’t happened?). This abundance of hostility should not distract from a whole range of other important questions.

Many commenters were not simply defending antidepressants or attacking the tapering initiative. They were asking whether a legitimate concern about overprescribing and withdrawal can be addressed without reviving stigma, discouraging needed treatment, ignoring chronic illness, overlooking access barriers, or replacing one kind of one-size-fits-all medicine with another.

I attempt to summarize these thoughtful concerns below, in their own words — organized into a few broader areas:

First of all, many people described personal benefit they have found with their antidepressant treatment so far:

• “I have struggled with depression, my whole life. And I was born when there was no social media in fact in my childhood answering machines came on the scene. Fluoxetine was a lifesaver for me. I have now been escitalopram since the late 90s. I’m almost 71. Why in the world would I stop this medication?” (Darlene Moak, Charleston SC)

• “Prozac saved my life. I had terrible OCD since I was a child. I’ve been taking 20 mg (lowest dose basically) for much of my life. When I stop taking it…symptoms return….For me a low consistent dose works wonders.” (Dallas, TX)

• “For some of us, these meds literally are a matter of life and death.” (Linda K, California)

• “If you just suddenly stop, you increase the chances of some withdrawal symptoms. I have been on an SNRI for decades for dysthymia. It has made a huge difference.” (Jay, Canada)

• “Frankly, unless you have depression and/or anxiety and have taken an SSRI, you have no idea what you are talking about. For reference, I do exercise, eat relatively well, get treatment for sleep apnea, go to talk therapy once a week, have strong relationships, and take a GLP-1. I am very lucky to be able to do so. Regardless, I was prescribed Lexapro at 42, and it has literally changed my life for the better, even with everything else I am doing. So much so that I would never consider stopping the medication. For those of us who it works for, it is an absolute blessing and not something that should be discouraged.” (Name/location not captured)

• “Antidepressants saved my life and still do.” (Independent, Texas)

• “I thank God every day for the medical miracle they are to my brain. They are the difference between a life well lived and crawling under the blankets to “cope” with depression and anxiety.” (Too old for this, Boston)

• “Without my antidepressants, I would not be able to function in society,” says Sara Emerle in Albrightsville, Pa. “They give me a chance to live a life that isn’t defined by constant pain. That isn’t overprescribing; it’s medically necessary care….I don’t know what would happen to me without my medications.”

• “I am on antidepressants and they allow me to have a career! I can do my job and do it beyond well because my medicine inhibits my social anxiety disorder. ITS FOR MY MENTAL HEALTH!!!” (Sarah, North Carolina)

• “I started taking Lexapro shortly after (Trump) was elected the first time, and I honestly believe it saved my life. I was very skeptical about starting it, but my doctor, correctly, said that it would help me function a lot better in the world. I still have anxiety but it is now manageable, rather than crippling. I will take it for the rest of my life.” (BC, New England)

• “Whether it was a bout of ‘male menopause’, family trouble or far too much international travel thru changing time zones in a very short period of time or all combined, fortunately my good friend a Westchester Cty. NY Orthopedist recommended 20mgs/day of SSRIs. They did the trick and along with swimming every day, enjoying my work, family & friends, they helped put me back on track!” (NYer in the EU, Germany)

• “I intend to restart (antidepressants), as they help with the daily feelings of doom I have.” (Carla, CA)

• “There are medications, and there are medications. I had to try a couple of them before we found the one that worked for me. I’ve been on it for about 40 years, and I would never give it up. My life is so much better now, thanks to an SSRI that works really well for me.” (Not My Real Name, Monterey County)

• “I cannot possibly stop taking antidepressants while the state of our government is so despair-inducing. But seriously, why should I? I lived half my life weighed down by an enormous amount of childhood trauma. Antidepressants have helped me live more fully and comfortably — with almost no side effects. They may well have saved my life.” (Colleen, East Haddam)

• “I have gone from an introverted and seriously depressed young mother to an extroverted fully engaged grandmother over my 74 year lifetime of taking two different antidepressants. I would never jeopardize the joy I have found in my current life by quitting these wonderful meds! I also have never experienced any side effects.” (Merle Savedow, Philadelphia)

• “I had panic disorder in ‘98. I had three children, a wife and job. I struggled. No sleep for days. It was hell. I went to a GP and he had no clue. I decided to go see a psychiatrist against my wife’s wishes because of the stigma. After a short conversation, he almost immediately diagnosed my issue and prescribed Zoloft and trazodone for sleep. Helped almost immediately. I am now 72 and healthy, looking back on a successful career and three lovely grown children. Stable, no side effects, and steady state for 28 years. I have no complaints. Say what you will.” (Alaska Tom, Alaska)

• “These medicines have been a great benefit in my life….If you wanna quit them and try something natural, go for it. But, leave me alone to make my own choices. I’m functioning just fine and living a happy life.” (Bob McBobbybob, Arizona)

• “Prozac has saved my life. A few years later, my doctor added Topamax because it turns out I was BiPolar Type 2. Without these medications I doubt that I would be here. RFK, Jr. has no business interfering in anyone’s medical care, he is NOT a physician and my medical or psychiatric care is NOT HIS BUSINESS.” (txdoglady, Albany, Oregon)

• “Without antidepressants I would probably not be here today. I will not be taking mental health advice from a man who dumped a bear carcass in Central Park.” (Gaia, Earth)

• “These medications saved my life twice. Each time I was suicidal from PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. The meds along with talk therapy have made me the mostly functional 71 year old I am now.” (Oldgoalie, Michigan)

• “I have been on happy pills for over 40 years….I would have killed myself by now without them.” (Kris R, Sunny CA)

• “For years I struggled and Lexapro is the only thing that has helped me sleep through the night.” (Margaux, Denver Colorado)

• “There are those of us with serious, chronic mental illness, including major depressive disorder, that benefit from SSRIs. Nobody surveyed me when coming to these stigmatizing recommendations. In the years before I took SSRIs, my mental health flailed even with therapy and appropriate lifestyle choices. SSRIs stabilized me enough to level the playing field so I could do the work in therapy.” (Kristi, Knitting out there somewhere)

• “Antidepressants can be life-saving, and there should be no stigma associated with their use. No one would stigmatize a diabetic for needing insulin, or someone with a strep infection who took an antibiotic.” (EJ, Northern California)

• “I live with bipolar 2 and feel I am well cared for which include antidepressants which I will likely be in for the rest of my life. A life that will possibly be long because of the benefits of antidepressants.” (Eleanor Harris, South Dakota)

• “Millions of people are functional because of antidepressants.” (Wendy, Denver)

• “Antidepressants saved my life on three separate occasions. Each time, I was clinically depressed. Each time, I absolutely would have ended my life if not for Wellbutrin. No amount of exercise or sunshine or saunas or red meat or whatever else Kennedy wants to promote would have helped me. Each well-intentioned suggestion only made me feel worse; I felt guilty and at fault for my own depression. It was like trying to fix a broken bone by putting weight on it. Antidepressants are the cast for the broken bone. To suggest taking that away or lessening its use: it’s just appalling. By the way, each time, I was able to step down my dosing under a doctor’s care without adverse effects. Doctors know what they’re doing. Kennedy does not.” (ML, Here)

• “Wasn’t until my 40s with multiple severe life pressures that I finally got on an antidepressant and it changed my life for the better. I never plan to stop, nor should I based on the genetic testing.” (Spring, Portland, OR)

• “SSRIs and other psychoactive drugs saved my life by controlling the depression long enough for therapy to become effective.” (KMT, Illinois)
  “(Mental health) conditions run in my family and I’ve struggled with suicidal thoughts since my teens. The medication allowed me to go out in public and function when I could barely leave the home. It allowed me to get out of bed in the morning and go to work when I wanted to not go on.” (Philip G, Raleigh, NC)

• “(Antidepressants) saved my life. Taking them made me realize how “normal” people exist. I’ve been 20 years on the same one. Have stopped twice with no issues but the depression came roaring back after a decently long break. No major side effects. Not worth stopping — no upside and many downsides. Without them it’s likely I would not be alive. So read your books and studies and believe what you like, but I’m deeply grateful they exist and I have access to them.” (Grateful for SSRIs, Baltimore)

Some who found benefit acknowledged the complexities of treatment and the potential value of learning more about safe tapering. Mike Charlie from Montana wrote: “SSRIs helped me through an acute episode of depression. Maybe even saved my life. But coming off of them was awful. Nausea for weeks. Sleeplessness for what felt like months. I was determined to get through it because I didn’t want to go back and repeat any of the experience. For the long run, however, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was the best 500 bucks I ever spent. Of course it wasn’t covered by insurance.”

Others described family members benefiting:

• “I have taken myself off antidepressants before. I can get through the withdrawal, that’s not an issue. But I feel so much worse when I am not on them. The article talks about emotional blunting. Some of us need our emotions blunted because anxiety and depression are painful,” said Jennifer from Ohio. She later added, “I need to be blunted emotionally because when I’m not, I have suicidal ideation.”

• “For members of my immediate and extended family, SSRIs have been life changing and are indispensable.” (WWRD, NYLON)

• “Antidepressants saved my mother from a life of constant depression. Every time she went off her meds, she relapsed. Every time she went back on, she came out of her depression within a few weeks. I am very grateful to medical science that she recovered her health, and my childhood and our family lives were also saved.” (WikiMart, Vancouver)

• “My husband has been on antidepressants for decades. It changed his life and most likely saved our marriage. This June, we will be married 53 years. If any moves are made where his medication is no longer covered by insurance or goes the way of birth control and is no longer available, I am sending him to live with you.” (Diana CA, USA)

• “Some people need to be on antidepressants, my 94 year old father in assisted living is on Lexapro and needs it to control his anxiety disorder.” (Wind Dancer, Cheyenne, Wyoming)

• “(Lifestyle approaches) work for me,” Chris T. from Boston says, “It doesn’t work for my partner, who is like night (darkness) and day (light) off and on his antidepressant. He could exercise, sleep, eat well, meditate, whatever, but that single once daily pill is the only thing that ever seemed to make a difference. People need to remember that these medications are actually life changing for some people.”

• “My mother’s anti-anxiety medication changed my life. A children’s hospital emergency room nurse, she did her solid best to keep two boys locked in the house away from all potential dangers she saw at work daily. I remember twice her getting ticketed for driving too slowly on the highway. After medication, I traveled to Italy to live with a host family for a summer — every summer. I ventured into the city regularly, alone and with friends. By 17 I traveled the East Coast by Greyhound with a couple friends with her permission. She got her first speeding ticket when I was 15 while attempting to rush my brother to his hockey game, a sport he was suddenly okay with him playing. She traveled to Italy with me when I was 18 and did not hyperventilate on the airplane. Her medication didn’t just represent a lifting of the veil of anxiety for her, it was freedom for my brother and I. I cannot speak to side effects, but she could have stood to be a little emotionally more numb if anything. The only side effect I noticed was that she appeared to be really living for the first time in my life and probably for the first time in decades in hers.” (George S, Maryland)

• “My children are both testimonials to the great benefits of these drugs. My son’s bipolar was terrible until he got the right drugs. I didn’t think he would finish high school at one time. Now he has a masters in computer science and is very successful. Thank God for these drugs!” (Linda, Chicago, IL)

• “Find out what meds work for you, or in my case, my son. He’s still here, and I am grateful for the medication.” (Jax, SC)

Others shared their general perception of the larger benefits:

• “For many people their antidepressants are like oxygen, they can’t live without them.” (Juan, Miami)

• “Antidepressants, while perhaps overprescribed and misused or abused by some, have helped millions of people function more optimally, productively, happily.” (Scratching, US)

Second, some raised concern about pressure some may feel from these tapering support efforts. Specifically, for people who experience depression as chronic, the focus on tapering and considering other things can feel off-putting — with a sense of ‘when are you getting off’ pressure unwelcome.

• “For many people, psychiatric conditions are chronic,” writes someone from New York, “so this is like telling type one diabetics to stop taking insulin! But go ahead, take ibogaine, peptides, creatine, beef tallow, raw milk, and go work on a farm, that’ll fix everything.” (Name not captured, New York)

• “If the initiative were solely about helping Americans who want to wean off these drugs, that’s actually a need area. But for those of us who have determined with our doctors that ongoing treatment is best for our long-term health? Stop trying to sell us on steaks and pull-ups.” (Alex, Virginia)

One woman from Fuquay-Varina NC insisted her condition will always require medical treatment: “I hate the psychiatric drugs I am required to take as much as I hate the opioids for my husband. But I have no choice to not take them. They help me manage a rather complicated, treatment resistant condition…..I believe in prayer, self awareness, therapy, exercise, nutritional support, and even holistic medicine. But you know what? At the end of the day, I’m still going to be bipolar 1….Meds will be required.”

Another individual in Chicago asked, “Why talk about it like depression is curable?” (reflecting the belief many have that depression is inevitably life-long).

Many people support better tapering information while insisting medications remain available:

• “Fine, help those who want to stop taking antidepressants. But for those of us who benefit from long-term antidepressant use, don’t do anything that will make it harder for us to continue to fill our prescriptions.” (Ken Cooper, Albuquerque, NM)

• “I’ve been utilizing SSRIs for decades, starting in my 20s when anxiety and panic were debilitating. I have been a very careful steward of my tenuous mental health…using meditation, exercise, therapy, nutrition, and many other modalities. And they have all been useful tools. But the medication has without question been instrumental in my stability and ability to live a normal life. I have tapered off at times, for pregnancy, nursing, or just to “see”. But I have been incredibly grateful for these meds and would have had a much more difficult life without them. Medical freedom means not dictating to me about my medication choices nor negating my need for them.” (PDurgin, Baltimore)

Third, it’s clear for some people that tapering doesn’t always leave people in a better place. Depending on the circumstances, withdrawal effects during tapering can be very hard:

• “I am in the midst of withdrawal from 17 years of SSRIs, and I also wake up every day very much wanting to die. The experience of withdrawal very often does go well beyond brain zaps and some flulike symptoms.” (AM, Richmond, VA)

There were a number of worries about negative consequences as people try to taper.

• “Sorry but suicide and suicidal ideation are far worse than withdrawal symptoms.” (Howard, Gloucester County, NJ)

• “There will be more suicides. I am a physician. Antidepressants work.” (SC, SC)

• “Without SSRIs some people will no longer be able to survive, and all the therapy in the world cannot fix that. I know. I will not return to the days of debilitating depression that does not respond to gimmicky self-help strategies or one hour per week therapy.” (Tula, Vermont)

• “Not long ago — in response to the effects of overprescribed opioids — the prescribing pendulum swung so far in the opposite direction it caused a rash of suicides and dependencies on dangerous street drugs from legitimate pain pts who could no longer get the necessary meds to manage life-altering chronic pain.”

One especially cynical observer, Ethan P from Austin TX insisted that “The road off SSRIs is self-medication through alcohol or heavier barbiturate style addiction” [not true — many experience being able to go off at a gradual pace, and learn other ways to navigate emotional distress]

Sometimes declining the additional assistance of antidepressants can also leave people in a harder place:

“I have a relative who declined antidepressants because she wanted to get through it herself. She had major depressive disorder, spent two years living in acute despair, and the despair slowly melted away over the next five years. She has never been able to work since and is now at retirement age. So Secretary Kennedy, did she make the right decision?” (Jay A, Edmonton Alberta)

Fourth, when the medications induce more depression, it can be really confusing:

“I believe that maybe SSRIs could help some people. I’m not saying that. It’s just that when they make you want to kill yourself more and the doctors tell you ‘that’s normal, it’s a side effect of the medication’ what’s the good of taking it if it’s supposed to make you want to kill yourself less?” (Ben, Missouri)

Some wonder: Are we confusing withdrawal with relapse — and how can patients tell the difference? When symptoms return after stopping, is that withdrawal, relapse, or evidence the medication was needed? Maybe these aren’t withdrawal effects after all?

So much of the focus in the withdrawal community is helping people recognize withdrawal effects, instead of assuming it’s all a return of depression. One man in Oklahoma, going by “Vadoret” — said just the opposite, encouraging more scrutiny of whether withdrawal is an accurate language for what may perhaps be a return of depression:

“In some people depression is a chronic medical problem that, like other chronic medical problems, necessitates ongoing treatment. I have never heard that recurring hypertension when antihypertensives are stopped, or recurring high cholesterol when agents for dialipidemia are discontinued, represent “withdrawal”. People understand that, if you stop treatment, the problem recurs. Sometimes nutrition and exercise are not good enough for maintaining a normal blood pressure and blood lipids, and therefore pharmacological treatment is needed (and can be lifesaving). In the case of depression….for some people, exercise, psychotherapy and nutrition are not enough, either. Then, antidepressants are indicated.”

Others shared similar sentiments:

• “Maybe his relative was “suicidal, every day” after stopping their antidepressant because they were depressed and needed their medication?” (Mary, Waterloo NY)

• “That’s not withdrawal nor an after-effect. That’s an indication that she needs to go back on SSRIs!” (Terry, Texas)

• “The fact that you cannot get off of it may suggest that you actually need it. Just like a diabetic patient cannot get off insulin. I wish you well.” (Evergreen, CA)

• Citing the ordeal of an unnamed family member who he said “was suicidal, literally every day” when she discontinued an S.S.R.I. after taking it for several years, Annie from British Columbia said, “It sounds to me as if the medication was HELPING his family member.”

• “If I have hypertension and decide to abruptly stop my medication then I will have a steep rise in my blood pressure. Why would anyone be surprised that someone who needs an SSRI becomes more depressed when they stop their pills?” (Richard Grossman, Portland, Maine)

Still others emphasized the potential role of withdrawal: “I believe the reason they are unpleasant to get off is because of withdrawal. In many cases, the behaviors are much worse than before one took the medication.” (Eli, California)

Fifth, several pointed out that relieving social, economic and political distress could really help people with depression. As reflected below, some asked: Are antidepressants being used to compensate for deeper social problems? Are medications being asked to solve distress that is partly social, economic, relational, or cultural?

This group shifted attention away from medication entirely, arguing that depression and anxiety are being driven by economic insecurity, isolation, political chaos, unaffordable health care, poor working conditions and social breakdown.

• “The best ways to fight depression would be to address the root causes. This includes increasing access to healthcare, education, and opportunities to leave unhappy environments whether they are families, workplaces, or neighborhoods.” (Eli, California)

• “If the government wanted fewer people on antidepressants they could do an awful lot more to make the country a better place to work and live. Just to start listing things....guaranteed health care, a law mandating sick leave and work breaks, paid family leave, and fully funded schools.” — RWWR, US

• “Want to get Americans off antidepressants? Give people universal health care, paid parental leave, free college education, free childcare for working parents, and stop policing our bodies or our personal choices and stirring up controversy for financial gain. Oh, and raise the minimum wage to a livable one. Amazing how that would work for so many.” (Karen, Bay area)

• “(Don’t) let the anonymous polluted rat-race maze world off the hook here: it needs renovating as surely as did the HVAC system in that 1990s brick schoolhouse. Our immune systems are overtaxed with pollution and our tissues and organs are inflamed with the stress of loneliness, rushing, overstimulation, and hypercompetition.” (Adam, Oregon)

• “If this administration actually did something to help people thrive perhaps we would see less depression. It will not improve anytime soon with the flood of layoffs happening due to AI coming on line throughout corporate America. Yes, kids should not be on social media and neither should many adults.” (Youth Wants to Know, San Francisco)

• “Nothing like losing your health insurance and drowning in bills to increase anxiety and hopelessness. Maybe our wonderful government could work on those problems instead of telling the victims to just tough it out.” (Howard Larkin, Willow Springs, IL)

• “If people had to work only one job to make ends meet, and basic needs like health care, child care, quality food and time/place for exercise were affordable, maybe less people would need antidepressants in the first place.” (JBL, Rochester, NY)

• “In the last few years alone, the NYT has reported Americans’ problems with: ultra-processed foods, obesity, alcohol, cannabis, phones, social media, pain medication, fentanyl, ADHD medications, and now SSRIs. It’s time we take a look at the broader picture — these are not isolated issues….This cannot be separated from the political and cultural environment. A society that feels it has lost all sense of agency, and is constantly promised some magic external force will help us, will keep desperately searching for more.” (AC, New York)

• “If our government truly prioritized Americans’ well-being and success, we would have guaranteed healthcare; family leave to take care of our children and loved ones; educational excellence regardless of zip code; fair wages with continued opportunities for growth; and stability in retirement and old age. Grotesque income inequality would not exist. No wonder people are depressed.” (EJ, Northern California)

Sixth, lifestyle interventions can be uniquely challenging and sometimes not show a noticeable effect. One individual noted they can take energy many depressed people don’t have:

“The idea that a severely depressed person can just hop out of bed, prepare healthful meals, go to the gym and hang out with friends is preposterous. Depression for many makes it impossible to get out of bed, shower, and be involved at all in the world outside of the decrepit misery in one’s head. To think otherwise indicates minimal if any knowledge of this awful potentially deadly disease.” (AB, NJ)

Others insisted they hadn’t been helpful to their own struggles:

• “I will not return to the days of debilitating depression that does not respond to gimmicky self-help strategies or one hour per week therapy.” (Tula, Vermont)

• “It’s not about therapy. I can go to therapy. It’s not stopping my social anxiety which paralyzes me at work. I’m wired this way. Therapy isn’t going to stop my face turning red, my thoughts from spinning, the panic that ensues. My medicine does it by balancing the chemicals in my brain.” (Sarah, North Carolina)

Seventh, others wondered: ‘Who will pay for the non-drug alternatives? Alternatives sound nice, but they are often unaffordable or unavailable — taking money that we don’t necessarily have.’

Said another way: ‘is it realistic to recommend therapy, exercise, nutrition, and social connection without making those supports affordable and accessible?’

These people point out that psychotherapy, exercise, social connection and nutrition are often expensive, inaccessible or unsupported by insurance, making medication the most realistic option for many people:

• “If they actually wanted fewer people to use antidepressants they would make therapy cheaper and easier to access. I don’t see that as part of the plan.” (Tom, Tampa)

• “Who exactly is going to pay for the alternate treatments? It is extremely difficult to find experienced and talented mental health practitioners who take insurance.” (AB, NJ)

• “As a psychiatrist told me, sometimes a prescription is all a patient’s health insurance will cover. Psychotherapy takes too long and costs too much despite often being beneficial.” (WTK, Louisville, OH)

• “By one token I hate to say I agree with RFK Jr. on anything but we do overprescribe many medications but the alternatives would include therapy while we have a severe shortage of therapists and have no plan to address it and most insurances will not cover ongoing therapy but have woefully short coverage limits, made worse by many Americans that will no longer be able to afford either insurance or the cost of counseling.”

• “Leave it to Kennedy and his MAGA/MAHA ilk to treat the symptom and not the disease. Access to good and affordable therapy is an insurmountable obstacle for so many. Perhaps addressing that should be Kennedy’s priority.” (Name/location not captured)

• “I take Zoloft to control my anxiety disorder. I also have done talk therapy. My Zoloft costs $8 for a 3 month supply. The talk therapy, with insurance, is $179 per weekly visit, until I hit my insurance plan’s $9000 deductible. Maybe if I could afford regular talk therapy, I’d go that route more often, but I can’t. Maybe fix the cost problem first, before just telling people that they should try talk therapy instead.” (Ann, San Diego)

• “Who is going to pay for all this talk therapy after they try to push everyone off their medications?” (Carson, Newcastle, WA)

• “Who’s going to pay for all of these patients to be in therapy? Not insurance companies, not the government. Both are constantly using loopholes to get out of funding mental health treatment and as a result many therapists are no longer accepting insurance or Medicaid/Medicare so they can make a living.” (Gregory, Chicago)

• “The non-medication treatments, primarily psychotherapy, are sometimes hard for people to access in practitioner shortage areas, with limitations imposed by insurance or even lack of insurance. Discontinuation symptoms from SSRIs vary and can be very much minimized with very slow and careful titration off the drugs but must be supervised by someone who is very familiar with that process, also often not always accessible to many due to limitations imposed by our healthcare system.” (PLO, Maine)

• “Therapy is really expensive, SSRIs are cheap and relatively safe.” (Sam, MN)

• “(This initiative) recommends psychotherapy, exercise, social connection, physical activity, diet and nutrition, among other interventions.” OK, but antidepressants are covered by insurance; most of the alternatives aren’t. My Medicare Advantage plan cut the wellness benefit in half this year. For people financially stressed in the Trump economy “golden age,” money for fitness, healthy food and psychotherapy co-pays aren’t in the budget. And people working overtime may be getting a tax break, but that leaves no time for social connection. I’m in favor of cutting antidepressant use, but let’s get real.” (Spucky50, Maine)

• “Overprescription happens because we do so little to fund other types of care!!” (DH, NYC)

Others raised worries about undermining confidence in meds and increasing stigma — pointing out that the very attempt to raise these concerns about overprescription and lack of tapering support, the reality of depression could be questioned — and the benefits many had experienced on antidepressants:

• “This sounds a lot like dismissing the reality and suffering of mental illness disguised as concern. Why not include people whose lives have been improved by SSRIs? ” (N’est Pas Une Pipe, Chicago)

• “There has been so much stigma and shame surrounding taking these medications, and the Secretary’s actions are reinforcing those beliefs. “It’s all willpower, mind over matter,” meaning, “You’re just not trying hard enough, what’s wrong with you?” (anonymous)

• “I live with bipolar 2 and feel I am well cared for which include antidepressants which I will likely be on for the rest of my life. A life that will possibly be long because of the benefits of antidepressants. My brother was diagnosed with bipolar 1 and his was a short and unhappy life in part because he rejected medication for his condition. He was not clear about much at the violent and horrible end to his life but this he made very clear: he did not want to live with the stigma associated with being a psychiatric patient. I believe this ridiculous contribution from MAHA would not even be considered if mental health care was not stigmatized and this contribution from our government serves mostly to feed that stigma. Stigma in mental health care is probably the greatest barrier among so many barriers to care. And stigma can and does kill.” (Eleanor Harris, South Dakota)

• “Antidepressants can be life-saving, and there should be no stigma associated with their use.”

• “My family has a long history of depression. In college, I began to feel hopeless and depressed for no reason. I couldn’t shake the feeling of defeat. I went to one therapist who told me it was normal to feel sad in college and that I should focus on improving my lifestyle. I tried. I learned to scuba dive. I joined clubs. I was studying abroad and diving in the South Pacific, feeling just as down and miserable about myself as before, when I realized I really needed help. I went to a real psychiatrist and he told me I had severe depressive disorder, based on a quantitative questionnaire. Later I was also diagnosed with anxiety and persistent depression. I have been medicated for a long time and now can keep the feelings of irrational hopelessness and despair under control. We can’t let RFK and his cronies stigmatize mental health care. No one should suffer years of unnecessary anguish just because some regressive fools want to bring us back to the “good old days”, when people suffered with lifetimes of untreated depression. He must be stopped.” (Dan, Vacaville, CA)

• “There’s enough stigma around mental health as it is. Discouraging people from taking psychiatric medications is dangerous to themselves and potentially to others.” (GA)

• “There are so many patients out there who struggle with the stigma of taking medication that could help them. I’m horrified. Antidepressants saved my life on three separate occasions. Each time, I was clinically depressed. Each time, I absolutely would have ended my life if not for Wellbutrin. No amount of exercise or sunshine or saunas or red meat or whatever else Kennedy wants to promote would have helped me. Each well-intentioned suggestion only made me feel worse; I felt guilty and at fault for my own depression. It was like trying to fix a broken bone by putting weight on it. Antidepressants are the cast for the broken bone. To suggest taking that away or lessening its use: it’s just appalling. By the way, each time, I was able to step down my dosing under a doctor’s care without adverse effects.” (ML, Here)

• “We can’t let RFK and his cronies stigmatize mental health care. No one should suffer years of unnecessary anguish just because some regressive fools want to bring us back to the “good old days”, when people suffered with lifetimes of untreated depression. He must be stopped.” (Dan, Vacaville, CA)

Still others asked: are primary care doctors overburdened or undertrained for psychiatric prescribing? In other words: Is the core problem antidepressants themselves — or a system where many are prescribed without enough psychiatric expertise or follow-up?

• “As to the use of psychotropic medications, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority are prescribed by non-psychiatrists most of whose whole training on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders consists of a few weeks in medical school. If these medications are so dangerous, why not recommend limiting their prescription to psychiatrists who are actually trained in their use? Yeah, I know we have a severe shortage of psychiatrists. Why not attempt to address this.” (Steve, New York)

• “The overwhelming majority of prescriptions for these medications are written by non-psychiatrist physicians most of whom have little training in the management of mental disorders.” (Steve, New York)

• “GPs are not equipped to prescribe psychiatric medication. The problem of course is access to the appropriate specialist.” (K. Hebert, St. Louis, MO)

Some raised concerns about off-label uses of antidepressants. One individual described resisting such an off-label use:

• “I’ve had more than one doctor try to prescribe these drugs for me, not because of depression or anxiety but because of pain. Noped out of that real fast, I still have scars from their turning me into a drug addict with “opioids are a game changer in controlling pain”. Once you start this class of drugs they are difficult to stop. Been there, done that, ain’t gonna do it again.” (tjcenter, Lansing, MI)

Two others describe benefits they had received:

• “What sage advice does Secretary Kennedy have for those of us taking antidepressants to alleviate chronic nerve pain? Does he even know that this is a recognized use of these medications?” (Allen Nikora, Los Angeles)

• “I’ll stop taking my tricyclic ADs just as soon as you cure tinnitus…the number one problem for military veterans and first responders….There is almost a billion people on this rock with tinnitus — of varying degrees. People like me who have it bad would have it even worse without ADs and benzos for those especially bad days.” (Cutter, Earth)

It was interesting to see a final group that essentially asked, ‘what’s the big deal….Isn’t this obvious and already well-known?’ These people were perplexed at why such a discussion needed to happen in the first place. Some insisted that lifestyle interventions were also not unfamiliar to professionals:

• “There isn’t a single mental health professional or psychiatrist who doesn’t also talk about the importance of social connection, diet, and exercise.” (AC, New York)

• “Every physician knows that psychotropic drugs such as antidepressants have side effects, need to be carefully monitored and slowly withdrawn, and can be combined with psychotherapy, lifestyle issues, exercise, and nutrition. What he is saying is obvious common sense” (IN, NY)

Others insisted that the patterns of overprescription and withdrawal were already familiar to physicians:

• “It is well known that SSRIs need to be tapered slowly to avoid serotonin withdrawal.” (Dave, Arizona)

• “Like many medications, SSRIs are overprescribed for some who don’t benefit and unavailable for some who would.” (Jim, Louisville)

Still others described antidepressants as settled science that shouldn’t even need to be debated publicly. For instance, Sara Emerle in Albrightsville, Pa. writes, “The F.D.A. has made clear that approved psychiatric medications are safe and effective when prescribed and monitored by a clinician. These are not experimental or excessive tools; they are evidence-based treatments that help millions of people function, stabilize and survive. Framing them as a problem of overuse ignores what they actually do.”

Conclusion: The need for balance, space and wisdom

What I take away from all of this is how important it is to have a conversation where the range of different experiences and interpretations are being heard. In a small way, that’s what I’m hoping to do by attempting to feature so many of them here.

From that place, I’m convinced we’ll be in a better position to meet individual needs which vary widely, and to ask nuanced questions that account for competing concerns. For instance: How do we support tapering for those who need it without somehow discouraging those who genuinely need the same treatment?

Three final comments illustrate well this needed balance that effectively makes space for nuance and complexity.

First, Y. Tony Yang, a professor of health policy at George Washington University writes, “For years, some patients were told that it was easy to stop taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors — the most frequently prescribed type of antidepressant medication. That was too glib. Now, the pendulum has swung back, and we risk treating these medications as chemical handcuffs. That is too extreme.”

Yang argues, “The real scandal is not that Americans use antidepressants. It is that we have built a mental health system in which a prescription is often the only door that opens quickly. Therapy is scarce, primary care is rushed, and psychiatric follow-up can be hard to find.”

Secondly, a woman named Summer asks how do we make room for both stories: harmed by medication and helped by medication, stating:

“Some people need meds and therapy. Some people do great with just therapy, some people don’t benefit from therapy, others don’t have access to a good therapist, especially in rural areas so meds are a life line,” said Summer — before expressing concern that the “nuance is going to get lost and these policies could really harm people. Acknowledging the withdrawal and setting some guidelines for how to go off meds is a good place to start.”

Lastly, Ana, a mother from New Mexico, writes: “I was on antidepressants through my college years, which blunted my emotions, made me act like a different person, lose interest in school and generally have a worse than bad time — a passionless, emotionless time where I drank heavily just to try to feel something. Getting off of them was awful and I had to rebuild my sense of self and heal my brain over about 2 years.”

Ana went on to describe returning to antidepressants a decade later in the midst of postpartum depression and anxiety. “I used a low dose and found them to be exactly what I needed to survive those days and be a good mom. I was able to taper off easily after a year of use.”

She described other friends who found the same medications “necessary to make it through bouts of debilitating depression and survive suicidal ideation” — then added “I am so thankful these medications exist for them.”

“I hold both truths in myself and for others: antidepressants can be both life-saving and destructive for different people at different times. Doses should be conservative and patients should understand the possible side effects before starting and consciously reflect on their state of mind to make sure the medication is what is best for them.”

Twice in his first talk as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dallin Oaks used a unique, even countercultural verb in discussing “doubt” and critical questions. After describing how even committed disciples “may sometimes have concerns about some historical, doctrinal, or social issues connected with the Church,” he said:

“I want to help all our members overcome present or future doubts. Whatever those doubts, the way to overcome them is to get closer to our Savior Jesus Christ.”

While encouraging listeners to be patient with difficult questions, seek help from others and strengthen their faith in God, this individual we Latter-day Saints hold to be a prophet later said:

“Increased humility draws us closer to Jesus Christ. This will help us overcome questions about the Lord’s doctrine. When we are humble, we can more clearly hear the Lord’s voice.”

“Overcoming questions about Christ’s teachings” … “Overcoming doubts.” When was the last time you heard anyone in modern American culture speak about skepticism in this way?

More likely, you’ve heard some of the many people who now talk about “honoring” your doubts, “respecting” your doubts, “making space” for your doubts, “being honest” about your doubts, “embracing” your doubts or “cherishing” your doubts.

In Hearing God, the late Christian philosopher Dallas Willard observed, “We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes.”

That’s how we modern Americans tend to think about “doubt”: hinting at its goodness and wisdom, while cautioning against any resistance to what we’re thinking or feeling inside.

Perhaps there’s some wisdom in this impulse. After all, a life of incessant resistance and fighting-to-overcome could wear out the best of us. There is, for any of us, a time to simply notice, watch and accept that something is present.

This may be especially true when we are prone to self-condemnation or riddled with fear over what we’re experiencing inside. Learning to just “be with” whatever is here, “without trying to fix or force it to be any different” can be such a relieving practice.

And that’s not the same as “resigning ourselves” to whatever we’re experiencing either, as we remind people in our mindfulness classes. It’s possible to approach doubt and other challenging emotions from a calm, wise place—without resistance or fear—but while still maintaining an intent to ultimately overcome something, rather than glorify it.

But why? And what’s so wrong with celebrating and trumpeting our doubts?

Not everything inside is wise

Part of the impulse behind the throw-the-door-open, open-arms-wide approach to doubt is the idea that anything felt or experienced inside must somehow be good, wise or insightful (and therefore, trusted and followed):

• Feeling angry at someone? Best to cut them off—establish those boundaries!

• Craving something else? Let’s find out how to get more of it—“obey your thirst!”

• Have a persistent thought or feeling? Go with it—above all, be true to who you really are inside!

In this way, people can become enslaved to anything they are feeling and thinking—without even realizing what is happening, and where this is all leading them.

The reality is that chasing passing pleasures, living out any thoughts and feelings, and instinctively separating ourselves from even slight discomforts: it all adds up to a less developed human being and one far more likely to be unhappy long-term.

Yet the many loud proponents of the doctrine that everything felt inside is good and wise like to fancy themselves as uniquely enlightened—positioning themselves as a contrast to more simple-minded voices in the past. One common plank of their teaching is to deny, undercut or distract from the existence of temptation and evil itself (using words like “nondual” or “scientific”1).

But they’re simply wrong about that. Evil does, in fact, exist. Sexual abuse and murder and war and inner torment cannot adequately be explained by materialist explanations of trauma, biology, economics, and social conditions. And because evil is a reality, that means lies also exist, and consequences from those lies.

Practically, this means our unsettled feelings and doubtful cynicism towards a particular truth claim should not automatically be treated as wise or trustworthy.

• Of course, sometimes these feelings may indeed be wise: especially when we’re encountering any one of the many pervasive and profound deformations of reality in our world today that masquerade as “sophisticated takes,” on TikTok, popular podcasts or anywhere else.2

• At the same time, I’m pointing out here that sometimes these feelings of doubtful cynicism may be legitimate signals of fear, pain, temptation, distortion, or something else that needs healing, correction, or direct resistance.

Yes, doubt and unbelief are normal things human beings experience3 and should be approached with compassion and empathy. But instead of only “making space” and “listening” to doubts that arise, this invites us to see doubt and unbelief as something to ultimately be dispatched, jettisoned and yes, overcome.

That’s an especially important word for anyone who takes scripture seriously. Here I write as a Latter-day Saint about the Bible and other books of restoration scripture. But even if you don’t identify as Christian, it may be of interest to know what these texts we consider holy actually say about doubt and unbelief.

All that God invites us to overcome

In the same moment he warned his apostles they would be scattered and one day killed, Jesus spoke of love, peace and joy to come. Then he said to his gathered apostles, no doubt at this point a little worried: “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”4

Yet it’s not only Jesus who overcomes in scripture. John writes in the New Testament to “young men (who) have overcome the wicked one” and teaches that those “born of God overcometh the world.” The same apostle later begins the epic Book of Revelation with a series of distinct promises given by the resurrected Christ:

• “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7).

• “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written” (Rev. 2:17).

• “He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power” (Rev. 2:26).

• “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment … I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5).

• “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God” (Rev. 3:12).

Whether or not we overcome is apparently a big deal. But what exactly are we being encouraged to overcome here?

The text singles out specifically “deeds” and “doctrines” which God “hates”—repeatedly cautioning early Saints about being “seduced” by “fornication” and other destructive patterns.

We can do it, because he did

One reason I find this so encouraging is that I know what it’s like to experience the opposite: being overcome by the despair and darker patterns so abundant in the world. Paul likewise cautioned the early Saints in Rome, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”

I can also say from experience how thrilling it is to experience God’s help to overcome any of this. And scripture declares far more delight to come. Christ again tells John: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame.”

“Because Jesus Christ overcame this fallen world, and because He atoned for each of us, you too can overcome this sin-saturated, self-centered, and often exhausting world,” taught President Russell Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ in a 2022 message referencing the same ancient promise from Christ to his apostles, along with more recent encouragement: “I will that ye should overcome the world.”

President Nelson continued:

“Because the Savior, through His infinite Atonement, redeemed each of us from weakness, mistakes, and sin, and because He experienced every pain, worry, and burden you have ever had, then as you truly repent and seek His help, you can rise above this present precarious world. You can overcome the spiritually and emotionally exhausting plagues of the world, including arrogance, pride, anger, immorality, hatred, greed, jealousy, and fear. Despite the distractions and distortions that swirl around us, you can find true rest—meaning relief and peace—even amid your most vexing problems.”

Cultivating the opposite of doubt

All this happens through exercising and cultivating the opposite of doubt within ourselves. “Through faith they shall overcome,” 19th century Saints were told. This echoes John’s vision of those who “overcame (the adversary) by the blood of the Lamb”—contrasted in the same text by those whom he foresaw as “overcome” by this same adversary.

The consequences of getting this right are enormous and personally consequential. Peter cautioned anciently “of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”5 And restoration scripture likewise describes the “sufferings of those with whom (the adversary) made war and overcame.”

Such suffering is real and piercing—and hardly recognized by those in the middle of it. But it doesn’t have to keep going! We really can be free of all of this, remarkably. Later in the book, right after being shown a future “new heaven and new earth,” where God would “make all things new” and “wipe away all tears,” the New Testament text quotes “he who sat upon the throne” as saying about that glorious day: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

Overcoming doubt

Are we sure this “overcoming” really includes doubt, some may still wonder. “After all, I keep hearing there’s so much wisdom in our doubts, which are a sign that a deeper process of spiritual transformation is taking place.”

In modern society, once again, doubt towards God and religion is more likely to be taken as an indication of “education” or “integrity” or “authenticity” or even “courage.”

Some other Christian teachers have pushed back on this idea. G.K. Chesterton has been attributed as saying, “When people cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, but in anything.”6 And C.S. Lewis suggested that to “see through” everything is, finally, not to see.

I want to close this essay with a short exercise illustrating how far removed the popular rhetoric about doubt is from scripture itself. In all my searching of prophetic writing from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, I literally cannot find anything to justify the feel-good rhetoric that treats doubts as a sign of secret spiritual sophistication. See for yourself:

1. Christ and his prophets sorrow to see unbelief and consistently call us out of it:

After being rejected in his home town, the record says Jesus “marvelled (amazed, surprised) because of their unbelief.” Later, he asked one of his closest followers, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” and lamented what he called a “faithless” generation.

Nephi described being “left to mourn because of the unbelief…ignorance and stiffneckedness of men”- adding, “for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.”

Likewise, President Oaks taught in that same address, “Those of diminishing faith and activity in the restored Church are a major source of concern to your prophet leaders. We love you, young and old, men and women. So does the Lord! God is relentless in His loving pursuit of each of you.”

2. We’re encouraged to ‘doubt not’:

Christ promised miraculous things to those who “have faith, and doubt not” and who “shall not doubt in (their) heart.” And after speaking directly to those “of little faith” about how much God watches over the small details of our lives, Jesus says plainly: “neither be ye of doubtful mind.”

He later said to Thomas “be not faithless, but believing.”

Paul encouraged people to “pray everywhere”—“without … doubting”—talking about father Abraham as an example of someone who did not “stagger” (waver) “through unbelief” at the beautiful promises made to him. And the same James who encourages those lacking wisdom to “ask of God” then reminded early Saints to “ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.”

“Let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.”

Restoration scripture channels this same invitation, with Moroni calling on readers to “doubt not, but be believing”—quoting Christ as saying “whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth.”

The text also describes moments of communion with the Living God that left people “nothing doubting,” bidden to “marvel not, neither should they doubt” and having such sacred experiences that there was not a living soul “who did doubt in the least.”

“Look unto me in every thought; doubt not” the Lord said again to Saints in more recent centuries.

3. Doubt is described as a particular state we need help to be delivered from and repent of:

Book of Mormon prophets describe the possibility of “fall(ing) into a state of unbelief”—as well as that same condition being removed: for King Lamoni, the “dark veil of unbelief was being cast away, and the light which did light up his mind … infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled.”

The descent into a state of doubt can happen over time, and because of choices and actions of others, such as children whose “their unbelief and their hatred (was) because of the iniquity of their fathers,” entire peoples who “dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers,” and even whole generations potentially swept away into becoming “unbelieving and stiffnecked.”

This can be a gradual, societal process of “dwindling” in unbelief—even as a whole nation—a phrase that shows up repeatedly in the Book of Mormon. Others do not “dwindle in unbelief,” but instead “willfully rebel against the gospel of Christ.”

Regardless of how it happens, this veil of unbelief can again be pierced, with restoration scripture describing “unbelief and blindness of heart” as sins to be repented of—with ancient Americans coming to “fear because of their iniquity and their unbelief” once they recognized what it was. And the New Testament depicts a father asking Christ, “I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

After his resurrection, Jesus “upbraided” (“rebuked” or “scolded”) his disciples for “their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

And at the end of the American text, Mormon turns directly to “those who do not believe in Christ”—asking whether they will believe “in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?.... Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?”

“O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord, cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found … cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.”

4. Rather than signaling more enlightenment, doubt can eventually lead to obscuring and blinding people from beautiful realities:

Isaiah spoke anciently of those who “understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not”—a prophecy Jesus later referenced as being fulfilled in people’s rejection of him: “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed.”

In the new world, Jesus recalled what happened: “And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word.” This same process played out in the children of believing parents after King Benjamin, who the record says “did not believe the tradition of their fathers” and “did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.”

“And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.”

Restoration scripture describes how otherwise good insights and truths can be “cast it out by your unbelief” and details how minds can be “darkened because of unbelief.”

Alma likewise describes how this can be a progressive, iterative process: “therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word… until they know nothing concerning his mysteries” (with the opposite trajectory also available, with a person who “will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.”)7

Paul likewise described how the “god of this world hath blinded … them which believe not” and also wrote how doubt can lead us to see everything through different lenses: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled”—in part, because “in works they deny him.”

5. Doubt leads to poor choices which can fuel even more doubt:

The cognitive consequences of doubt are especially significant, because we cannot see what we cannot see. But the implications go far beyond mental implications to behavior itself:

• Doubt naturally dilutes obedience, with restoration scripture describing those who “receive a commandment with doubtful heart, and keep it with slothfulness.”

• Alma describes how doubt can lead hearts to become calcified—asking the people whether they would “harden your hearts in unbelief” (this same phrase “harden their hearts in unbelief” shows up elsewhere in restoration scripture).

• Hearts rejecting God in doubt inevitably go elsewhere—with restoration scripture describing early inhabitants taught truth by their parents, until “Satan came among them, saying … Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.”

• In this way, hearts can change too—with Hebrews cautioning “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”

• As minds, hearts and behavior all get tied up in the same doubtful stew, the New Testament underscores how stuck people become in their progress (which is how Latter-day Saints understand heavy words like “damn” and “condemn”). “He that believeth not is condemned already,” Jesus says, with Paul writing that “all might be damned who believed not the truth (and instead “believe a lie”) and who subsequently “had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

This is why I believe that when doubt takes over a life, it changes us into a different person over time.

6. Doubt constrains what God can do in our lives:

In the presence of doubt, great things are withheld—which could otherwise be given. This is first apparent in the Old Testament, when the Lord tells Moses and Aaron, “Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” The writer of Hebrews later says, “So we see they could not enter in because of unbelief.”

“Because of your unbelief” Jesus likewise spoke of people unable to do miracles (other translations say “Because you have so little faith/because of the littleness of your faith”).

• The New Testament subsequently describes how Jesus “did not many mighty works (among some people) because of their unbelief”—something Christ recalled again in ancient America, describing how he could not show certain people “great miracles, because of their unbelief.”

• At the same time, the Book of Mormon describes miraculous deliverance among young people with “exceeding faith” who were taught to believe that “whosoever did not doubt, that they should be preserved by his marvelous power”—who had been “taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.”

Yet the opposite also shows up in the Book of Mormon, with aching consequences following a departure from faith. When things got bad enough in ancient American society, Mormon describes how “there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.”

“The reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust,” this same prophet says, before entreating future readers:

“Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.”

His son Moroni closes the book quoting Christ as inviting future readers to “Come unto me … and I will show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief. Come unto me …. and it shall be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you, because of unbelief.”

“Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you.”

“If it so be that I do not speak, judge ye,” the Lord warns. “For ye shall know that it is I that speaketh, at the last day.”

If miracles have ceased, Moroni later says repeatedly, “it is because of unbelief”—adding that “if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.”

“And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men,” Moroni reiterates “is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.”

7. Doubt removes beautiful possibilities in our future:

In addition to limiting what God can do in our present lives, doubt fundamentally shifts what our ultimate future looks like as well, in at least three ways:

• There can be physical consequences: Jude recollects in the New Testament how “the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” Nephi warns about the possibility that his people could “dwindle and perish in unbelief.” And Jacob describes being shown “that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief.”

• There can be relational severing. Paul describes how groups of former believers can be “broken off” (or “cut off” in other translations) from the main body of faith “because of unbelief.” Restoration scripture also describes Christ reassuring how this same group who gets “scattered … because of their unbelief” can ultimately be “brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.”

• Piercing future regrets are prophesied. Right after recounting a parable of the rich man who builds bigger barns and “layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God,” Jesus tells another parable of a servant who refuses to watch and prepare for the Lord’s coming, who ultimately appoints this servant upon returning “his portion with the unbelievers.”

Revelation’s forceful caution about destructive patterns includes warning to “murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars” about painful future regrets awaiting them (which is how Latter-day Saints interpret imagery of fire and burning). Also included on that list: warnings to “the fearful, and unbelieving” (a caution repeated in restoration scripture).

“These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire,” the apostle John relates.

These are not my words. They are what’s recounted in texts embraced as scripture by many millions today. As illustrated above, it’s difficult to find anything in scripture from both the old and new worlds that backs up the modern day glorification of doubt and belief as somehow spiritually transformative and developmentally enlightened.

Notes:

Cameron LaBar was 9-years-old when he was diagnosed by a New Jersey doctor with anxiety and OCD, and started on Paxil. For the next two decades of his life, continued, evolving medical treatment became an unquestioned feature of his life.

“I was always told that I had a chemical imbalance and that this was treating that,” he shared at last Monday’s “Mental Health and Overmedicalization Summit” in Washington, D.C. He heard this explanation from his doctor. And he heard it from his parents and other family members through much of his childhood. “I believed that I needed this and that I was treating something very targeted to help me to function.”

“I was never approached or never ever had a discussion about an off-ramp or (eventually) reducing these medications,” he added. Every night he would take them, he remembers. “But there was never a discussion of when is the finish line, you know, when am I done taking this? That discussion never happened.”

Cameron wishes it had.

‘Wait, so maybe this isn’t really who I am?’

At the time he was first diagnosed and prescribed medication, Cameron’s family had just moved to a new state and his father was working nearly 80 hours a week, leaving his mother to handle this scared 9-year-old boy and his four siblings. Reflecting back on the moment he began to feel paralyzed by fear as a child, Cameron talks today about the limitations in this early deliberation:

“I just don’t think there was enough conversation …to ask the questions of: What does his sleep look like? Is he sharing a room with a sibling who gets up way earlier than he does? What is his diet like? Did he just move somewhere to another state where he’s not outside and playing and in the sun as much as he used to be?”

“All of these different types of questions I don’t think were ever asked and it was just kind of like a very quick labeling from the neurologist that I had a problem and it was a chemical imbalance and it needed to be fixed.”

For the subsequent 26 years, Cameron has been on medication. After being treated for most of his life, Cameron reflected, “it took a really long time for me to realize that the things that I thought were character traits about me being tired, drowsy, forgetful, numb, indifferent to going out and doing things or to having friends or to starting a relationship—it took a really long time for me to end up figuring out that those weren’t character traits. Those weren’t parts of my personality … Those were side effects of a medication.”

This clash in interpretations is central to Cameron’s story. Two other examples of this:

• Cameron recalled a panic attack at a summer camp where he wasn’t getting enough sleep and consuming too much caffeine. When the doctor found out what happened, he left with another prescription—a Benzo. “There was no discussion of ‘Well, what happened at the summer camp?” (Moderator Kim Witczak interjected saying “this is very, very common where people go in with the side effects and they end up with another and it could be the drug side effect and they end up going out with another you know as you said another prescription.”).

• Cameron described previously trying to go off medication—and being told by the doctor to cut the dosage in half. This sudden and dramatic reduction, he said, “would throw me into such a severe panic and response and I would immediately go back up on the dose.” The doctor would subsequently reaffirm to him that these scary experiences, rather than a withdrawal effect, was “a part of your underlying condition and that you probably need the medication.” (Countering this automatic labeling of withdrawal effects as a “return of the depression” has been a core message of Peter Breggin and other authors over the last several decades).

Cameron eventually stumbled on videos from British researcher Mark Horowitz, one of the leading experts in tapering off of antidepressants, which he said, “helped me to understand that side effects are so common and that this isn’t, you know, it’s not a part of who you are necessarily.”

This realization prompted this man to initiate a measured, careful, gentle tapering process three years ago. Now 35, Cameron describes feeling better than he has in a long time—and on a lower dose than he has in a long time. “I’m down to about 7 and 12 milligrams of Lexapro.”

Cameron describes recently getting through a “really hard part of withdrawal” and now taking a break at his current dosage. “It’s probably going to take me another three, four or five years to get the rest of the way just given how these drugs work.”

Cameron had become accustomed to these many side effects—and the idea that they were not “some underlying part of who I am” has changed so much.

“It took me 20 years to find that out,” Cameron said. He admitted some deep frustration with that realization, as he continues to taper. “So trying to deal with that….I could have figured this out a lot sooner, right?”

“The way I’m functioning now, I could have functioned as a human being all along, right? I could have had friendships and I could have not been numb and I could have formed (romantic) relationships.

“I’ve missed a lot of life and a lot of my experience … I never got to experience the full range of emotions and feeling of being human. And that’s been really, really hard.”

(This is a screenshot. Watch the full talk on Cameron’s Instagram here)

Cameron was one of several patients who spoke at the summit, hosted by the MAHA Institute—along with researchers and other experts. Two of my own dear friends and colleagues spoke, from my two decades of interest in this topic since my dissertation on antidepressants.

I’d like to highlight ten other moments from the day-long conference worthy of attention. But not before highlighting two important qualifiers shared by Cooper Davis, the executive director of Intercompass Initiative—a nonprofit organization that helps people make more informed choices about taking and safely tapering off psychiatric drugs:

1. Not “anti-medication.” “I want to be clear, we are not anti-medication. We are just committed to true informed choice. And those things should not be confused. And we believe true informed choice is in fact a human right.” He makes clear the summit’s stated frame is not “no one should take medication,” but that when a medication isn’t working or people don’t want to be taking it anymore, they deserve a safer process to taper off.

2. Don’t ignore stories. “Too often when people speak about them, their stories are dismissed as merely anecdotal or unfortunate,” Cooper added. “But anecdotes are in fact evidence. Subjective experience matters.” Another speaker, Kim Witczak, likewise said, “These are not anecdotes. These are real lives.”

In what follows I recap 7 other highlight talks from the conference, taking the time to give the full context of why they matter. While this won’t be of interest to everyone, it will be important to a subset of people who have lived it. So I’ve chosen to go deep here, giving those readers the details they’ll want. You can click below to see the entire transcript—and here and here to watch the entire conference.

Mental Health and Overmedicalization Summit Transcript

1.32MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Note: None of this substitutes for medical advice. And it’s always advisable to make adjustments to medication with medical guidance and support. But it’s crucial to remember changes need to happen gradually—not sudden and dramatic.

1. ‘I was a child and I didn’t have the words to explain what was happening’ (and the dangers of fast tapering). Danielle’s story

Danielle Gansky was prescribed psychiatric medication at 7 years old. “I was far too young to understand what they were, let alone the lasting impact they would have on my developing brain,” she said. But in the second grade, a teacher noticed she was fidgety, distracted, and not fully keeping up academically—advising her parents to see a psychiatrist for an ADHD evaluation.

“I was quickly diagnosed, labeled, and medicated,” she said, recalling they told her she had a learning disability too. About her experience being prescribed ADHD stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin, she said, “I still remember how agitated and moody they made me feel. This was completely out of character for me as I was a happy, sweet, silly kid.”

“Adverse side effects were interpreted as new diagnoses and more drugs were prescribed to treat the problems that the medications themselves had caused. This spiraled into a prescription cascade of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics all before my 10th birthday.”

“None of it ever felt right. But I was a child and I didn’t have the words to explain what was happening. And I didn’t have the authority to challenge it.

Throughout my teens, every drug-induced effect that made me feel terrible was blamed on my so-called underlying disorder.

As I got older, I found online forums of people describing their harms from antidepressants and began to realize the drugs might be the problem. But when she brought her concerns to a doctor and asked if the medications could be making her feel worse, the doctor insisted that wasn’t possible—and that, instead, this meant her OCD and anxiety were “getting worse” and that she “needed higher doses of the SSRI to treat it effectively.”

After college, at age 23 years old, she said “I wanted to see who I was underneath the chemicals.”

“Although I had been on antidepressants my whole life, all while my brain was literally developing, my doctor tapered me off in just 6 weeks,” she said, “which was far too fast.”

(She adds, “But my doctor wasn’t acting recklessly. He was following the standard medical guidance doctors are taught to use”).

What followed the rapid taper, she said, “was a severe full body neurological crisis, a non-stop living nightmare of physical and psychological torment and suffering I didn’t know was humanly possible. My brain felt like it was on fire. Waves of visceral terror and violent inner agitation ripped through me. I was crawling out of my skin for hours each day. I rocked back and forth in the fetal position on the floor, screaming in excruciating pain. Rage surged through me that was completely out of character as I’ve never (experienced) this type of anger.”

“I was always gentle and kind,” she added, but this rapid and dramatic taper “brought out a violence in me that never existed. My brain and body were malfunctioning, feeling like I was being poisoned. It was an attack on my nervous system. Simply being alive felt unbearable.”

When Danielle went back to her doctor and told him she was in withdrawal, she was told “antidepressant withdrawal doesn’t exist, that the medication was out of my system, and my symptoms were proof I needed the medication.”

“His credentials and expertise automatically outweighed my lived experience,” she now recalls, “and the very injury caused by the drugs was used to justify putting me back on them.”

After months of suffering, she recalls feeling she “had no choice but to reinstate the antidepressant even though I felt as though it was poisoning me.” But these neurological effects didn’t go away after re-instituting the medication and she’s experienced them for 7 years now—leading her to believe she had experienced a more of a “lasting injury to my brain and nervous system” caused, she believes, from the fast pace of tapering directed by her doctor.

And, of course, the original decision to put her on. Looking back now, she says “My completely normal childhood behavior was pathologized. I wasn’t in crisis. I wasn’t struggling or acting out. I was simply a fidgety, shy, sensitive little girl who didn’t fit the mold of how a child was supposed to behave in a classroom setting.”

“I went from being a vibrant, joyful, happy person who loved life to being chronically ill and disabled….My creativity, my intelligence, my emotions, everything that made me me was ripped away. I was bedridden and housebound for years. My 20s were spent grieving a life that I felt was taken from me far too soon, watching everyone else move forward while I remained stuck trapped in a body that felt like a prison.”

She’s still taking the same SSRI prescribed as a child, still struggling to come off due to severe debilitating withdrawals. Danielle is now tapering extremely slowly using “hyperbolic tapering” which is the safest method known. She reduces by just one tenth of a milligram, for example 53.6 milligrams down to 53.3—which is less than 1% decreases, because that’s all her nervous system can handle. Even those tiny reductions are challenging, she said.

“What happened to me is not rare,” she said. “My story is just one window into a much larger hidden public health crisis.” Rather than mere “withdrawal,” which she suggested can be a “misnomer,” inappropriately fast withdrawal can lead to “neurological injury that can persist for years and may be permanent for some. The suffering is so immense many people end up taking their lives in withdrawal.”

“It’s my life’s mission to make sure to create changes to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else,” she said. “My inner reality was dismissed at every turn”—noting that the medication label doesn’t warn you people that these drugs can “fundamentally alter your brain” to such a degree that tapering off can be difficult, even impossible for some.

Neither do the labels caution enough at the “loss of emotions and the ability to feel love leaving you.” She concluded by saying, “People have a fundamental right to full and honest information about the harms of SSRIs before they ever take them. When those risks are withheld, it is not just unethical. It’s a violation of basic human rights.

Danielle called for stronger warnings to patients about the true, life-altering and sometimes permanent risk. And she called for “federally endorsed evidence-based tapering guidelines so people can come off their antidepressants safely without risking a brain injury.”

“People need to be aware this can happen to them so they can truly make informed decisions,” Danielle later said. “We need evidence-based tapering guidelines to help people safely come off these drugs,” agreed Andrea Beckel-Mitchener, Acting Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) - emphasizing a need to “broaden the evidence base of what de-prescribing is.”

Danielle’s story is a cautionary tale about how drug-induced effects are interpreted as new diagnoses, leading to more drugs: initial struggles → diagnosis → medication → adverse effects → more diagnosis/medication. In this way, childhood behavior can become lifelong medical identity.

2. Laura Delano’s stunning message: From hopelessness to beauty

I’ve known Laura for a number of years, and wrote about her awhile back for Meridian Magazine: “Your Urge to Die, is Really an Urge to Live Differently.” Her talk at this summit was the stand-out highlight.

Explaining her decision to found Intercompass Initiative, Laura Delano said “my decision to start ICI came after I realized that my parents and I had never actually made a truly informed choice” about her 14 years of treatment. “I grew up on psychiatric drugs, accumulating an alphabet soup of diagnosis through my teens and 20s. Over those years, as I carefully complied with my treatment, my physical health, creativity, sexuality, relationships, connection to God and nature and meaning and purpose, all of it was overtaken by medicalization.”

“I became a list of symptoms to be managed,” she said. “I was in endless therapy and admitted myself to many programs and hospitals. I was on two meds, then three, then four, then five. Along the way, life fell apart.”

“At age 25, told by my psychiatrist I was so severely mentally ill that I was now resistant to all treatment, I tried to kill myself. I am far from the only one.”

“Not a day goes by that I don’t thank my lucky stars I made it through alive and that I eventually realized this medicalized understanding of myself had become a prison.” After finding a broader way to think about it, Laura says she gradually tapered off “all the meds I’d been told I’d need forever to stay alive.”

That was 16 years ago. Today, she’s leading an international non-profit with her supportive partner Cooper, and raising beautiful children. Laura then defined “medicalization” as “what happens when we take complex human struggles and call them a disease. It’s the act of pathologizing natural, understandable, even common sensible responses to our individual lives and the broader world in which we live.”

“To be clear, questioning medicalization isn’t about denying suffering or denying that many people experience real benefit from psychiatric treatments,” she said, “especially in the short term. It’s about asking what our culture has sacrificed by telling generations of Americans that being human is a disease.”

“Millions of our young people now grow up convinced something is wrong with them. They’ve been taught to take their despair and self-doubt and loneliness, their shame and obsession and alienation, their struggles in friendship and romance, their fear and angst and grief. and translate all of these experiences into symptoms of incurable brain pathology requiring lifelong pharmaceutical use.”

Many have grown convinced, as she once was, Laura said, that “their life’s main purpose is symptom management with endless pills and therapy and programs. They are convinced the only way the depth of their pain can be seen, understood, and validated is through medicalizing it. They are convinced the only people qualified to help them are those with letters after their names.”

“And when they’ve done all this and their dysfunction and disability have only worsened, they’re told this means their illness has progressed—that the reason their psychiatric treatments aren’t helping is that their brain disease is just too far gone.”

“This is a story of hopelessness. And it’s a story that I and countless others have grown up believing in deeply.”

Laura then cited philosopher and social critic Ivan Illich who warned 50 years ago of the “deep harm caused when a culture becomes overly medicalized.” What he called medical iatrogenesis occurs when health professionals inadvertently “destroy the potential of people to deal with their human weakness, vulnerability, and uniqueness in a personal and autonomous way.”

“We are now living with these consequences. Tens of millions of Americans are convinced their suffering is a sign that they are permanently broken rather than a signal about the world they’re trying to live in—a world of screens and social media, broken sleep, too much stress, too little sunlight, too little movement, too little real food, too little solitude, too little face-to-face time with others in local meaningful community.”

Laura then cited off key statistics in terms of where we are as a country with mental health:

• Nearly one in four adults has a psychiatric diagnosis.

• 40% of high schoolers report being persistently hopeless with 9% attempting suicide.

• Suicide rates have climbed sharply across nearly every age group since the late 1990s.

• Nearly 50,000 Americans killed themselves in 2023, the highest number ever recorded.

• At the same time, nearly 65 million Americans are taking psychiatric drugs, including around four million children.

“We’re told this is a mental health crisis. But what if this crisis is in large part fueled by misinterpretation, by medicalizing struggles that were never medical to begin with and don’t have medical solutions?”

“Just as we have woken up to the misleading story sold to us by the pain management industry that all physical pain is a problem to be eradicated with safe effective pharmaceuticals that are not dependence forming; we are now waking up to the false promises of this industry of mental health—an industry that’s taught us emotional pain is a symptom to eradicate with safe, effective pharmaceuticals you’ll likely need for life. But if not, don’t worry. You can easily stop.

Laura’s talk was a challenge to this narrative she and other participants see as “deceptive.”

“For a long time, it’s been mostly patients sounding the alarm on overmedicalization—people who have lived its consequences firsthand, realized there was in fact a future beyond chronic illness and had no choice but to develop safe psychiatric medication tapering protocols because their doctors couldn’t or wouldn’t help them.”

“Prescribers are trained to put people on psychiatric medications, not help them safely taper off. They aren’t taught about the dependence forming nature of all psychiatric medications (not just benzodiazepines), or that the difficulties patients face when stopping their medications may well be withdrawal, not relapse.

They don’t realize that tapering slowly doesn’t mean over days, weeks, or months, but possibly over years. Patients had no choice but to develop some of the world’s most careful tapering protocols for themselves and build online communities to share them freely with one another because there was nowhere else to turn for reliable information.

(Check out Laura’s excellent 2025 book here).

Thank goodness this is now changing. Prescribers and mental health professionals are realizing that they, like us patients, have been misled by the quick fix promises of the industry they work in. They came to this work because they wanted to help suffering people and were not given the information they needed.

This is an information problem we are all in together. There are many out there who want to keep us divided. They want to polarize and politicize this conversation, making it about right versus left, patient versus doctor, us versus them, quackery versus science, pro- versus anti-medication.

We mustn’t let them. This should not be a war zone. This should be a community table where we come together to learn from one another and embrace vulnerability, humility, and curiosity. Working together to once and for all address this national crisis. We owe it to the 65 million Americans on these medications to build safe off-ramps that should have been provided all along for those who want or need them.

And we owe it to our children who hold the future of this country in their sweet, sensitive, impressionable hearts to remember what it means to be human. That emotional pain is part of being alive. That meaningful help comes in countless forms beyond a pill bottle. Only then will the world they’ve inherited begin to make sense again.

Based on Laura’s other comments at the summit, we might ask ourselves: Of the roughly 65 million Americans currently on psychiatric meds, how many of them have been meaningfully informed about how to come off safely at the end of that journey if they decide they don’t want to take them anymore?

3. Lauren Friedman’s pain of struggling to feel deeply and connect intimately

Lauren Friedman described living with a condition called post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. 50 to 70% of all patients taking these antidepressants will have sexual side effects—with these potentially enduring after treatment ends. What patients are not warned about is that these side effects can be permanent long after you stop the last drug dose. Um, and PSSD is not just low libido. It is a full nervous system injury in which you lose total sexual function neurologically through essentially nervous system damage. So, the hallmark symptom of PSSD is genital numbness. Yes. like complete loss of sensation in your genitals.

“I clearly hate to talk about this, but my clitoris is completely numb as if it’s the back of my elbow. I have no sensation internally. I’m 23 years old.”

Some lose the ability to orgasm, with no libido—which some experience, Lauren said, like “a sudden onset chemical asexuality.”

There can be a loss of emotional function as well—something Lauren has experienced. “Before this, I was a super emotional empathetic, loving, caring, like Sylvia Plath reading and resonating girl.”

But the day she woke up to this injury, she felt a profound shift internally in her ability to feel—something that has lasted for years. “To this day, I can’t feel love for my own mother, which is the hardest thing on earth. I can’t feel connection or love for my friends, or even pleasure in music (though I had been) a songwriter since I was a child. It was my outlet.”

Lauren calls the many kinds of love experienced in “central, intoxicating, worthwhile, and fulfilling parts of the human experience. These aren’t luxuries. And to remove someone’s ability to participate not just physically through sex … but to remove someone’s ability to emotionally connect with another human being is a crime.”

This grieving young woman then went on to allege that Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, withheld for too long their full knowledge of the likelihood of these kinds of effects. (The current FDA Prozac labeling does acknowledge that “symptoms of sexual dysfunction occasionally persist after discontinuation of fluoxetine treatment”—adding that estimates of SSRI sexual side effects in labeling are “likely to underestimate their actual incidence.” This warning language was added in 2011, 23 years after the medication’s release in 1988. Advocacy groups such as the PSSD Network point to Eli Lilly/FDA from 2011 as evidence that the company was aware of persistent sexual dysfunction reports years earlier).

Since this specific diagnosis hasn’t been called out on the label, Lauren said, “I quite literally had no way of knowing that this was possible or that this could happen to me.”

“Had I known that this medication had the capacity to cause permanent loss of sexual and emotional function, I would have sought after alternatives….But that decision was made for me.”

Throughout Lauren’s story, her grief and indignation are apparent—even if her words remain calm. She calls her condition “torturous,” “horrific” and “inhumane suffering” with “these things that are so central (to life are) able to be removed” (she also uses a heartbreaking language of being “sexually defunct and emotionally lobotomized”).

At one point, she alleges that “life is not worth living when you can’t feel it or participate in it”—which this author points out would be a dangerous idea to entertain for anyone experiencing one of many reasons why they aren’t feeling as much as they used to. Better to remember that things can still change and improve—and in the meanwhile, there are still important things to learn, experience and offer to the world.

Lauren frequently speaks of her condition as permanent and lifelong, but acknowledges at the end, “there is evidence that this may be reversible with intervention.”

“We’ve been blindsided, betrayed, and maimed by the industry that we were told and instructed to trust, and we trusted fully given we took these medications, and now we’ve been offered no way back to our lives or humanities.”

I feel so deeply humiliated and dehumanized to share to a group of strangers in the press and inevitably the internet…. I’m a senior in College of Vanderbilt. I go back in the fall. I’d rather my peers not know this about me because this is what the situation requires.”

“I’m here to ….show that these medications are far from benign. People deserve to know the truth.

Lauren’s testimony is intense, but the policy message is simple: people cannot give informed consent if a serious potential outcome is absent from labels and clinical conversations.

Admiral Brian Christine reiterated in another presentation, “The decision to prescribe SSRIs should always… come with a full understanding of both the benefits and the risk.”

“Many veterans don’t understand what they’re getting into,” said Derek Blumke about many vets being treated. “Their families don’t understand what they’re getting into.”

4. What does safe tapering actually look like (why linear tapering is a big mistake), by expert Mark Horwitz

Mark Horowitz is an associate professor of psychiatry who works in Australia and the UK and had his own experience coming off the medications. He began his presentation saying, “Many people have tried multiple times to stop um psychiatric drugs and very much want to get off them. Not everybody, but many. And the question is why do so many people find it difficult to stop?”

“The answer is not a lack of motivation or psychological dependence as some people suggest. The reason is that the way we currently stop these drugs is biologically mismatched to how they work.”

The researcher went on to explain that, contrary to what many people assume, there is not a straight line relationship between dosage and effects on the brain. “If you double the dose from 20 mg to 40 mg, it doesn’t increase the effect on the brain very much at all”—with even a tiny dose of 2 milligrams having about half the effect of 40 milligram.

He compares this psychopharmaceutical principle to a “game of musical chairs. It’s easier to find a spot at the beginning of the game. As there’s more and more drugs in the system, the receptors fill up, it becomes harder to find a spot, and you get diminishing returns.

This is the problem with a typical linear tapering plan often recommended by doctors and most guidelines: “you start off at 20 milligrams, go down to 15, 10, 5, 0.”

Although this looks gradual on paper, the first reduction from 20 to 15 is on the level of the brain, a “tiny little reduction.” Although the next reduction (15 to 10) looks equal, it’s actually twice as large in its physiological effect—with the third reduction (10 to 5) twice as large again.

The last reduction, from 5 mg to 0 milligrams, then becomes the hardest of all. He summarized, “So what looks like a gentle taper actually involves jumping off a cliff at the end.”

This corresponds to patient experience, where Horowitz says “the beginning of the taper is fairly easy or easier and they and they struggle most at the end.”

Here’s the alternative: “Instead of reducing by a fixed amount of dose, you reduce so that each step produces a similar change in the brain. And this requires smaller and smaller dose reductions. So that the final reductions are very tiny doses, much smaller than the currently available tablets or capsules, so that you’re not jumping off that cliff. You’re walking down it step by step.”

The name of this wiser, safer tapering approach is “hyperbolic tapering” because it follows the hyperbola of the graph as if you’re walking down the curve, he explains.

(I like to compare this to flying a plane—where you drop more quickly at first, and have to slowly edge into the last moments).

A good rule of thumb is to reduce by about 10% of your most recent dose each month, he explained—so the amount of decrease “gets smaller and smaller.”

This needs to be individualized, however, and adjusted depending on how people respond. “Some people can go faster, some people need to go slower. There are some recognized risk factors but the speed needs to be adjusted to the individual based on careful monitoring.”

That means holding, pausing or adjusting the taper if symptoms become difficult.

Importantly, Horowitz pointed out, the smallest dose available in most antidepressants still has about 80% of the effect of the drug’s maximum licensed dose. That explains why it’s not a good idea to just stop for good after getting to the smallest tablet. “People are often told you’re just on a small dose, you can stop it. And that’s never the case. You know, your body doesn’t know that you’re putting a small tablet in your mouth. It only cares about the effect on receptors.”

That’s a trap that people get caught in. But the good news is in a study of 900 patients who had almost all been unable to stop their drugs with the traditional taper recommended by their doctors, almost three-quarters could stop with this gradual hyperbolic approach to coming off their drugs. They experienced fewer withdrawal effects—and many could have even had better success, he believes with even slower tapers.

Why don’t more people understand this? Four reasons:

1. “Most clinicians are not trained to recognize withdrawal or to take medications in this way. As a result, withdrawal symptoms are often misinterpreted as relapse and treatment is continued unnecessarily.”

2. “Many clinicians are not accustomed to prescribing liquids or compounded medications required for this technique.” He explained it’s not possible to implement this approach well only with tablets.

3. “Most psychiatric drugs in the US are available as liquids or can be made up with smaller doses by compounding pharmacies”—noting that it “would be useful if the FDA were to mandate liquids or small dose tablets for all psychiatric drugs in the same way as car manufacturers mandate braks on cars.”

4. “Existing guidelines often only tepidly acknowledge withdrawal and do not provide practical detail. Clinicians are left without specific tapering schedules or strategies for managing symptoms. This is true of the recent American Society of Clinical Psychology guidance which avoids these major issues and offers no practical help for clinicians on the ground. This is what we tried to solve with the Maudsley deprescribing guidelines which offers advice to clinicians.”

Horowitz shared a few additional notes, starting with a few cautions:

• “Dosing less often, for example, every second day often backfires because it leads to wildly oscillating levels in the blood.”

• In a New York Times story on new deprescribing guidelines of American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, one expert pushed back on encouragement of “slow tapering” across the board—insisting that longer half-life drugs like Prozac can “generally be stopped abruptly.” Horowitz responded to this, saying “Just because the drug leaves the system in a few weeks is not long enough to let the brain reset. And in fact, these drugs have withdrawal risks almost as high as other drugs in the same class. So there is no free ride off these drugs.” (Anders Sorensen elaborated in his remarks, noting that having a longer half-life as a drug “just means that the withdrawal reactions are delayed not that they’re absent….Yes, it’s a good thing that a drug leaves the body a bit slower because again withdrawal is the drug leaving the body faster than the body can adapt…that doesn’t mean that there are no withdrawals whatsoever….Don’t follow that advice (to quickly taper). The hyperbolic curves …are exactly the same with Prozac as in any other SSRI).”

• When a medication is started, Horowitz recommended that “informed consent should include expected duration of treatment and a plan to review and potentially stop right from the beginning. Patients should not begin these drugs, assuming they are indefinite.” A treatment plan should include an end goal date—suggesting a regular six month medication review, comparing ongoing benefits vs. harm—and revisiting “a clear plan to continue or to stop.”

• “Health care systems are set up to start medications quickly but they do not provide the time, support or infrastructure to help people come off them safely.”

“To summarize, withdrawal is a physiological process that can be prolonged. Current tapering methods are often biologically mismatched to how these drugs work. Safer methods already exist based on aligning dose reductions with the brain’s response, such as hyperbolic tapering.”

“Knowledge about how to recognize withdrawal, distinguish it from relapse, and safely stop psychiatric drugs needs to be embedded in medical education as much as starting the drugs are. At the moment there’s a huge hole in education and service which is seen in escalating numbers of people on these drugs who cannot get off.”

5. Understandable reactions to difficult environments or signs of illness? Nick’s story

What happens when the system treats friction with broken environments as illness, Nick Taber asks through his story—arguing that many young people are having valid reactions to environments, while the system recategorizes those reactions as disorders.

With an estimated 21% of kids are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, this is a defining management of how children are being taken care of in modern society, Nick first notes.

Yet for many of these children, they are living in families that may be difficult or even abusive. Adults can also be embedded in contexts that feel insufferable. In that case, he said, “for many of us, we’re simply having valid responses to the environments we’re in.”

In a challenging situation like this, someone’s feelings and reactions to an “insufferable situation” too often “get recategorized as a medical problem”—which he says, denies reality and erases what someone is really experiencing.

“I can’t tell you how many people I know who had these mental health services done to them as kids and end up feeling like shells of themselves. And this was certainly my experience for a long time because, and this is the key, we have lost our internal signals that tell us where to go and what to do, that tell us who and what is safe and not safe, what we value in life, what matters, etc.”

6. Don’t guide long-term treatment based on short-term evidence. Anders Sørensen remarks

Anders Sørensen is a clinical psychologist from Denmark who pushes back on the claim that fluoxetine/Prozac can generally be stopped abruptly because of its long half-life. Much of his talk is repeated below:

“In 2018, a study was published in the BMJ asking one very simple question. Do parachutes reduce the risk of death when jumping from an aircraft? The researchers compared two groups, one jumping with and one without. The result, no significant difference between the groups. Parachutes, it seemed, offered no protective effect compared to those jumping without one. But there was one small detail hidden in the method section, which you of course always remember to read. All participants had jumped from an aircraft parked on the ground from an average of half a meter. And as the authors noted, one should be cautious in extrapolating their findings to real world high altitude jumps.

We might laugh at this silly study, but it stops being funny when you realize we’re doing something very similar in psychiatry today. Fast forward to 2025. A study in the American Journal of Medicine compared how long antidepressants were studied in the randomized trials we rely on compared to how long people actually take them.

The median duration of the trials was eight weeks, meaning that most participants had only been on these drugs for two months. And the median duration of real world use in the US, five years.

So we’re using short-term evidence to guide long-term treatment. And that gap matters, especially when it comes to dependence and withdrawal. Time matters because the body adapts.

If you alter brain chemistry for long enough, the body adapts, not overnight, but gradually over weeks and years and months. And the longer that adaptation has been building, the more sensitive it becomes to change and the harder it gets to come off the medication.

In many cases, that can mean tapering over years. Because when you then remove the drug or reduce the dose too quickly, the system is thrown out of balance. And that imbalance is what we call withdrawal. An imbalance between what the system expects and what it now gets at the lower dose.

Since 1997, SSRI withdrawal has been described as mostly mild and self-limiting, lasting a week or two, mentioning only a handful of the more than 80 reported symptoms. That’s what the guidelines say because they’re based on short-term trials far from reality.

So what happens in practice? People who’ve been on these drugs for years, decades, are tapered off as if they’ve been taking them for months. Often by aggressively having the dose, having again stopping. And when that goes wrong, which it often does, they call it a relapse of an underlying condition.”

People come away being told, “well, clearly you still need the medication,” Sørensen explained. So back on the drug people go, with symptoms resolved and an illusion they just learned something fundamentally concerning about their mental health.

Namely: your condition is worse than you think, the medication is demonstrably treating an underlying illness and needs to be part of your long-term experience. Little consideration is given to the possibility that this could simply be withdrawal. Withdrawal has to be ruled out first, before someone resigns to relapse—which can still happen, Sørensen said.

“The trick is to understand withdrawal symptoms for what it is: communication from a body trying to adapt to too big a change too quickly. …What’s confusing is that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs isn’t just physical symptoms. It’s not just dizziness, nausea, headaches, muscle pain, shaking, burning sensations, fatigue. I mean, it’s that too. But it’s also anxiety, insomnia, irritability, depressed mood, mood swings, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, intrusive thoughts.

Withdrawal can mimic relapse or new diagnosis for which there are also drugs. The symptoms overlap. And if you don’t recognize withdrawal, you will misinterpret it.” (This happens in research too, Sørensen explained—with any deterioration often counted as relapse making the drugs look incredibly protective).

If people don’t recognize withdrawal effects, they’ll misinterpret them, Anders explained. “And that’s how people end up on these drugs for years and decades.”

“When stopped, the withdrawal symptoms can be worse than the problems for which the drug was first prescribed,” clinical psychologist Gretchen Lefever Watson likewise said. “Clinicians commonly misinterpret those symptoms as evidence of a worsening condition or the emergence of a new condition.”

“People go in with the side effects and they end up with another… prescription,” Kim Witczak added. “You go in and you’re being told it’s your illness getting worse and there’s no discussion on even how to get off of them.”

Many doctors don’t know about these kinds of dynamics, Sørensen said, because they haven’t been trained to recognize it, let alone how to manage it with proper tapering.

This isn’t about addiction, he explained:

• “Just to be clear, this is not about addiction. Antidepressants are not addictive. We’re not talking about cravings or uncontrollable use or people chasing the high.”

• What he’s talking about is instead “physical dependence, a state of adaptation manifested by withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation or rapid dose reduction of the drug. That’s it.”

• He described supporting people “through withdrawal reactions from antidepressants so severe you wouldn’t believe they come from a drug, prescribed drug, taken exactly as prescribed. But people aren’t told when they start, they’re not informed. It’s not in the guidelines. So, they find themselves facing unexpected withdrawal, not realizing (it).”

He noted a pattern evident historically:

• “This parallels what happened with benzodiazepines introduced first as safe and effective with minimal concern of dependence until decades later, dependence and severe withdrawal became undeniable.”

• “Then we saw it again with opioids, again aggressively marketed as safe and effective for chronic pain until we had an epidemic. The pattern is the same.”

• “A new drug is introduced, framed as safe and effective, and gets widely prescribed. Then people start having trouble coming off it. Then research begins to confirm what patients are experiencing. But that research is pushed aside, ignored because it challenges the prevailing paradigm.”

• “And then the cycle repeats with new safe and effective drugs until we understand this.”

• “For context, with benzodiazepines, it took over 40 years from when we knew we had the evidence to when it was formally acknowledged with the blackbox warning in 2020. And if we were to see a similar warning introduced to SSRIs just this year, we’ll only be looking at a delay of around a delay of around 35 years since the first report withdrawal began appearing in the 1990s. And today we’re still drawing conclusions from the ground about what happens.”

7. Secretary Kennedy’s remarks

Anything HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says gets pilloried and automatically labeled as ridiculous by some people. I think that’s unfortunate, because if there’s one thing Americans across the political spectrum seem to be able to agree with, it’s that our health care system really has some challenges.

This is one of them: a wide onramp onto psychiatric meds, and a very hard to find off-ramp. Feel free to disagree with the Secretary here or on anything else. But as someone who started studying antidepressants almost 25 years ago, I can tell you he is 100% right in what he says in this short talk about mental health and antidepressants:

“The United States does not just face a mental health crisis. We face a dependency crisis driven by overmedicalization. The data is clear. One in six American adults takes an antidepressant. One in 10 children are on prescription medication for their mental health. 30% of college students report using psychiatric medications in the past year.

And in nursing homes, more than half of the residents are on prescribed antidepressants. That’s not a marginal issue. This is a system level pattern. Too many patients begin treatment without a clear understanding of the risks and how long they will stay on these drugs or how to come off of them.

And that’s not informed consent. We are going to fix it.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services released a dear colleague letter issued by four of my HHS agencies. SAMHSA, CMS, HRSA, and ACF. It directs providers across the country to expand the use of evidence-based nonpharmacologic treatments and to strengthen informed consent and shared decision making.

SAMA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish new data on prescribing trends and release guidance for clinicians and physicians. In June and July, SAMPS will roll out national training modules on psychiatric medication risks on tapering and deprescribing at more than 1,400 federally qualified health centers, community health centers across the country, which treat 39 million patients on how to do medically supervised tapering.

HHS will convene a technical expert panel to develop formal clinical guidelines grounded in evidence and formed by clinicians, patients and their families.

CMS, the Center for Medical, Medicaid, and Medicare Services is issuing billing guidance that allows clinicians to get paid for deprescribing work for the first time. They’ll be paid for care planning, for monitoring withdrawal, for coordinating treatment, and for tracking outcomes.

Psychiatric medications have a role in care, but we will no longer treat them as the default. We will treat them as one option used when appropriate with full transparency and with a clear path off when they are no longer effective.

Patients must understand the benefits, the risks, and the consequences of long-term use before they start, (when) they continue, and when they consider stopping. Without that information, consent does not exist. Right now, gaps in data, labeling, clinical guidance deny patients and physicians the full picture….

We’re also confronting a basic question. What happens when treatment does not work as intended? Some patients report improvement on SSRIs. Others report emotional blunting, loss of motivation, difficulty continuing use, and suicidal ideation.

I watched a family member get off of them after a couple years on them. And she was suicidal literally every day. She woke up every morning and said, “I don’t want to live.” And she said, “The only reason I’m staying alive is for you guys, for the family.” And that’s heartbreaking to hear from a family member. And I’ve heard that from hundreds and hundreds of people. The same story again and again.

(Withdrawal) can be severe. It can be prolonged. And for many patients, it’s completely unexpected.

And the physicians handle this by saying, “Oh, this is your original symptom, reasserting yourself. You need to get back on the SSRIs.”

And they get locked in a lifetime cycle that is uh that for many patients is absolutely cataclysmic. This is a system failure. We’re not going to ignore it.

And let me be clear. If you are taking psychiatric medication, we’re not telling you to stop. We’re making sure that you and your clinician have the information and support to make the right decisions for you. That includes a safe evidence-based path to tapering and discontinuation when clinically appropriate.

At HHS, we are building that path. We are giving clinicians the tools to guide patient safety. We’re giving patients the information to make informed choices because an informed choice is the only choice. Nearly 48 million Americans experienced depression last year. More than 48 million struggled with substance use disorders. These are not abstract numbers.

These are family members. These are individuals. These are people who other people love. That is the scale of the challenge. We are not going to solve it by defaulting to medication. We’re going to solve it by strengthening prevention, expanding non-drug treatment options, and restoring clinical standards that prioritize outcome over volume.

Dear readers — this is one of the most important things I’ve ever published. With roots that date back to my 2006-2009 University of Illinois dissertation on depression treatment, I’ve been thinking about this question for two decades now.

I’m sharing below a new Antidepressant Side Effect Checklist that I’ve been working on based on the latest research for public educational purposes. Before introducing it, I need to say more about why this question matters so much.

There’s a lot to say before introducing an Antidepressant Side Effect Checklist, precisely because of how much depression and anxiety hurt. I’ll never forget a young woman in her 20s comparing her experience with depression to earlier, vicious child abuse. This is what she told me:

“I have had beatings to the point of unconsciousness — ripped, broken, arms taken out of the socket — and that compares nothing… doesn’t even begin to be the pain that became every day, just right here [pointing to chest] — this thing that wouldn’t go away — that made it hard to breathe… I would rather have hours and hours of people beating me than to have been where I was inside. It hurt that bad… there were times I thought it would kill me — all on its own.”

That’s how intense and overwhelming depression can become. And it’s why it makes sense that someone facing this would do anything they can to find relief, stability, and hope. Whatever path someone chooses in that effort deserves understanding and support. That includes deciding to take an antidepressant — for as long as it feels helpful or necessary.

The purpose of this inventory is simply to offer greater clarity about the range of possible side effects associated with antidepressant treatment, so that families and individuals — young and old — can participate more actively in decisions about their care.

For some, that may simply mean continuing treatment with more awareness. For others, it might raise questions worth exploring over time with a trusted professional. In some instances, that conversation may eventually lead to considering cautious, gradual changes — with appropriate support and at a measured, careful pace. For many, no changes may be needed; instead, this may simply put language to experiences or confirm that their current approach is working.

As Jon Kabat-Zinn has taught, until we can see clearly where we are, we don’t really know where to go next. In my experience, many people are unaware or confused about antidepressant side effects — with little understanding about whether a headache or brain fog or sexual problem could be associated with their treatment.

Even so, greater clarity about this all doesn’t force any particular decision — nor does it require urgency. Expanded awareness simply allows wiser, more grounded decisions, which may support deeper healing over time. Whatever adjustments are made can happen gradually, without pressure — especially avoiding sudden changes without guidance.

Hoping this checklist is helpful,

Yours, Jacob

What’s really coming from what?

Since publishing a recent cautionary story about inadvertent treatment effects, I’ve been thinking more about how difficult it can be to differentiate between symptoms arising from emotional struggles like depression and the effects of medications many people now take as a first-line treatment option.

That confusion can really make a difference. A friend told me recently about piercing headaches that wouldn’t go away — headaches that she hadn’t experienced until recent years. Even though this woman was educated and bright, she hadn’t seriously considered that the antidepressants she had started during this same period might be contributing to her migraines.

That specific side effect is listed on 5 out of 6 FDA prescribing guides of the most common antidepressants. But my friend likely never heard about that possibility from her physician — nor did she read about it on her own. If she had picked up the pamphlet inserted into the package, she would also have little way of knowing that the “official” list of side effects may not capture the full range of what can occur, especially over the long-term.

This is another reason for the confusion: so many of these side effects naturally change over time in ways that can be unpredictable. Amid this uncertainty, strong biases can exert themselves. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin cautioned for decades how easy it can be to assume something unpleasant is coming from an underlying emotional problem, while taking for granted that something positive or pleasant is connected to the medical treatment.

Despite this confusion, I believe there’s a strong way to ground ourselves in this discernment. It starts with getting clearer about the full scope of side effects associated with a particular treatment. From my own renewed curiosity, I decided to gather the side effects submitted in the FDA approval process for the 6 most common antidepressants in use: Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil and Luvox. These are each part of a group of classic SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) — which were developed to inhibit serotonin from being reabsorbed in the brain, in an attempt to make more of that neurotransmitter available for someone struggling with depression.1

Supplementing with other data from post-marketing studies and consumer/patient forums, I’ve pulled the side effect themes together into a draft of a new checklist to assist those wanting to get a better sense of whether parts of their experience may be influenced by this particular class of medications.

That could be good news, by the way. If symptoms like headaches, dizziness, insomnia, or irritability are partly medication-related, they may be more modifiable than they seem.

In the wake of realizations like this, I’ve known many people who decided with their supervising doctor to make some gentle, thoughtful adjustments in how they respond to depression, and subsequently came to find a different kind of life experience (here’s one example).

A short-term symptoms focus

Virtually all of the mental health surveys I’ve ever seen are focused on symptoms of a particular emotional disorder — in this case, centered on the “depressed mood” or “loss of interest/pleasure” in life which are one of two conditions required for a clinical diagnosis of depression. In addition, at least three of the following need to be present: concerning shifts in weight/appetite, sleep, energy, cognitive ability, lack of movement, “feelings of worthlessness” and “recurrent thoughts of death.”

As the classic DSM depression profile, this constellation of symptoms must be present over a 2-week period and represent a “change from previous functioning.”

It’s here that our collective attention has been focused for nearly 3 decades: running through these criteria with a doctor, screening our young people, or taking a self-assessment ourselves. Often prompted by these kinds of assessments, an estimated 33–35 million Americans now take antidepressants annually (~13% of the adult population), along with roughly a million teenagers (~5% of the teenage total in the U.S.).

Given the vast scope of this public health intervention, it’s important to explore what happens next: understanding in greater detail the evolving range of effects people experience on the medications.

Yet after the investment in initial short-term studies designed for FDA approval, it’s striking how little sustained research has gone into careful evaluations of treatment experience over time, especially not in the long term. (I know, because over the years I’ve been collecting every long-term antidepressant study I can find).

For someone whose antidepressant isn’t going well over time, this can create some added confusion. That’s where one of my own dear family members was years ago. Medicated for depression, but feeling worse than ever.

After years of treatment, she was told that she was “treatment resistant.” Rather than looking more carefully at the treatment itself, she came away feeling that she was the problem — ‘guess I’m just even sicker than I thought?’

Another kind of symptom focus

We need to do better than that for the precious lives of so many amazing people facing emotional challenges. (In my experience it’s especially sensitive and deep souls who tend to hurt like this — Homer Simpson doesn’t get depressed).

For the many people — young and old — who yearn for a little more peace and happiness, I wonder: What could it mean if a little more attention went to appraising the full scope of antidepressant side effects potentially showing up in their experience?

For one, I believe we’d be closer to being able to see clearly what’s-coming-from-what in terms of our evolving emotional experience: Where is the pain coming from? And the sweetness too?

Just as that clarity could make a difference in important decisions about long-term trajectories of care, a lack of clarity on this question can surely complicate these same deliberations.

That’s my motivation in drafting this new “awareness tool” I’m laying the groundwork for introducing here. I hope this can be something to help suffering individuals or their loved ones if antidepressants have been a part of their recent life experience.

Illustrations generated with AI (ChatGPT), based on author direction

Some background

Twenty-five years ago during my doctoral program at the University of Illinois, I became fascinated with competing stories human beings tell about emotional pain — and the different ways they interpret and “narrate” depression, in particular. After interviewing people in Salt Lake City and Chicago for my dissertation on Prozac, I wrote 300 pages on the topic, including peer-reviewed articles on competing stories about the depressed brain, about whether recovery is possible and about what it means for medication to “work” for teens and children.

I later helped create two different online classes drawing on many of these same concepts and wrote a 2023 Deseret News article, “Is it me or my medication,” on this specific question I’m taking up today in more depth.

One of the biggest things I learned in all my research on the topic is how complicated this is all — not easy to tell what’s going on! Once someone is taking a daily medication that directly influences their emotion, a 3rd variable gets introduced that isn’t so easy to parse out. After all, whatever you’re experiencing inside is just what you are experiencing … how is someone supposed to tell whether it’s connected to medication or any of the hundreds of other (environmental, lifestyle, social, physical, spiritual) influences on their emotions?

It was the Boston College sociologist David Karp who first gave this question proper attention in his memoir of grappling with depression himself: “Is it me or my meds?”

My own study reinforced how challenging this question is for so many people. Yet outside of passing conversations, I’ve never had a chance to create anything specifically for people in the middle of this question.

What follows is shared as public scholarship to inform further conversations within families and the many helping support those facing these emotional challenges. It represents a synthesis of existing knowledge, and I welcome additional critique and feedback.

The development approach I took

Here’s how I created this antidepressant side effect checklist.

Understanding the basic scope of side effects

To understand the scope of side effects of any medication, a good place to start is the Full Prescribing Information (FPI) — an FDA-approved “package insert” for healthcare providers that compiles a drug’s safety profile based on data reported by the manufacturer.

After gathering both common and serious side effects in FPIs for the 6 most established SSRI antidepressants2 — Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil and Luvox — I identified 22 different side effects that showed up across all six medications, along with another 7 that showed up in at least 5 of the medications.

Here is the 6-out-of-6 list of potential side effects (with some medical jargon converted to plain terminology):

• Feeling like you might throw up

• Diarrhea or loose stool

• Difficulty having bowel movements

• Indigestion or upset stomach

• Dry mouth

• Trouble sleeping

• Feeling very sleepy or drowsy

• Low energy or unusual tiredness

• Dizziness or lightheadedness

• Shaking, usually in the hands

• Feeling anxious or worried

• Feeling nervous or jittery

• Excessive sweating

• Not feeling like eating

• Decreased sex drive

• Delayed or difficulty with ejaculation

• Thoughts about self-harm or suicide

• Feeling suddenly much worse emotionally or more depressed

• Feeling unusually energized, impulsive, or out of control

• Unusual bleeding or bruising

And here is the 5-out-of-6 side effect list, based on these same six FPI guides:

• Stomach pain

• Throwing up

• Feeling restless or unable to relax

• Difficulty getting or maintaining an erection

• Severe restlessness or inability to sit still

• Symptoms of too much serotonin (confusion, sweating, fast heartbeat, shaking)

• Eye pain or sudden vision changes

• Headache

• Difficulty reaching orgasm

• Skin rash

As you can see, many potential SSRI side effects are not unique to individual drugs — they are shared across this class of medications. These SSRI side effects that have been identified as potentially happening in all six medications include gastrointestinal distress, sleep and energy disruption, neurological symptoms like dizziness and tremor, heightened anxiety or restlessness, sexual dysfunction, and a smaller but important set of serious risks affecting mood, bleeding, and overall system regulation.

This constellation of experiences forms a natural anchor point for any antidepressant side effect inventory. In fact, approximately 85% of the items in two of the main antidepressant symptom inventories already in use today map onto this same basic list of symptoms above: The 32-question Toronto Side Effects Scale (TSES) from 2002 and the 21-question Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC) from 2009 both largely draw from the same clusters of symptoms highlighted in FDA prescribing documents.

This only becomes a limitation if additional categories of side effects are not considered. For instance, neither of these earlier side-effect surveys explore the possibility of an antidepressant worsening depression, increasing suicidal thoughts, inducing mania, or prompting symptoms of “serotonin syndrome” (signs of too much serotonin). And like the FPI prescribing brochures themselves, neither of these other surveys considers the possibility of a drug-induced increased sense of hopelessness, worthlessness or loss of meaning.

Balancing side-effects with positive effects

Of course, antidepressant treatment also frequently elicit positive effects. In line with research submitted to the FDA for antidepressant approval, many people describe a reduction in depression symptoms (and sometimes in anxiety symptoms) that makes any of these known side effects potentially worth tolerating in an overall cost-benefit ratio.

That means lower scores on depression scales like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with some modest improvements in sleep, appetite and energy also seen over 4–8 weeks among roughly half of patients during early weeks on an antidepressant, and a “remission” observed among many of these symptoms in about a third of patients during this same initial period.

These patients describe things like:

• “Relief from the worst intensity” for a period of time and feeling less overwhelmed with the pain becoming more manageable (“taking the edge off”).

• A better ability to get out of bed, work and engage in daily tasks, as well as improved sleep for some.

• Less constant worry or panic, and feeling more settled or calm

• Fewer extreme highs/lows and more predictable mood

• Sometimes an increase in motivation and a return of interest in life events

I heard these same kinds of reports in my University of Illinois antidepressant study, especially during the initial period of treatment. For most people I’ve spoken with, unfortunately, these benefits do not endure in the same way over time — underscoring the importance of longer-term research.

These initial positive effects have received enormous attention over the years — publicized and promoted for nearly two decades. By comparison, details on side effects have received relatively sparse public attention.

All this explains why more discussion is needed and, in my view, something more than earlier side effect inventories, which largely follow company-reported lists of symptoms.

Two kinds of additional data

There are two kinds of additional information important to consider in understanding the range of side effects on any medication.

The value of independent research

When side-effect surveys rely primarily on company-generated data, an important set of additional possibilities will likely be missed. This is intuitive to anyone who has watched a drug commercial with lovely video images, accompanied by a rapid voiceover running through a list of side effects.

It turns out even the list of side effects companies insert via pamphlet into a medication box is curated in interesting ways. For example, sexual side effects such as reduced libido, delayed ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, or difficulty reaching orgasm, are compressed into a single, more generic label of “sexual problems” in the official medication guides for Celexa and Lexapro.

To capture the wider picture of side effects, these company reports need to be supplemented with “non-official” sources. In addition to independent outcome studies, there is value in studying consumer/patient forums without any connection to industry or professional associations.

The value of patient forums

Consumer/patient forums can be uniquely helpful in identifying what might be missing from official symptom lists. While official sources — company and independent — define what is identified in research, patient forums reveal what is experienced.

While clinical trials capture frequent, measurable, short-term effects and physiologically clear outcomes, patient forums also do a better job capturing subjective experience, cognitive and emotional changes, identity shifts, earlier onset symptoms, changes over time (including long-term effects and withdrawal effects), or changes that are rare or spread out over time, and thus harder to pinpoint.

During her time on faculty at Colorado State University, my colleague Shannon Hughes joined David Cohen in comparing antidepressant side-effect reports on industry-funded websites (like www.webmd.com), with independent patient forums (like www.askapatient.com), which they found “capture real-world variability missing from trials.”

By comparing Lexapro side effects presented on these two different kinds of websites, they found:

• Professionally-controlled websites were more likely to feature symptom improvement, while consumer-controlled sites tended to share more details about symptoms worsening.

• Consumer sites were also more likely to share side effects that were “disrupting daily routines” and which involved “richer descriptions of effects in context.”

These researchers concluded: “Professional medication descriptions offer the advantage of a concise yet comprehensive listing of drug effects, while consumer reviews offer greater context and situational examples of how effects may manifest in various combinations and to varying degrees.”

Additional themes documented

As you can see, if we want to better understand the emotional, cognitive, interpersonal, and sensory experiences that most people consider central, we need to step beyond official side-effect lists to explore the broader picture of lived experience on any given medication.

Based on that broader analysis, here are some other potential antidepressant side effects that are commonly observed in patient forums and independent research:

• Emotional numbness or blunting

• Feeling less emotional range (less joy and less sadness)

• Feeling less awe, wonder, or being “moved” by meaningful experiences

• Reduced motivation or drive

• More apathy or less interest in things you usually care about

• Brain fog (feeling mentally dull or less sharp)

• Memory problems

• Reduced empathy or compassion for others

• Feeling more emotionally distant or disconnected from other people

• Less interested in being around others

• Inner restlessness or inability to sit still

• Extreme internal agitation and urge to move (“feel like I’m crawling out of my skin,” sometimes called akathisia)

• Internal vibrations or buzzing sensations

• Muscle twitching or jerking

• Ringing in the ears (tinnitus)

• Vivid dreams or nightmares

• Night sweats

• Temperature sensitivity (feeling unusually hot or cold)

• Jaw clenching or jaw tightness

These are all underrepresented in FDA “pamphlet inserts” or FPI “clinician guides.” I’ve included them in this new checklist below.

Two other areas of inquiry

In addition to this wider scope of side effects captured in patient forums and independent research, there are two other areas that make this checklist unique, summarized below.

1. Other kinds of non-SSRI antidepressants

After forming the original side effect list from the 6 most popular, SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil and Luvox), I realized this list of potential changes mapped fairly well onto what’s known about other antidepressants too, with a few exceptions.

In order to make this checklist more generalizable to Wellbutrin and some newer antidepressants like Trintellix, and SNRIs like Pristiq or Cymbalta, I’ve added several potential side effects often associated with these newer medications:

• Increased appetite

• Weight gain

• Feeling unusually sleepy, sedated, or hard to wake up

• Feeling unusually activated, stimulated, or “amped up”

• Heart racing, pounding, or palpitations

• Unusual increase in sexual thoughts, desire, or arousal

• Mood swings or feeling emotionally unstable

• Blurred vision or other visual changes

• Changes in urination (more frequent, difficult, or unusual)

2. Withdrawal-specific changes

While many of these side effects show up in the normal course of antidepressant treatment (e.g., weight gain, sexual dysfunction), a surprising number occur especially when making changes to the medication, whether that is starting, stopping, or adjusting dosage.

These dosage-change-specific experiences include some of the most common antidepressant side effects like headache, nausea, loss of appetite, agitation, difficulty concentrating, insomnia, fatigue and restlessness.

But there’s a third category of effects exclusive to withdrawal or discontinuation — and not typically showing up unless someone attempts to come off their medication (especially if they do so too quickly, and without tapering gradually enough).

Many of the antidepressant side effects that occur during initial treatment — especially in sleep, mood, energy, and anxiety — can also reappear during withdrawal, often with similar intensity. A core list of changes that are specific to withdrawal have been included in a separate section of the checklist:

• Brain zaps / electric shock sensations

• Internal buzzing or vibrating sensations

• Dizziness triggered by head or eye movement

• Feeling off-balance or like you’re walking on a boat

• Sensitivity to light, sound, or motion

• Sudden emotional surges or swings

• Feeling detached from yourself or surroundings (unreal or distant)

• Visual disturbances (e.g., trailing images or delayed visual tracking)

• Symptoms that come in sudden waves or bursts

• Symptoms that worsen quickly when a dose is missed and improve after taking it

This smaller list of potential withdrawal effects represents a broader group of possible effects, with 187 withdrawal-related symptoms that have been observed in people discontinuing psychiatric medication generally, as compiled here by former patients.

Read this first

Before going further, it’s worth pausing for a moment.

This checklist is not a diagnostic or treatment tool, and nothing here is intended as medical advice. That means this isn’t a clinical tool designed to diagnose, assess, or guide treatment decisions on its own. Rather, it is intended as an educational and reflective resource — to help people notice patterns and generate questions they may wish to explore with qualified professionals, similar to many other self-guided mental health checklists out there.

Most of what’s included here is already known in different places — clinical documents, studies, and patient reports — but rarely brought together in one accessible format. As a synthesis of publicly available sources, clinical documents, and patient-reported experience that is translated into a practical awareness tool, my aim is to make existing knowledge more visible and usable to the general public.

The final list is intentionally broad — gathering many possibilities. Yet most people will experience only a small fraction of these, and often temporarily. The goal here is not to alarm, but to give language to experiences that can otherwise feel confusing or isolating. If something stands out, it’s simply an invitation to notice — not to act quickly or make changes on your own.

People’s experiences with medication vary widely, and no single pattern applies to everyone. For many people, two things can be true at once: a medication may provide meaningful relief while also introducing side effects that are easy to miss. This complexity is part of what makes clear awareness so challenging.

The complete checklist

You can access here the full 90-question Antidepressant Side Effect Checklist, along with a reflection section with some questions as you consider the results.

Antidepressant Side Effect Checklist

192KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

I’ve worked hard to use language and categories that are accessible and reflective of how individuals actually experience these side effects — minimizing medical jargon.

While other nuanced questions could be asked about each item, including whether a particular symptom was “Mild,” “Moderate” or “Severe” (or not present at all), I’ve made each question simply a “yes” or “no” to reduce the cognitive load and make the checklist more doable. (I’d welcome feedback on the checklist and how I can make it better: jzhess@gmail.com).

None of this, of course, substitutes for professional medical advice. If anything in this list raises concern, the next step is not to make any changes on your own, but to begin new conversations with people you trust, including qualified professionals. Rapid changes — especially stopping suddenly — can make symptoms significantly worse.

That’s why it’s strongly advisable to work with a trusted medical professional in supervising decisions related to medication. And virtually always (unless you’ve only been taking a medication for a few months) — even if your doctor is recommending that you “cut the dose in half” — a decrease in medication often discussed in terms of gradual, stepwise reductions (for example, small percentage decreases over time)3

This checklist expands the scope of antidepressant effects worth considering, compared with both standard side-effect lists in the FDA Medication guides/FPI documents and earlier inventories that are more narrowly focused. For instance, in addition to other inventories reviewed earlier, American psychiatrist John Rush and colleagues developed the Patient Rated Inventory of Side Effects (PRISE) in the early 2000s as part of the STAR*D research project. What started off as only 8 questions is now a 32-question survey — but is not publicly available, to my knowledge.

Many of these inventories are either two decades old or simply too limited in the scope of side effects they take up. Other tools like the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale were developed by Scandinavian researchers to be more comprehensive across all psychiatric side effects. But again, this was created in 1987 and is now almost as old as I am!4

Two follow-up questions

There’s a lot to consider here. Let’s walk through two other questions some people will have.

1. Okay, but how frequent are any of these side effects?

To see a checklist of all potential side effects in one place can feel overwhelming. And it’s important to address a significant misconception about the true frequency of any given effect.

Please remember, especially, that this checklist aggregates possible symptoms that can emerge (or not emerge) from antidepressant treatment. And when a side effect does emerge, it may often only emerge for a short time.

Other side effects, of course, can be for a longer duration too.

This is important to keep front of mind so this antidepressant side effect checklist is seen for what it is (“these might show up”) — and not over-interpreted as something it’s not (“this is what someone is going to experience on SSRI antidepressants”).

It’s well-known, of course, that side effects vary in frequency. What’s been less appreciated is how different estimates of these frequencies also vary considerably. For example, rates reported in clinical trials — often based on short durations and spontaneous reporting (“if you notice something happening, let the researcher know, okay?”) — tend to be lower, while studies using structured assessments or longer-term follow-up tend to find higher prevalence for various side effects.

For example, estimates of sexual dysfunction accompanying antidepressants range from 2-8% in company trial data, while more systematic research finds rates as high as 70%. Although that gap is especially dramatic, the difference between reported side effects observed in clinical trials and rates reported in real-world experience is consistently significant, as illustrated by this table below (ordered from smallest to largest difference):

As you can see, while some side effects — like tremors, nausea5, yawning and appetite changes — show somewhat similar rates across clinical trials and real-world reports, others differ substantially.6

2. Does this apply to teens?

A majority of these side effects in the checklist can occur in both adults and teens, who experience most of the same medication-related effects as older adults. That includes the core symptoms most commonly experienced: GI issues (nausea, appetite), sleep changes, fatigue, anxiety / agitation, and neurologic symptoms (tremor, restlessness).

Sexual side effects can also occur in teens, even those who are not sexually active. Some effects — especially restlessness, emotional changes, or disturbing thoughts — may be more noticeable and especially important to monitor in younger individuals. Teens also experience higher sensitivity to activation — meaning, they are more likely to experience agitation, restlessness, feeling “sped up” and behaviorally disinhibited.

This might explain why a risk of suicidal thoughts and emotional volatility is also higher for teens taking antidepressants (hence, the black box warning). This is especially true during initial treatment or when dosage is changed.

This may also explain why emotional and identity effects may be stronger for teens — e.g., feeling “not like myself,” emotional blunting and social/relational changes.

Two areas not included in the checklist

This tool does not attempt to be all things for all people, with two areas I’ve held off in including for now.

1. Pregnancy-specific changes.

There are several pregnancy-related adverse changes that can happen in expectant mothers taking antidepressants, as documented by independent studies and patient/consumer websites. Those include increased risk of postpartum bleeding, preterm birth (delivery before 37 weeks), miscarriage (also called “spontaneous abortion” in some studies), lower birth weight, and temporary newborn symptoms (irritability, jitteriness, feeding/sleep issues, mild respiratory distress).

Heart defects can also unfortunately occur, especially with Paxil in the first trimester, which resulted in a $1 billion settlement in 2010 that GlaxoSmithKline paid involving hundreds of affected families.

I’ve chosen not to include those in this checklist, because of its current length and because they would not apply to most people taking the survey. Here are the ten questions that could be added for the subset of women for whom they would apply:

Pregnancy-related changes

If you were pregnant while taking an antidepressant, or shortly after, did you notice any of the following? Note: these experiences can have many causes, including underlying health conditions or pregnancy-related factors.

1. Heavier than expected bleeding during or after delivery (postpartum bleeding) ☐ Yes ☐ No

2. Delivery earlier than expected (before 37 weeks) ☐ Yes ☐ No

3. Lower birth weight than expected ☐ Yes ☐ No

4. Pregnancy loss (miscarriage) ☐ Yes ☐ No

5. Newborn irritability, jitteriness, or unusual fussiness ☐ Yes ☐ No

6. Low blood sugar, low body temperature, or poor muscle tone in the newborn period ☐ Yes ☐ No

7. Feeding difficulties in the newborn period ☐ Yes ☐ No

8. Sleep difficulties or unusual sleep patterns in the newborn ☐ Yes ☐ No

9. Breathing difficulties or need for extra monitoring after birth ☐ Yes ☐ No

10. A diagnosed heart condition in the baby (especially if exposure occurred early in pregnancy) ☐ Yes ☐ No

2. Long-term changes

The majority of items represented in the checklist reflect the evidence arising from short-term research upon which FDA review is based. Drawing on the longer-term antidepressant outcome research available, another section could be added that addresses other changes over time in how people’s mood, recovery, and treatment experience evolve across years.

I’ve opted to not include these questions in the checklist as well, since there is relatively little known about the full extent of how treatment and biological effects evolve over time. But based on what we do know from available research, these questions below represent an accurate glimpse, generally speaking, of the longer-term trajectory of symptom and side effect evolution many people experience over time.

Long-term changes

Some people also notice longer-term changes in how their mood, recovery, and emotional experience evolve over time. Once again, these patterns may also be influenced by many other circumstances across a life trajectory.

1. Depressive episodes becoming more frequent or returning more quickly than before ☐ Yes ☐ No

2. Depressive periods lasting longer than in the past or feeling less able to return to your previous level of well-being after an episode ☐ Yes ☐ No

3. A more persistent, harder-to-change low mood (including between episodes) ☐ Yes ☐ No

4. Feeling more sensitive to stress or more easily triggered into low mood than before ☐ Yes ☐ No

5. Emotional range becoming more limited over time (even if initially helpful) ☐ Yes ☐ No

6. Feeling stuck at a partial level of improvement or that your emotional baseline has shifted in a way that feels harder to change ☐ Yes ☐ No

7. Feeling like your mood or functioning increasingly depends on continuing the medication ☐ Yes ☐ No

8. Medication becoming less effective over time (e.g., needing higher doses or initial benefits like relief, motivation, or emotional lift fading) ☐ Yes ☐ No

Still not so easy to tell!

With any serious exploration of antidepressant side effects, humility is called for — for many reasons. First of all, the effect of any particular medication is expected to change over time, especially with dosage adjustments.

Second, our emotions can be naturally influenced from many different sources. And it’s naturally easy, when reading a list like this, to see oneself in many items. But that doesn’t mean all the changes apply or are medication-related.

Depression itself, as highlighted above, can also generate many difficult emotional effects. This creates a three-way ambiguity, with a given symptom potentially arising from the condition, the treatment, or the process of coming off the treatment.

Bottom line: even when an association exists, it’s difficult to say for sure what arises from what.

Obviously, correlation is not causation. Yet that doesn’t dismiss the value of correlations, which can teach us a lot — as long as we approach them in the right light.

Similar to the FIBSER (Frequency, Intensity, Burden of Side Effects Rating), we might also ask: how confident should any of us feel about whether a particular change is connected to antidepressant treatment, compared with something else?

One of the clearest ways to tell whether a medication has been contributing to any of these side effects is to make an adjustment (with appropriate supervision), and then observe whether the specific side effect changes — asking specifically:

• Does the effect get worse after a dosage increase?

• Does it improve after a dosage decrease or tapering?

These are challenging questions. So, let’s be humble. But we should also be serious. If a medication were making life harder, would we recognize it?

Above all, remember that awareness doesn’t require urgency. It simply opens the door to more informed and thoughtful decisions — made at the right pace, with the right support.

Notes:

Illustration by our wonderful neighbor, Jerika Anderson

I’m sympathetic to those who hear talk of eternity or resurrection or atonement … and start to feel like they’re dealing with abstractions — something far removed from the daily realities of life.

I used to feel more that way too, until the agony of life finally found me — the despair, the darkness and especially the death.

All of a sudden, life after death became as concrete as the little girl I was no longer holding in my arms. And resurrection, rather than centering mostly around ancient, miraculous stories, also became about dreamed-of future days with our Emma — pushing her on the swings one day, right next to her sister Olivia.

Both healthy, happy, seeing, laughing and free of pain and seizures (a future where wrongs are made right, and as Joseph Smith told a grieving mother in 1854: “You will have the joy, the pleasure and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit” — with other mothers who had lost children likewise reporting “he told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers.”)

This means a lot to us, because unless we’re given an unforgettable miracle, our daughter Olivia is not expected to live long. But our hope isn’t resting in any particular outcome — just as it isn’t dependent on brighter days we believe are coming in the future.

Christmas Day, 2025

A future to smile about

Don’t get me wrong: that future really does mean so much to us. It’s something we glimpse in the sweet moments that come and go in our own home (“Heaven is Christmas that doesn’t end”).

As a boy, I remember getting choked up watching that scene from “Field of Dreams” when Ray met his father as a young man. Now, though, it’s what happens next that I love even more.

When grown-up Ray asks his young-again-dad in “perfect form” (like all our loved ones will one day be): “Is there a heaven?”

“Oh yeah — it’s the place dreams come true.”

And then they throw a baseball together. When I see my brother Sam again — at that incredible family party of all parties — I’m totally planning to ask him to shoot some hoops with my boys.

No matter what hard things hit our family and our country in the days ahead, this bright future is a big part of why I’m hopeful, peaceful and happy. The “best really is yet to be!”

The source of my smile

But that future is not the only reason I feel hope. Because, once again, my faith rests on something more than an outcome — whether that’s how Olivia is doing now or in some glorious future.

My hope rests on the being of a person who rose from the grave a few years shy of 2,000 years ago — Someone I have felt personally thousands of times in my life: through staggering peace. Sweet joy. And incredible love… the kind that cannot be explained away as somehow coming from my own head and heart.

“If Christ had not come into the world … there could have been no redemption,” Abinadi taught in ancient America. “And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or (had) broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection” (here, he cites the prophet Hosea who lived 500 years earlier).

But then this man in chains before a wicked king shared what’s on my heart this morning too: “But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ.”

“He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death.”

This echoes what Christ said about himself when he came into the world — reassuring Martha as she grieved her brother’s death: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

“Believest thou this?” Jesus then asks.

I do! Some wonderful people in my life don’t. But I do.

That’s where my hope is anchored. That’s why I relish the beautiful song that goes, “He lives to silence all my fears, He lives to wipe away my tears, He lives to calm my troubled heart…”

And till the day I die, I’ll also sing, “I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream; And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’ I believe in Christ; so come what may, With him I’ll stand in that great day.”

No song better captures my excitement about that future day of resurrection than “I Will Rise,” by Evangelical artist Chris Tomlin (notice the swelling chorus of angels near the end, joining the celebration).

One day, those unforgettable reunions will happen — finally together at Christmas and every other day.

For now, Emma gets to celebrate Easter with Sam and Mary, Mom and all my cherished grandparents. I’m certain they are not far — not at all (“Angels all around us”).

We’ve felt the sweet spirit of Emma very close lately, as Olivia continues to face so much.

But that’s the thing: we’re fine. We’re good. We have a peace that goes beyond anything that makes sense.

And you can have that too. Dismiss the loud and angry voices, and those dripping with grievance or total cynicism. And listen to the quieter, sweeter, truer voice(s) — especially that “still voice of perfect mildness” that will tell you what’s really true and good and beautiful.

Don’t trust anyone else to tell you the truth about reality!

That way, you’ll be able to smile, no matter what. And when things get uglier and sadder in America (or your own life and home), you can close your eyes and remember what’s coming.

It’s going to be good — so good. And we don’t have to wait till that future comes to relish it! As the angel told King Benjamin, if we receive the message prophets have shared from the beginning, and continue to today, we can “rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though (Christ) had already come among them.”

As we remember all our loved ones who have gone before us, we can say like Juba says in Gladiator about his friend Maximus: “I will see you again…but not yet!”

What you’re about to read represents a single story, and should not be read as constituting medical advice. Everyone is different, and it’s always best to follow your own deepest sense and intuition, in counsel with family and professionals you trust.

My friend Jake began his Latter-day Saint mission five months after COVID lockdowns were implemented. While sharing the gospel is soul-stretching in the best of circumstances, pandemic restrictions added unique emotional strain: no approaching anyone in public, 15 minute restrictions on in-person interactions, and many hours of daily online interaction.

What made this more emotionally “grueling,” Jake told me, was an early companion who was abrasive and unkind — and who ignored important rules, which put this new missionary in uncomfortable situations.

This is precisely where it may have been helpful to reach out to other mission leaders, who I hope would have been eager to support. Yet Jake didn’t feel comfortable doing so. “For the first time in my life, my mental health began to crater,” he said.

After a great new companion offered him a “breath of fresh air,” Jake was then paired with someone else who “thrived on conflict” — generating “constant tension” that sent him over the edge physically, prompting significant weight loss and stress-induced vomiting.

The continued stress left his nervous system on “high alert,” Jake recalled. Mission numbers weren’t measuring up, and he described working with his companion to be creative in using their time well every day.

Jake remembers feeling “constantly exhausted from it all” — especially by “so much stress.”

When medical tests showed nothing physically wrong, he took a mental health evaluation that highlighted “anxious tendencies.”

Jake tried various things to help “calm his nerves” throughout his mission — from weighted blankets to cold showers — which “helped a little.”

Yet over the coming months, these emotional struggles worsened due to continued isolation and interpersonal conflict, combined with a sincere desire to “do the right thing” as a committed missionary, while being unsure whether or not he was.

Little things began to set him on edge — at one point, he remembers crying almost every day. Even with significant efforts to get feeling better, Jake felt discouraged to still be really struggling — thinking, “I’ve done everything and nothing is working!”

A new solution?

“Tell me a little bit about yourself — tell me why we’re meeting here today,” the new mission therapist shared with him on a Zoom call.

After Jake explained for a few minutes what he was struggling with, the therapist shared how she had read over his surveys and files and had spoken with the mission president as well: “It definitely sounds like you have depression and anxiety.”

Jake was told they had decided it would be best if he went on medication — a step she said they had prayed about and all felt good about. Additionally, they were recommending that he meet weekly with this therapist.

After being “desperate to feel any better,” Jake remembers feeling hopeful that medication may be able to “fix” the problem. Yet when he called his parents regarding the plan, they tried to pump the brakes a little: “Gosh, this seems so quick, Jake. Maybe we should think about this more and look at all our options?”

When his mom and dad said, “This is only one answer. Have we not looked into anything else?” Jake remembers responding: “They told me that they prayed about it and they told me that this is the right answer.”

The confidence these leaders had in sharing these recommendations mattered to him— all of them feeling assured this treatment would make a meaningful difference. Jake decided his parents simply didn’t really understand “what’s going on” with mental health problems generally.

Jake was quick to add that his parents remained an incredible support to him throughout his mission — describing how their constant communication offered a “solid foundation” for the ups and downs of his whole experience.

‘This will fix it’

Jake had seen medication make a difference for some other people — and for the first time, he felt like this was a “real answer.”

“I just remember being so desperate to not be stressed and sad anymore,” Jake recalled, thinking at the time: “This is the only way to fix this. There are no other options lying down in front of me.”

Jake has no memory of the treatment risks ever being explained to him. “I was not really told any of the risks … I was just told this is what will fix it.”

“Once I finally got some sliver of hope, I just ran with it,” Jake said, reiterating: “This is what everyone keeps telling me is the right way to go about this.”

Other sisters in the office were especially kind to him during this time, he said, helping him “feel the love of Christ.” Together, they even decorated a pillbox to make the experience feel “fun.”

‘I don’t feel good’

As Jake started the medication, however, he didn’t feel so great. Fatigue had been part of his experience before — with stress building up until it felt like he had “shut down” for a period.

Eventually, he would feel enough energy to pick himself back up again. But when he started taking the medication, Jake said he “lost all energy” and was in a state that felt consistently “zero energy,” with less breaks or bouncing back: “I would wake up tired, I would go throughout the day tired, and I would go to bed tired.”

“I couldn’t wake up before 9:00 a.m.,” Jake recalled. He kept meeting with the therapist — telling her: “hey, I don’t feel good. I don’t have any energy. I still feel awful.”

Although Jake wasn’t feeling the same sadness and stress after starting the medication, he described earlier discomfort morphing into something else: “I was so numb: no emotion or feeling, just kind of blank.”

“I would feel these things, but they wouldn’t stick. I wouldn’t care — but I would still care at the same time. I was just there — but still in it. Things felt gross,” he said.

Feeling worse, taking more

When his mental health support team found out he was feeling worse, Jake said they recommended that he increase the dosage.

The original plan had been to slowly increase the dosage over a period of months, but given how poorly he was feeling, they ended up raising the level to the full prescribed dosage over 3 weeks.

Pretty soon, Jake recalled having “zero energy — I couldn’t get out of bed.”

That’s when he started to notice several other uncharacteristic side effects. Jake started noticing gaps in his memory — where his companion would remind him of a visit or conversation he had no recollection of.

Jake also described more unusual emotional numbness, feeling generally “out of it.” He said, “I literally had zero emotion,” he said. “I felt absolutely nothing.”

“I kept telling the therapist, ‘I don’t think that this is working,’” he recollected. “And she would tell me to keep upping it.” Once he reached the maximum dosage allowed, the medical team turned to some recommended vitamins, such as B12.

“It got to the point where I had like this pill case with my meds and about six or seven other supplements that I was taking that she had recommended to me.”

“And I kept, just, not feeling good,” he said.

‘Feeling like a ghost’

After Jake returned home, he stayed on the antidepressant (Prozac). He assumed the medication was important to continue for his basic emotional well-being.

But he continued to feel poorly. His “zero energy” fatigue continued — struggling to get out of bed. At the family business where he worked, Jake was supposed to be there by 10 a.m., but he would miss shifts sleeping in until 3 o’clock in the afternoon.

Relationships were affected too, he said, as family members got more confused and concerned — asking: “what is wrong? What are we going to do?”

“I was not feeling great, I was constantly sick and tired,” he remembers — recalling a different doctor appointment each week, which included treatments to try to get his energy back through additional medication.

This made it “really hard to sleep and calm my brain down,” he recalls. “Like my brain wouldn’t stop” — which seemed to contribute to an increasingly “constant state of anxiousness.”

This prompted additional medications to “try to help put me to sleep.”

When Jake struggled to wake up, they tried to find another medication to help him “wake up.”

Eventually, his doctor said he had a “problem with turning his brain off” — and suggested that he consider an antipsychotic to help, in small amounts.

“It will kind of be like your brain is turned off,” his doctor cautioned.

“I remember I would cut my pill — a little baby pill — and I would cut it into fourths, and I would ingest that piece and I would lay in bed and it was like someone had switched off consciousness. It was one of the craziest feelings.”

“I remember staring into space, my mind completely blank, feeling like a ghost.”

‘I didn’t used to be this way’

Jake found himself getting angry at everything that had happened to him — especially when he compared it to back when he had felt better. “I’d never been like this in my life,” he remembers thinking.

“How did I get here? When did this start?”

Although he had struggled with stress and anxiety on his mission, Jake realized the feelings of hopelessness and heaviness had emerged later.

“I was like, ‘where did this start?’ … it was once I started all of these medications.”

‘I’m done’

At a doctor’s appointment, Jake recalls struggling to remember when to take each pill. “All the stuff had been bubbling and bubbling, and things were getting worse and worse, and worse,” he said, to where he finally reached a “breaking point.”

That’s when he remembered looking at his family doctor — this trusted support who had filled out his papers to help him get into the mission field — and telling him: “I’m done — I can’t keep doing this.”

“I’m just sick and tired of being sick and tired,” Jake remembers saying. ”I cannot keep doing this because it’s obviously not working.”

Jake had only been on the medications for six months, so he and the doctor felt it was safe enough to stop the medication without tapering [note: going slow is almost always the best way].

His doctor responded, “yeah, maybe we just kind of stop. We’ve tried all these different things — nothing seems to be working. Everything just kind of seems to be making things worse.”

“Why don’t we just kind of stop for a while and see how your body reacts,” this physician said.

‘Slowly the fog lifted’

Jake still struggled with energy for the first couple of weeks — and said it took about a month and a half to “get myself out of it.”

In our interview, he twice said that the best way to describe this experience afterward was like an “unthawing” or “de-thawing,” where “I slowly remember gaining consciousness.”

“Slowly, the fog lifted,” he said.

“I had been in such a deep hole with just everything,” Jake said, emphasizing how low his mood had been. And after stopping the medications, he described how he stopped getting into that darker place.

It wasn’t easy, and there were stressful times when he’d “kind of nosedive,” Jake noted. But overall, “I was slowly waking up and gaining my energy back.”

Finally, it got to a point where one day, Jake remembers saying: “oh my gosh, I feel normal again. Like, I don’t feel exhausted 24/7 and I am starting to feel these emotions again.”

His mood, he said, “just like crazy improved — like I wasn’t as sad anymore.”

Jake is quick to acknowledge the benefits he’s seen others receive from medication. But for him, he said that going off the medication was “one of the best decisions I’ve made.”

Looking back, Jake also learned some other things: “Maybe this isn’t the chronic condition I was told it was,” he remembers thinking. “Maybe it was more situational.”

“I’m learning now that I wasn’t crazy, and that there are many paths to healing.”

Today, Jake still feels some frustration about what happened — both towards his unhealthy companionships in the mission field and how quickly he was encouraged to start medication.

In retrospect, he feels like there was too much hurry to try and fix the problem quickly. But now, Jake is looking forward to what the future holds. He’s training to be a counselor himself — and he is grateful for the growth and lessons he’s gained through these experiences.

Two notes:

• This story cannot be syndicated or excerpted without written permission. I felt a trust by Jake to be able to publish his experience — and want to make sure it’s shared in a way that invites more awareness and thoughtful conversation about mental health and faith — ensuring that the story is not used in any other way.

• If you decide it’s right to begin tapering off any medication, that should ideally be done with the supervision of a medical professional — and very gradually and carefully (at 10% decrements, according to best practice). If you’re on multiple medications, the tapering usually needs to be one medication at a time — never all at once and certainly not “cold turkey,” which can be dangerous. Too often, even professionals believe a psychiatric medication can be discontinued quickly (“let’s cut the dose in half”), which can inadvertently lead to withdrawal effects significant enough to convince someone that getting of the medication is impossible.

I love Superman — though not as much as my good neighbor Dennis, with Superman painted on the hood of his awesome car. Ever since I first saw a caped Christopher Reeve saving the boy who was falling into Niagara Falls, this secular Savior-like figure has fascinated me.

In last year’s block-buster Superman movie, the centerpiece of the movie’s tension wasn’t the Kryptonite that almost finished the hero off. It wasn’t the Ultraman or gigantic kaiju monster he had to fight. And it wasn’t even the squirrel or dog the Man of Steel saved from certain squashedness.

Instead, it was the brilliant PR campaign Lex Luthor instigated to take pieces of uncomfortable truth about Superman’s life and use them to paint a darkly distorted picture of America’s hero of heroes as someone who was (if you really understand the truth about him) actually morally suspect, power-hungry and a legitimate threat to the American public, despite all his apparent niceness and goodness.

This isn’t simply a movie plot, however. It’s happening in real life, all around us … to many genuinely good causes, organizations and people.

‘Scary Superman’

On the face of it, it’s pretty obvious Superman is always good. Just look at everyone he saves!

But alas, a new historical tidbit has emerged in the 2025 James Gunn production, hinting at a sordid sexual scandal. Lex Luthor pounces, leveraging that information with the PR genius of a blood-thirsty corporation when a leak of its competitor reveals something unflattering.

The Metropolis media are all too ready to go along with Luthor’s hijinks. “Can’t say I’m surprised, Cleavis,” says a lower-level, wannabe superhero on a news program. “It’s guys like this, they always got a whole bunch of dark, ugly secrets.”

Like a bull led by the nose, thought leaders follow the polished Lex Luthor wherever he wants to take them.

Hating Superman

Along with all the lofty language about higher causes, viewers witness the deeper motivations behind Luthor’s deceptive, mean-spirited portrayal of Superman —especially the moment he declares his spite for a being he calls “it.”

“A thing with a cocky grin and a stupid outfit — that’s somehow become the focal point of the entire world’s conversation,” he says, continuing to describe Superman. “Nothing’s felt right since he showed up.”

My boys groan when I try applying movies to real life. But if you’ll indulge me, I couldn’t stop thinking about other examples of people doing great work, but getting smeared-and-spun into something unrecognizably awful.

Do you see that happening anywhere around you right now?

Those ‘scary’ people of faith

I sure do. It’s just so easy to do: taking pieces of uncomfortable truth to fashion an unflattering and deceptive picture of something deeply, ultimately, fundamentally good.

That’s not just a Rita Skeeter-Harry Potter thing. In fact, almost everything I consider truly beautiful and deeply good in the world, has been portrayed — in one way or another — as dangerous, reckless and something to be kept at arm’s length.

That includes dialogue, mindfulness and complementary/alternative approaches to healing — all of which have been framed in darkly suspicious tones. And then, of course, there’s my faith.

This movie came to mind when spotting yet another media spectacle criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ — this time, a Bravo series led by a former Latter-day Saint who had previously starred in “Real Housewives of Salt Lake City,” Heather Gay.

Given all the petty drama and childish feuds that make a show like “Real Housewives” famous, one would think that Gay might show a little public contrition —especially for the way she speaks so spitefully about her former family of faith.

But instead, this woman has doubled down — going all-in in denigrating her former faith with a calumnious assemblage of different people grinding an axe against my faith — all of which is presented as definitive evidence of how appalling the church is, so much so that it’s something to be “survived.”

If a Bravo hit-piece is your barometer of truth, that probably settles it.

‘By their fruits’

But maybe you’re someone who wants something more before reaching a conclusion about truth. Maybe you’re not satisfied that reality TV stars really offer you the best glimpses of the full truth.

That would be a good call. It’s smart to be careful who we trust to tell the truth about reality.

In the end, I believe the truth of everything comes out — including for Superman.

At the close of the movie, a news broadcaster proclaims: “We all owe Superman an enormous apology. He is, of course, the hero we always thought he was.”1

But in that earlier darker moment, when he’d been smeared before the whole world, Clark Kent got some great advice from his simple, loving father.

“I’ll tell you something, son...Your choices, Clark. Your actions ... that’s what makes you who you are.”

That’s true for all good things.

• It’s not what the loudest voices say about you online.

• It’s not what overall public opinion says about you either.

• It’s about how you live, what you say, and the good you bring into the world —aka, “your fruits.”

“Ye shall know them by their fruits,” Jesus famously said. “Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Watch the fruits. And the whole picture.

Along with people who are trustworthy in their interpretations of reality.

That way, you’ll see light and goodness for what it is — and be able to dismiss those trying to persuade you otherwise.

April, 2025 cover of Rolling Stone 

Benson Boone is a “big deal” by at least two important metrics. First, this Grammy-nominated musician had the most-streamed song in the world in 2024, with 2 billion total streams by early 2025.

Second, every girl in my wife’s church group knows his music. What these 8-10-year-old girls may not know is Benson used to identify as Latter-day Saint, just like they do.

But something made him step away … or rather, a perceived lack of something. In a March 2025 interview, Benson Boone told Brian Hiatt with Rolling Stone, “Growing up, a lot of people at church would talk about these experiences that they’ve had and these personal revelations and feelings.”

But he then explained that, as a young teenager, he hadn’t had spiritual experiences like the ones others described - at least none he recognized: “I never felt it as physically present as they did, and so I was always confused and frustrated,” he said.

Then, Boone added: “I was always scared to bring that up to people because I just didn’t want to accept that, like, I wasn’t feeling what everyone else was feeling.”

Not ‘feeling what everyone else was feeling…’

I asked my boys the other day at dinner, “what would happen if you were praying and reading your scriptures regularly, but started thinking ‘hey, I’m not feeling a whole lot?’ What would you do next?”

It’s probably pretty typical for people to take a moment like this as some definitive indicator of reality - maybe a natural way anyone responds to a particular emotional state:

• “I’m feeling horribly sad … that means my life and the world are just so dreary.”

• “I’m so scared inside … so obviously my life and the world are intolerably fearful.”

• “I’m feeling drawn to that person or experience or substance … so therefore my happiness depends on getting it.”

• “I’m not feeling the attraction in this relationship … so I think maybe we’re just not good for each other?”

In every case, of course, we could respond differently - seeing each state as something we are experiencing - and not as a definitive representation of “who we are” or our reality as a whole.

From that stance, we could then work with our unsatisfying or uncomfortable experiences in creative and patient ways: watching, waiting and nourishing a new kind of experience to emerge.

In simpler terms, this is what came out of our conversation as a family:

“I’d keep praying,” one of my sons said, in response to my question about hypothetically facing the same experience as Benson.

A cloud of witnesses

My son’s simple faith represents well the wisdom of Christian believers across ages. For instance, a beloved Spanish priest from the 16th century, Ignatius of Loyola taught, “Seek God in dryness. Faithfulness in prayer when you feel nothing is more pleasing to God than prayer in consolation.”

And St. John of the Cross wrote, “In the dark night of the soul, bright flows the river of God.”

More recently, Catholic contemplative Thomas Merton writes, “the soul that is faithful to God will go on believing even when God seems absent.”

And in our tradition, former President Russell M. Nelson of the Church of Jesus Christ encouraged us to “exercise faith and trust in the Lord even when heaven seems silent.”

“If you are doing your best and still feel nothing, do not be discouraged,” likewise taught Elder Neal A. Maxwell. “God honors faith that persists in the absence of immediate evidence.”

“Even when God seems distant,” said Elder David A. Bednar more recently, “He is closer than we think.”

And one of my favorites comes from President Jeffrey R. Holland: “Some blessings come soon, some come late, and some don’t come until heaven; but for those who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, they come.”

Feelings, and words, and experiences

It’s true that Latter-day Saints relish the sweetness of spiritual communion, especially the “fruits” Paul taught the Galatians help us identify God’s presence: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

In one of my favorite Book of Mormon passages, a people in a state of great fear hear the voice of God: “And it came to pass when they heard this voice, and beheld that it was not a voice of thunder, neither was it a voice of a great tumultuous noise, but behold, it was a still voice of perfect mildness, as if it had been a whisper, and it did pierce even to the very soul.”

But our basis for God’s reality certainly go beyond feelings. “Feelings come and go,” Martin Luther famously said, before encouraging attention to the actual text of scripture: “My warrant is the Word of God.”

Words and feelings eventually translate into actual experiences that we can identify as further evidence - including, yes, experiences saturated with unexpected emotion. For instance, a peace that goes beyond our normal understanding - or a joy that takes our breath away - these have been signs of higher realities in my life.

Yet rather than trying to “figure it out” or forcing an experience through extreme religiosity, this is also about patience, gentleness and space. “The quieter you become, the more you can hear,” taught spiritual teacher Ram Dass.

Staying and seeking

In practice, this might simply mean sticking with it - and not just running off when you’re not “feeling what you’re supposed to” in a marriage, or a friendship - or a faith. “Sometimes the most powerful prayer is simply staying,” says American author Anne Lamott.

All this is what I hope for my boys. That they will keep digging deeper when their well of faith seems dry. Rather than an experience Christians have, I would say this kind of faith test is fairly universal across anyone seeking to follow Christ. (I can’t help but think my friends of other faiths would say something similar).

For us, the end result of all this is captured beautifully in a divine message given to Jeremiah: “Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

Seeking. Staying. Quieting. Studying. Persisting. Hoping. Trusting. Seeking. Believing.

All this is a wise and wonderful way to respond to a “lack of feeling” - whether in a family or a faith.

But it’s not what Benson did.

Instead, according to the Rolling Stone interview, he eventually shared his disappointment in not feeling more spiritually with a friend, who replied, “Thank goodness. I feel the same way.”

And just like that, further opportunities to go deeper can get short-circuited - e.g., “well, this isn’t working for me. I’m done.”

But that’s not how it has to go. In a moment, you can be digging deeper spiritually again - and reaching higher.

As Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz both say in a movie I’ve never seen: “Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around.”

That’s true for my boys - and for world-famous musicians.

Keep listening, Benson Boone.

Do you have an early memory of young, sweet attraction that was reciprocated? Many do, although not everyone. If you do, you know the exhilaration and purity of that moment.

In a secularizing, sexualizing society where romance is increasingly equated with physical hunger and bodily lust, this—I think—is so important to remember: Romance in its simplest and truest form is pure and sweet….the kind that captures minds and hearts in middle/high school—illustrated by the lovely story of Drake and Ann Maye’s sweet romance that I wrote about for Deseret News this week.

Then there’s the 80-something couple sitting on the back row at Church that can’t stop talking about how much they love each other. We’ve all seen these cute couples as well—at every age of life.

Photo by Esther Ann on Unsplash (the photographer’s parents, taken Christmas 2017)

In between those sweet moments—somewhere along the line—beautiful romance can be undermined, subverted, gutted and killed. But, how?

That’s the question I’ve been pondering for twenty years now, ever since interviewing people for my first book in 2013, “Once upon a time, he wasn’t feeling it anymore.” I heard stories over and over about rapidly evaporating sweetness:

• “Initially, I felt a crush and attracted … but there would come a point where I just felt nothing anymore; I just had no affection for the person. They were just like anyone else.”

• “After two to three months, my heart would start to dry up toward that person. I would let her down as gently as I could.”

• “My affection would die over time after the initial excitement of dating someone wore off. I have suddenly changed a number of times.”

• “I broke up with a wonderful girl three times because the bubbling feeling had faded.”

• “We date, things are great, we’re happy, good to go—then it just drops off.”

• “It was always super exciting and butterflies and fireworks—and always around six months, he would lose interest. And I would get clingy and try to convince him to stay.”

Notice that none of these are a long-term process. Each happens with stunning rapidity—so much so, the couple also seems disoriented and surprised.

No wonder so many people are turned off from dating, with only 30% of young people expressing interest, according to research we reported this week at Deseret News.

A similar confusion happens to married couples who knelt across the altar from each other, genuinely excited and drawn to each other …. only to feel deeply estranged within a matter of years or even months.

But, once again, why?

An impossible story of romance

In my book, I proposed that many young (and old) people were embracing a story about romance that was effectively killing the very love they cared so much about…by overloading the relationship with inhuman, otherworldly expectations and demands.

As philosopher Simon May at King’s College in London puts it: “We expect love to be a ... journey for the soul, a final source of meaning and freedom ... a key to the problem of identity, a solace in the face of rootlessness ... a redemption from suffering, and a promise of eternity. Or all of these at once. In short: love is being overloaded.”

By requiring love to reflect “superhuman qualities,” May continues, we force relationships to “labor under intolerable expectations,” ultimately “demanding from the loved one far more than they can possibly be.”

By the way, although it’s a bit dated, you’re welcome to download a copy of this book’s PDF for free here:

Once Upon A Time, He Wasn't Feeling It Anymore

1.23MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

(A condensed version of the book’s themes is also available here: ​”What’s Hijacking So Many Beautiful Relationships?”)

Once again, it’s not just dating relationships that are getting overloaded. Historian Stephanie Coontz likewise describes “unprecedented goals for marriage”—saying, “Never before in history had societies thought that such a set of high expectations about marriage was either realistic or desirable.”

In addition to expecting otherworldly emotion, many couples sincerely believe this feeling should always be there. As one writer says, that “if human love ever wanes, then it wasn’t love in the first place.” In one study of romantic beliefs, 65% of people reported believing that “the intense passion of the first stages, if it is real, will last, or it should last, forever.”

A more honest and healthy story of romance

The truth, as emphasized by renowned author M. Scott Peck, is that “No matter whom we fall in love with, we sooner or later fall out of love if the relationship continues long enough. This is not to say that we invariably cease loving the person with whom we fell in love. But it is to say that the feeling of ecstatic lovingness that characterizes the experience of falling in love always passes.”

Listen to that carefully: “Always passes.” That’s true for Brad and Angelina. And for you, too. There are many influences on ebbing romantic feelings, ranging from stress and trauma, to medications and health conditions.

The real question is what you’re going to do next. For starters, don’t panic. A moment of feeling less romantic excitement can be uniquely challenging—even terrifying—for both dating and married couples today.

So, if that happens for you, and you’re “not feeling it anymore,” hold on.

The good news is you don’t have to approach evolutions in romantic attachment as a crisis or tragedy. Instead, try approaching a softening of feelings as another opportunity to show love. That’s exactly what Dr. Scott Peck suggests: “It is when a couple falls out of love [that] they may begin to really love. ... True love happens after the love starts to fade.”

Inspired by Jay Leno

Jay Leno’s the kind of guy that has the money and status to do whatever he wants. But when his wife of 45 years got dementia, he said, “I like taking care of her. I enjoy her company, and we have a good time... That’s really what love is. That’s what you do,”

“When you get married, you sort of take a vow: ‘Will I live up to this?” he said in an interview.

I’m inspired by Leno—just as I was watching my father and grandfather take care of their sweethearts amidst cancer and strokes, with even more tenderness. We need these examples of true love, as my friend Alan Hawkins reminded people in his lovely article, “Let your marital light shine: A call to cute old married couples everywhere”

Lovely image by my colleague Michelle Budge at Deseret News

Needing something more?

Although we all need good examples and better narratives, I’m persuaded we all need something more. That alone won’t be enough to lift people out of deep woundedness and heartache.

There’s something deeper needed, as reflected in this lovely Casting Crowns video:

Many couples have found, as reflected in the group Recovery Couples Anonymous, that without a higher power interceding in their relationship, they can’t be delivered from the bondage they are experiencing together.

Terry Warner’s clear and effective description of “collusion” between couples, and guidance on how to shift out of resentment and a “heart at war” towards a “heart at peace” is also incredibly helpful, outlined in “Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationship, Coming to Ourselves”:

Ten questions to honestly ask yourself

The sad reality is that many beautiful couples with enormous possibilities for future happiness are being sideswiped—overwhelmed by the belief (and demand) that they’re supposed to feel more right now. If that describes you, it’s crucial to ask yourself some questions:

1. Have you ever felt your own marriage or dating relationships weighed down by these kinds of heavy expectations?

2. Where did you learn what romance is supposed to feel like?

3. Do you believe that if passion fades, something must be wrong?

4. Have you ever expected one person to meet needs that used to be met by community, faith, or family?

5. What story of romance are you living inside? And is that story helping your love grow — or hollowing it out?

6. How do you think that relationships could be different if those expectations and demands were lifted?

7. Have you ever—now or in the past—experienced a shift in your own feelings of attraction or romantic excitement toward someone you love? If so, were you able to approach that with wisdom and patience—or were you tempted to do something more drastic and dire?

8. Are you prepared for the fact that even the best love stories will include seasons of quiet?

9. What if real romance isn’t found in constant intensity, but in chosen devotion? When the fireworks fade, will you run—or will you build?

10. What if the sweetness of early romance isn’t meant to be sustained at the same pitch—but deepened into something quieter, steadier, and more resilient?

Above all, stay hopeful in the possibility of sweet love returning powerfully

Each Valentine’s Day, we have a tradition of showing our boys a movie that captures beautiful and healthy romance (prompted by those years when they were “disgusted by girls!”)

This year, we read the scriptural description of “true love” or charity that “suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

Then, we showed them this older movie with Katherine Heigl, “Love Comes Softly,” (available for free below), still one of the most beautiful depictions of true love that grows over time:

I’d also recommend, “The Painted Veil” as an illustration of a marriage healing from a wound of deep betrayal (be ready for a brief scene at the beginning that’s illustrating the false excitement of the wife’s early betrayal). Such a beautiful movie!

Bottom line: Don’t let prevailing, popular, seductive narratives of love and romance set the terms for your relationship. Unless there is genuine abuse taking place, don’t allow them to push you around and bully you into giving up.

Stay hopeful for miracles that can still happen, and reach for people who can help you find that, including the Living God who’s surely rooting for you too more than anyone else.

This commentary was published in Deseret News and Yahoo News on Friday night, Feb. 6, “The Super Bowl is a thrilling spectacle. Here’s why I skip it.” I wanted to share it here, along with several bolded additions and some photos that I didn’t share in the original version.

In the 2015 movie “Concussion,” the character Dr. Cyril Wecht says, “The NFL owns a day of the week. The same day the church used to own. Now it’s theirs.”

Only it’s not that way for everyone. Utah grandfather Ted Barley recalled watching the first Super Bowl in 1967. As a teenage boy watching with his father, he cheered Vince Lombardi’s Green Bay Packers, led by Bart Starr, to victory over the Kansas City Chiefs.

Barley has enjoyed the big game many times since, “especially for the commercials,” he admits. But something shifted for him more recently.

“A few years ago, I just decided this wasn’t the best use of the Sabbath,” Barley told me — concluding that football wouldn’t be a part of his Sundays anymore as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I’ll never forget where I was as a teenager when the Denver Broncos played the San Francisco 49ers in the 1990 Super Bowl. Living in the NFL desert of Utah, sheer geographic proximity forced us to pick between John Elway’s squad and the mighty Joe Montana and Jerry Rice.

But our family would not be tuning in. Mom had made other plans, arranging a Sunday night visit to a nursing home. As we walked down those hallways with uncomfortable smells, my brother and I craned our necks to catch a glimpse of the score as it played loudly for residents.

A scene like this might be a great opening for the latest tell-all memoir of a sadly deprived childhood within a home of high religious expectations. But that’s not my argument at all.

It’s precisely the chance to hold to a boundary like this, on a day “unlike all other” days, that I’ve found to be so good for my soul. So much so that I’m making my best pitch today for why you might consider opting out of this weekend’s garish cultural extravaganza entirely.

The Super Bowl cultural conversation

Most prominent arguments for skipping the Super Bowl, of course, cite any of the various sociopolitical complaints sparking calls for boycott in our hyperpolarized times. Those center especially on the political shtick of certain halftime performers.

Other conservative family groups have taken issue with perceived dark, occult and sexually explicit symbolism around certain halftime performances — ranging from 2020 graphic pole dancing by Shakira and Jennifer Lopez to Bruno Mars singing “your sex takes me to paradise” in 2014 or Katy Perry twerking with Lenny Kravitz in 2015. Then there are all those GoDaddy, Carl’s Jr. and Victoria’s Secret ads.

“More than any other event on the planet,” writes Matthew S. Vos, a professor of sociology at Covenant College, the Super Bowl “draws together consumerism, eroticism, entertainment, gambling, violence ... celebrity, and heady nationalism into a liturgical expression that has captured our hearts and minds like no other.”

Believers “promote it as a public good worthy of a perennial spot on the church calendar. Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and Super Bowl Sunday,” the Christian scholar continues.

“When we momentarily turn away from an eroticized half-time performance, mute a commercial that ventures a bit too far into the profane, or gloss over (other details) that stand at odds with our faith and theologies,” Vos suggests “we sanitize the event just enough to make it palatable.”

Diverse families of faith

While all these are worthy conversations to have, my argument is far simpler. Although I enjoy a good football game like the next American, in 48 years of life, I’ve never watched the Super Bowl — or any Sunday football, mostly because that’s not what this day is for, according to many Christian traditions.

That’s what my father taught me, at least, from watching him never turn on Sunday football in all the years of my childhood (after enjoying plenty of great Saturday BYU football games). But on Sunday, Dad and Mom kept turning our attention somewhere else as a family.

When some of my friends regaled us with exciting stories about the big game the next day at school, I did sometimes feel left out. But I also sensed they might be left out of something I got to be a part of.

Sundays in the Hess home growing up

And what was that? A family practice that put something and someone else above the astronomical popularity of the game — symbolized by a line we refused to cross as a family.

I’ll pause here to say that I know plenty of God-fearing friends who draw different lines for their families — and I respect that. I have so many friends who see this as a wonderful chance to gather their families.

Also, some of those commercials are brilliant and often inspiring, like the “He Gets Us” series debuting in 2022 and featured again this year in their Super Bowl spot “More.”

So, this isn’t about getting judgy. If anything, the cultural judgment comes down harder on families who opt out of the guac and chip festivities.

Sabbath as retreat

Later in my life, I had to choose for myself what to do outside of my parents’ gaze. During college, I didn’t like Sunday being just another study day, and enjoyed the emotional break of preserving the day as something special, even if I had to stay up late Saturday and get up early Monday morning. I did so well academically that I ended up becoming a college valedictorian and getting admitted to my dream graduate program at the University of Illinois.

Sunday became an emotional refuge for me — a time I was allowed to mentally lay everything else aside, so I could make space for what felt most important. For me, at least, if I don’t have space enough for real stillness and quiet, my connection to God gets flat and I start to feel so distant.

As a young father, exhausted with young children, my wife and I found ways to make the Sabbath more of a mini-retreat for our little family — something Carrie Skarda and I ended up writing about in our books about mindfulness for Latter-day Saints.

This “delightful” Sabbath goes well beyond ‘whatever sounds like fun’ — that is, “not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words” (Isaiah 58:13 ASV).

For those who “stop doing and saying whatever you please on this special day,” Isaiah makes clear that something truly profound can begin to shift inside: “You will truly enjoy knowing the LORD” (CEV). In other words:

• “Then the LORD will be your delight.” (NLT)

• “Then you will find your joy in the LORD” (NIV)

That doesn’t mean worshipping all day, but it does mean we keep exploring ways to design the day to reach for something higher. That often includes one-on-one time with our boys to check in, and together as a couple.

But my favorite activity is being able to stop and hold my daughter while we’re just together as a family…in so many variations: sometimes talking and reading, sometimes reminiscing or planning, sometimes playing a game or eating, sometimes praying and singing, and sometimes watching something uplifting.

Boys and boundaries

Now I have teenage boys of my own who eat, drink and sleep basketball. When we’re not looking, their favorite evening diversion is to check ESPN for the latest score updates.

Playing and watching sports together has been an incredible blessing as a family. Yet during the NBA playoffs, I extended the same challenge my father gave me — “let’s make this a day unlike any other day — where we show God what’s most important.”

They still had a choice. But I’ll never forget watching my teenage son going to bed Sunday night with no idea whether his beloved Golden State Warriors had won the decisive game.

That waited till Monday morning — a small thing, maybe. But not on the scale of his heart.

I marveled at this young boy’s willingness to voluntarily put something higher than his beloved Steph Curry.

At least for a day.

A day unlike all days

I know some may still see this as prudishly absurd, perhaps even wondering if we’re harming our boys with “high demand” standards that seem so old-fashioned. I wish these cynics could see and feel what they’re missing.

An entire day to place the Living God first in our lives — with nothing else allowed to intrude. I’ve found that experience profoundly changes the complexion of our family and the week ahead, like leaven in the loaf.

This used to be more intuitive to Americans. For much of our nation’s history, stores were closed on Sunday across the nation, something that only began changing significantly in the 1960s-1970s.

In 1917, police arrested managers of the New York Giants and Cincinnati Reds for trying to arrange a Sunday baseball game (New York legalized Sunday baseball two years later — with Pennsylvania the last state to legalize it in 1933).

No one wants to return to criminalizing behavior on Sunday. But in a world where so few boundaries seem to exist anymore — and those that do are constantly crossable and negotiable — I believe that teaching my boys this lesson matters enormously.

Simply put, I want my sons to be able to see and feel everyone doing something else — even things wildly popular — and have the inner ability to choose differently.

Of course, there are many ways to teach children this: Will you drink that substance when everyone else is? Watch that video when it looks so exciting? Say that word when you get frustrated?

You’ll make a good choice on the right red lines for your family. I will admit, it can still be hard to resist the cultural pull as a family when everyone else seems to be doing it.

Don’t feel bad for us. I’m grateful this isn’t what the weekend is for us. Sunday is, by far, the happiest, sweetest day of my week I look forward to more than any other. I just don’t think I’d feel that way if it was yet another day full of the same kinds of distractions as other days.

Hey, we still find ways to enjoy football. For me, ten minutes of highlights Monday morning is good enough, while my friend Ted Barley watched the last Super Bowl early Monday morning with his daughter Debi — pinky-swearing with each other to not check the score.

There’s something relieving and comforting for me to know there’s a day “unlike all others” in our home — a day where football and politics, Mr. Beast and Mr. Trump, are all refused entry.

As we watch people fighting for their freedom in Venezuela, Iran and Ukraine, the voices of American isolationists are loud in our ears: “Stay out of other countries’ business”…”we’ve got enough problems on our own soil”….“We cannot be the world’s policeman.”….”we’ll just make it worse — we can’t really do any good anyway!”…”why would you trust American intervention anyway?”

There are good reasons that my fellow Americans arrive at these positions. Our history cautions against foolish and reckless steps overseas — especially when they undermine a country’s democratic choices, because the U.S. leaders didn’t like that decision (Guatemala in 1954 or Chile in 1970-73).

In fact, it was also in Iran in 1953 that the U.S. CIA instigated a coup against popular, democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh. People have reasons to be wary of U.S. intervention in other countries’ affairs.

But they’re wrong to be so categorically cynical and militant about military support for other countries — especially when that is in line with the desperate yearning of freedom-seeking people.

In Venezuela and Iran, like Ukraine, it’s a situation where these people deeply want exactly what we have: liberty.

To insist, even in these cases, that the morally righteous thing is to stay away — or get as little involved as possible (surely never directly) - is to miss out on what that precious liberty could mean for these people, and to consider it might well be worth that sacrifice.

It’s especially galling to hear some of these isolationists wrap their arguments in “peace” claims — describing their refusal to interfere in “pacifist” terms, without acknowledging what our own inaction and isolation could mean for people living through horror and an entire absence of any peace (for instance, the tens of thousands of detained protesters in Iran).

The parable of the unaccountable bully

Once upon a time, a vulnerable boy got targeted by a much bigger goon on the playground. Everyone knew it wasn’t a fair fight. They knew the little tyke was going to get pounded without some assistance.

But … out of fear to trigger a broader fight with this same bully, the other kids on the playground backed off. They refused to get involved — at least not directly.

Sure, many of them would still pull the victim aside when they could — telling him how brave he was and offering fighting tips or creative techniques to get the upper hand. Some would slip him some extra snacks now and then to cheer him up a bit.

But nothing more. At a safe distance, they watched day by day, week by week, as the enormous bully brought his rage down upon this most unfortunate, vulnerable boy.

Even as the consequences compounded, the wounds, the blood, the agony — the children on the playground hewed to their principles with decisiveness. They were confident in having taken the middle school’s “moral high ground,” and they were going to stick with that.

After all, how reckless would it be to risk a wider escalation of the conflict?

Ukraine needs something more

I am 100% sure, as a wanna-be historian, that one day in the future, our children and grandchildren will look back with horror on why humanity didn’t do anything more directly to help Ukraine in its unfair fight against Russia.

“Why did you just watch Russia do that to the Ukrainians?”

“Hold on, now, we gave them all sorts of money and weapons!” — which of course, we have done and need to keep doing, at a minimum. I’m sure the Ukrainian people have also appreciated the heartwarming “visits” and “messages of solidarity.”

But let’s not pretend that this country hasn’t desperately needed way more than that from the Western powers — from the very beginning.

This is something the country deserved to expect from us as well. When Ukraine willingly gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994, they were assured in a joint multi-nation memo that other nations would not use military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine — and that if they did the United States and other nations would “seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance.”

That assistance has come, all from a safe distance, while we watch the smaller nation daily get assaulted, attacked, besieged…over and over, with an estimated 46,000 to 140,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed, along with at least 15,000 citizens. As many as 20,000 to 35,000 children have also been forcibly moved to Russia and as many as 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers are in brutal captivity).

All this we watch, day by day — when not tuning in to our favorite sports championship, concert or hit movie. And we pat ourselves on the back, of course, for the moral wisdom of avoiding a wider conflict.

Iran needs more help too

Now the brave people of Iran are getting massacred — especially those daring to ask for more freedom. While 6,159 deaths is cited as a baseline, no one really believes it’s that low, with other estimates of as many as 30,000 people killed (and another 49,000 detained, which many see as a fate even worse than death).

These are fellow children of God equally precious in His eyes. Yet even in the face of such brutality against brothers and sisters, armchair commentators sit back and scold anyone who dares to hope that the U.S. would actually do anything to step in.

But, of course, it’s President Donald Trump himself who assured the Iranian protesters that he would step in if they were harmed, as I wrote about for Deseret News earlier this month. First here:

Then here:

NBC News likewise reported yesterday that “Through carnage of the government crackdown, Iranian protesters looked to Trump.”

At least some people really come into the streets “based on those statements,” as one relative of an arrested protester told CNN. For instance, the family of Siavash Shirzad attempted to dissuade him from joining the protest. According to Karim Sadjadpour in the Atlantic, this 38-year old responded, “Trump said he supports us. I’m going.”

He was among those killed.

Yet the high-minded isolationist lectures continue: “Diplomacy is the only way”... “de-escalate and bring these countries to the negotiating table” they opine, never realizing that there can be no negotiation with a government slaughtering its people, any more than you’d strike a deal with a murderer.

This reality seized me by the throat weeks ago as I was researching “Iran’s 250-year fight for freedom” for the Deseret News — a pursuit that’s been achingly, heartbreakingly rewarded with little more than blood and terror, over and over.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said as Iran’s protest was flaring up, “I have covered these kinds of uprisings in other countries around the world, one of the things I’ve learned is that the slogan that ‘the people united will never be defeated,’ it’s not true.”

Citing China’s Tiananmen in 1989 and the Arab Spring starting in 2010-2011, this brilliant commentator warned, “there are very courageous democratic movements that simply can be crushed with machine guns.”

That’s exactly what happened in Iran, with the resulting horror buried in mass graves throughout the country, with surviving family warned not to ask any further questions.

An appeal from U.S. history

Some would be outraged by the insinuation Americans should do more for either people. But are we not our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper?

This is not about simply pouring more money into any of these countries — or throwing more weapons at them — although both will continue to be critical at times. (Ukrainian weapon shortfalls are leading to tragedies).

When I try to get in the mind and heart of those insisting on American isolation, I hear something at work inside them like this: “avoiding war is of such utmost importance, that this principle exceeds all else in importance.”

On that basis, of course, many people advocated strongly against the U.S. getting involved in World War II, despite the horrors perpetrated against the Jews we were hearing about. Those isolationist appeals that were persuasive to our leaders, until we got hit at Pearl Harbor.

Did Marquis de Lafayette feel or experience similar moral resistance at first, after considering coming to the aid of the nascent 13 colonies picking a seemingly hopeless fight against that era’s bully, Great Britain?

You bet he did. He faced resistance at nearly every turn. The French crown forbade officers from supporting the American rebellion — while Lafayette’s family warned he was risking his life for a romantic cause with little chance of success. But his decision, at age nineteen, to sail in secret on a ship he himself purchased to support the American cause paved the way for a formal French alliance in 1780 that added 5,500 troops to the American cause.

Around the turn of the twentieth century, Henry A. Ogden painted this scene of George Washington reviewing French troops at the Philipsburg encampment, the first time the allies shared a camp during the Yorktown campaign.

That help made a huge difference to U.S. independence. While the colonies might still have prevailed without the French support, some believe the rebellion could have collapsed from exhaustion or turned into a negotiated settlement short of full independence.

Reservations were eventually overcome, and history changed completely. We owe our freedom as Americans, in part, to the French. Are we willing to extend our support to other countries seeking their freedom too?

I hope and pray so. Please add your prayers this weekend too, as President Trump considers action.

There are 90 million Iranians yearning for their freedom, 29 million Venezuelans, and, of course, 36 million Ukrainians (along with 5 million Iranians, 7 million Ukrainians and 8 million Venezuelans living as refugees outside their preferred homelands). If the United States under President Donald Trump can do something that makes a difference for them securing that, history may ultimately smile favorably on the 45th and 47th U.S. President.

And I will too!

The first two images were created with the help of ChatGPT AI

Sometimes the weather is sunny. Sometimes it’s stormy. And sometimes a tornado hits.

That’s kind of how our mind and heart are too. Depending on the day, and even the moment, different thoughts and feelings come and go like weather patterns in the sky. At certain points, the mind and heart can be pushed so far that extreme mental and emotional states arise. What to do then?

“I was so devoid of hope—so devoid of hope—and felt so alone . . . my world had become so small that I didn’t see any light at the end of the tunnel,” a woman told us about her experience with emotional struggles.

“When you’re actually in these negative storms that can last months and even years,” said University of Miami cognitive neuroscientist Amishi Jha in an interview, “it’s very hard to think that it’s possible to step outside of it. It is your world.”

In this class, we use the word “mindweather” to capture the wide spectrum of mental and emotional experiences we experience as human beings.

Do mental or emotional problems have to feel this hopeless—in a way that they dominate and control our lives?

“My life really had shrunken to the point where I just saw myself as mostly this mentally ill person who would be dependent on psychiatrists and therapists to get through life,” another woman said. “I was told by one professional, ‘Maybe one day you’ll get your life together enough that someone will marry you. . . . Maybe you’ll have a job one day.’”

This class was designed to speak to that woman or man, and to the many people who love this individual desperately. Along with this other preview of the class, we created this trailer on “learned hopelessness.”

The last 30 years have seen literally tens of thousands of research studies emerge on the roots of this pain—and ways people might find their way to deeper, more sustainable healing. That’s what you’re going to hear about in this class - something Clay Olsen and I elaborate in our new book coming out this year too.

The insights and patterns we review are broadly applicable across a wide range of conditions, from depression and anxiety, to ADHD, eating disorders and even delusion/schizophrenia.

Introspective, not prescriptive

Our aim is certainly not telling you what to do or making specific recommendations about your situation necessarily. Those are questions only you can settle for sure, with your loved ones and any professionals you trust along the way.

Instead, our aim in this class is simply to help you think more carefully about some of the core questions and issues at the heart of mental and emotional disorder.

Outline

As detailed in an introduction video (that you can probably skip because you’re reading this), the class exploration will center around two key questions currently being asked by millions facing these problems: First, where are these problems coming from?

Secondly: How can we best respond to, and attempt to work with these kinds of mental and emotional problems? What kind of help can I offer my friend, family member—or myself—to really start feeling better: and not just for a good week or two. The rest of the course covers this ground.

Be patient, go gradual + maybe, don’t skip?

Some of this material will stretch you. And that’s why we don’t rush through it - giving it time to really allow you to absorb it. This means it’ll take a little more patience…especially when that voice says “I want to do this at double speed!”

You may wonder about trying to get through the whole class in one day. We don’t recommend that. You may also be tempted to skip ahead. Since the later lessons build on earlier ones, we recommend you take the class sessions in order.

A team of teachers

Alongside Thomas McConkie and Vicki Overfelt, two remarkable mindfulness teachers, I will be one of your guides for the class. We’ll also be hearing from nearly thirty-five other researchers and professionals we hand picked, as well as individuals who have found deeper emotional healing.

Special thanks to Utah Youth Village who provided support to make it possible to complete these interviews. Patrick David Jennings did incredible work on the editing of these classes, with huge gratitude to him and his father, David. Also, I so appreciate the late Kevin Reem, a wonderful man who worked at Disney and loved his daughter who struggled emotionally, who organized the professional film shoots at several different locations. My brother Daniel Hess also provided wonderful footage from a conference in Syracuse, New York.

Accessible for anyone

Along the way, we do our best to avoid unnecessary jargon or scientific language and give it to you straight, with a short glossary of more complicated terms referenced here:

Mindweather 101 Glossary

70.8KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Thank you for joining us. What you’re about to see is the product of thousands of hours of effort, across hundreds of hours of interviews, and based on the hard work of twenty volunteers—including Yvonne Jacobs, whose hand transcription for the entire course is available below:

Mindweather 101 full transcript

1.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

MAKING SENSE OF THE PROBLEM

In the first couple of lessons, we’ll start exploring some discoveries about the brain— breakthroughs that, surprisingly, very few people still seem to know about.

Lesson 1. The brain’s role in mental distress: One view

For much of the last century, mental and emotional distress has been understood through the lens of a fixed, unchanging adult brain—one that is permanently wired and prone to lifelong malfunction. While this view has helped validate suffering as “real,” it has also quietly shaped how people see themselves and their future.

Review:

1. The brain plays an important role in mental and emotional distress.

2. Historically, there have been very different ways of thinking about that role.

3. One of them is that the adult brain is largely fixed and unchanging over time.

Reflection + Discussion:

• What have you been told about the role of the body or brain in your own condition, or that of your loved one?

• Were you ever told by friends, family or professional help, that your brain or body was permanently disordered in some way?

• Why do you think the “fixed brain” model became so dominant in modern culture?

Lesson 2. What we believe about the brain matters: Believing your brain is broken makes a difference.

Believing the brain is permanently broken or deficient can deeply shape how people see themselves, often reinforcing hopelessness and a narrowed sense of what life can become. These beliefs don’t just describe suffering—they actively influence motivation, identity, and the possibility of recovery.

Review:

1. The brain matters.

2. What we believe about the brain matters too.

3. Believing the brain is permanently deficient can make some people feel even more hopeless.

Reflection + Discussion:

• How have ideas about a “broken” or “defective” brain affected your own feelings of hope in the future? How might those stories affect someone already feeling vulnerable or discouraged?

• In what ways might this message help people (reducing blame)—and in what ways might it unintentionally harm? Why might messages meant to be “realistic” sometimes feel crushing?

• What responsibility do helpers have in how they talk about the struggle and the future prognosis? Where do you see the line between validating suffering and unintentionally limiting someone’s future?

There is a growing scientific literature that explores the power of belief and expectation in the progression of healing and recovery—including something called the “placebo effect.” Essentially, what we’ve just reviewed above is a kind of reverse placebo effect.

Lesson 3. The brain’s role in mental distress: Another view

Modern neuroscience has revealed that the adult brain is not fixed, but continuously changing in response to experience—a capacity known as “neuroplasticity.” This discovery reframes mental distress not as permanent damage, but as patterns that can evolve, adapt, and reorganize over time.

Review:

1. The brain is super-important.

2. Scientists used to believe it was permanent when we became adults.

3. Now they don’t.

Reflection + Discussion:

• When was the first time you heard about neuroplasticity?

• Why do you think it’s taken so long for the public awareness to grow about this hopeful discovery?

• In what ways could this view influence how society responds to mental health challenges? How might this understanding shift mental health policy or treatment priorities?

Lesson 4. What we believe about the brain matters: Believing your brain is changeable-healable makes a difference.

Understanding the brain as changeable can restore hope, soften identity labels, and expand how we explain mental and emotional suffering. This shift opens the door to seeing distress not only as an internal flaw, but as something shaped by experience, environment, and meaning.

Lesson 4, Part 1

Lesson 4, Part 2

Review:

1. What we believe about the brain matters.

2. This belief can make a difference for how we see ourselves.

3. And it can even determine whether recovery seems possible at all.

Reflection + Discussion:

• What does this other understanding of the brain mean for individuals and families facing serious mental and emotional problems? What feelings arise for you personally when you hear that the brain can change over time?

• How does seeing the brain as changeable alter the way you view yourself—or someone you love?

• How does this perspective change the way you think about long-term possibilities? What possibilities feel newly open—or still hard to believe?

In these first four lessons on the brain, we’ve tried to lay out a simple, clear exploration of competing brain narratives, and what they might mean for people’s actual experience of mental illness and recovery.

As you can see, the way we talk about the brain can have vivid, real-life consequences for actual lives—including how and whether people feel hope for a future that looks better—really better—than today.

Obviously many questions remain. For example, what exactly does recovery look like? (soon) And, how can friends and family best support someone facing emotional burdens?

Lesson 5. Just being there: Insights for family and friends.

Healing does not belong exclusively to professionals—authentic presence, listening, and human connection of any kind can be profoundly therapeutic. Often, what helps most is not fixing or solving, but staying close without an agenda and allowing someone to feel less alone.

Lesson 5, Part 1

Lesson 5, Part 2

Review:

1. Professionals can be very helpful.

2. So can family and friends...but that can be easy to forget.

3. In either case, there is surprising power in dropping the agenda and fully being with someone.

Reflection + Discussion:

• When someone you love is hurting, do you feel pressure to fix—or permission to simply be with them?

• What forms of presence have helped you most during your own emotional struggles?

• How can ordinary acts of connection quietly support recovery?

In the next class discussion, we’ll take another look at recovery itself—exploring competing views of what exactly that means.

Lesson 6. Different ways of thinking about recovery

While recovery is often defined narrowly as lifelong symptom management, research and lived experience show that deeper, more meaningful recovery is possible—even after severe distress. Rather than a straight line, recovery tends to unfold slowly, unevenly, and through renewed connection, purpose, and hope.

Lesson 6, Part 1

Lesson 6, Part 2

Watch for this quote! “You have a well part in you . . . and it’s a beautiful part. Never forget that.”

Review:

1. There are very different ways of thinking about recovery.

2. Many believe full recovery is not possible—seeing long-term symptom management as their best hope.

3. Others believe full recovery is indeed possible...because they have lived it.

Reflection + Discussion:

• How have you personally or in your family defined recovery from mental or emotional challenges? Do you believe recovery should be seen as coping, functioning, or something deeper?

• How does the idea of recovery as a gradual, non-linear process land with you?

• What would “a life of meaning and belonging” look like beyond symptom reduction?

RESPONDING TO THE PROBLEM

Lesson 7. One way of responding to mental distress

One common way people respond to emotional pain is by distracting, avoiding, or numbing it—through sleep, substances, busyness, screens, or other forms of escape. While these strategies may offer short-term relief, over time they fail to address the roots of distress, while quietly creating new problems of their own.

Lesson 7, Part 1

Lesson 7, Part 2

Review:

1. One way to respond to emotional pain is to distract, avoid and numb out.

2. This is something we all do sometimes.

3. While it might provide some relief in the moment, over the long-term this approach may not get to the bottom of our problems.

Reflection + Discussion:

• What are some common ways people—individually or culturally—try to make emotional pain go away quickly?

• Why do avoidance strategies make so much sense in the moment, even when they don’t work long-term? In what ways might our culture reinforce the belief that pain should disappear immediately?

• How can avoidance unintentionally turn into a habit or pattern over time?

• If it’s true that avoidance doesn’t actually get to the bottom of our problems and may sometimes complicate things, why do we keep going back to ways to avoid or distract from our pain?

Before moving on, here’s a short video summarizing this lesson’s key point, in case you find it helpful or would like to share with someone:

Lesson 8. Can trying to ‘make it go away’ make it worse?

Efforts to force painful thoughts or emotions to disappear can sometimes backfire, intensifying distress rather than relieving it. When people fight their inner experience too aggressively, they may unknowingly strengthen the very patterns they are trying to escape.

Lesson 8, Part 1

Lesson 8, Part 2

Review:

1. Trying to make pain go away immediately may have some effects in the short-term.

2. Over the long-term, however, two problems often arise:

• Deeper problems are not fully resolved.

• Problems can get worse, as the consequences of short-term efforts pile up.

Reflection + Discussion:

• Have you noticed situations where trying harder to feel better actually made things worse? More specifically, have you ever noticed things getting worse after some kind of attempt to make pain or distress go away?

• Why might the mind react negatively to pressure—even pressure meant to help?

• As we learn to stop resisting so much, we may find ourselves having much more energy to meet the challenges of life more effectively. If you listen deeply in this moment, can you detect anything in your life that you might have been resisting?

We’ve highlighted in this discussion some of the consequences of trying to fight against what’s happening in our heads. For one, this probably won’t make the problem go away. What’s worse, fighting our thoughts or feelings can also give problems more power and potentially make the situation worse (here’s two quick summaries of the main point of this lesson if it’s helpful, or you’d like to share them with others).

In the end, the need to avoid pain can become a festering problem in itself. In the next lesson, we’ll begin to explore another approach.

Lesson 9. Another way of responding to mental distress

Instead of fighting or fleeing painful experience, another approach involves stopping, paying attention, and meeting distress with gentle awareness. By staying present with what is—without judgment or force—people often discover new flexibility, choice, and unexpected paths toward healing.

Lesson 9, Part 1

Lesson 9, Part 2

Lesson 9, Part 3

Review:

1. It’s possible to approach emotional pain in a more gentle way.

2. As we fight less against our pain, we notice that we suffer less.

3. By making room for whatever is coming up in our lives, a new sense of possibility and freedom can arise.

Here’s a short video summarizing the key point, in case you find it helpful or would like to share with someone:

Reflection + Discussion:

• What reactions come up when you hear about this idea of “staying with” emotional pain rather than only avoiding it? Why might stopping and observing feel counterintuitive—or even frightening—at first?

• How is acknowledging pain different from giving up or resigning yourself to it?

• What does it mean to relate to thoughts and feelings as experiences, rather than as commands?

• What do you notice when you stop and observe what is going on inside? How might awareness create space for choice, even when circumstances don’t change?

• What feels hardest about simply allowing discomfort to be present, even briefly? Where in everyday life might small moments of presence be possible?

Mindfulness supplement to Lesson 9

So what is this mindfulness stuff anyway? Can someone give me a definition? This supplemental video dives in more directly into what exactly mindfulness is.

Lesson 10. Surrounded with gentle acceptance: More for family and friends

Family and friends often respond to a loved one’s suffering with urgency, fear, or a need to fix—yet these reactions can unintentionally increase pressure and distress. A more healing stance involves patience, acceptance, and presence, allowing the person who is suffering to heal in their own way and at their own pace.

Lesson 10, Part 1

Lesson 10, Part 2

Review:

1. With good intentions, sometimes we try to do something to make the pain of our loved ones go away.

2. This can sometimes make things worse for our friends or family.

3. By being gentle and accepting with someone—no matter where they are—we invite them to be gentle with themselves.

Reflection + Discussion:

• Why is it so hard to sit with someone else’s pain without trying to fix it? How might good intentions sometimes create additional pressure for someone who is struggling?

• What does “being present” actually look like in your own relationships? How can acceptance coexist with hope for change?

• In what ways might gentleness restore dignity and motivation more effectively than control?

• How could slowing down change the emotional climate in families or communities under stress?

Lesson 11. Can a gentle approach make a difference for mental and emotional pain?

Approaching emotional pain with gentleness, awareness, and compassion—rather than resistance or control—can fundamentally change how that pain unfolds. Research and lived experience suggest that when emotions are allowed to arise and pass naturally, suffering often decreases, while the brain is allowed space to gradually reshape itself in healthier ways.

Lesson 11, Part 1

These ideas can be fresh and exciting for some—and a bit unsettling and confusing for others. Take whatever time you need with them. There is no rush!

Lesson 11, Part 2

Review:

1. A more gentle and accepting approach to our emotional pain can have some surprising results.

2. For instance, we can begin to notice pain passing and changing on its own.

3. As we practice being more gentle, we get better and better at working with whatever comes up in our lives—no matter what it is.

4. Over time, this approach helps the brain change in positive directions.

Reflection + Discussion:

• What do you usually try to do when emotional pain shows up—fight it, fix it, escape it, or something else?

• Why might gentleness feel counterintuitive—or even risky—when emotions are intense?

• Have you ever noticed a difficult emotion soften or pass on its own when you stopped struggling with it?

• How does the idea that emotions are temporary “events” rather than permanent truths change how you relate to them?

• What feels hopeful—or challenging—about the idea that the brain can change through how we pay attention?

• What might it look like to meet your own pain (or someone else’s) with a little more patience and compassion this week?

Before moving on, here’s two short videos summarizing the key points: “Making Room for What Hurts” and “Witnessing the Storm.”

From individual experience to the brain itself, the consequences of learning this other approach to painful emotions and thoughts are real. This is no snake oil. We’re talking about something with hard data and good evidence showing it works.

In the next lessons, we’ll consider what this approach means for something like thinking itself.

WORKING WITH DIFFICULT THOUGHTS

Lesson 12. One way of thinking about thinking

Many people relate to their thoughts as if they are facts or direct reflections of reality, which can make distressing thinking feel overwhelming and inescapable. When thoughts are taken literally and examined endlessly, they often lead to rumination—intensifying anxiety, depression, and emotional suffering rather than resolving it.

Lesson 12, Part 1

Lesson 12, Part 2

Review:

1. When we get caught up in our thoughts, life becomes distorted.

2. This can cause a lot of suffering.

3. We can learn to relax, step back from thinking, and start to feel more content.

Reflection + Discussion:

• In what ways do people tend to assume their thoughts are true, and a reflection of reality or “who they are”?

• Why might trying to “think your way out” of emotional pain sometimes make things worse?

• What costs—emotionally or physically—come with staying stuck in your head?

Wouldn’t it be nice to learn how to step away from that cycle, and even find some peace? The message of this lesson is that analyzing and over-analyzing may not be the best strategy to get there.

The message of the next lesson is, simply put: there’s another way.

Lesson 13. Re-thinking thinking

A different relationship to thoughts becomes possible when we learn to observe them as passing mental events, rather than facts we must believe or act on. By stepping back and watching thoughts come and go, we gain space, choice, and freedom—often reducing distress and opening the door to more lasting change.

Lesson 13, Part 1

Lesson 13, Part 2

Lesson 13, Part 3

Review:

1. The mind offers up thoughts for us to consider.

2. We can practice choosing which thoughts we want to “grow” and attend to.

3. As we get better at this, we feel happier and freer.

Reflection + Discussion:

• Have you ever noticed a thought lose its power once you simply observed it?

• What kinds of thoughts tend to pull you in most strongly?

• What changes for you when you consider thoughts as experiences, not simply as truths?

• Why might focusing on the body or breath help loosen the grip of thinking?

• How does it feel to imagine having a choice about which thoughts you engage with?

In summary, we’re not doomed to our dark, negative and destructive thoughts. There is life beyond. Although it can be challenging to apply and practice, the benefits for learning this skill are well worth it. As you explore this for yourself, be patient with yourself, have some fun, and good luck!!

BROADENING THE CONVERSATION

We started the course exploring how to make sense of mental and emotional distress—exploring two ways of understanding the brain’s role. For those people who see the brain as permanently deficient, there will naturally be limits to what they come to hope for in terms of recovery. (After all, even if there are other things that can be done to support recovery, the fact remains: the brain still has a permanent deficiency).

But what happens when that’s not a fact anymore? As people become aware of brain changeability, we’ve noticed at least two things start to change: First, all of a sudden, new hope begins to emerge for deep and lasting recovery from mental disorder as a possibility for literally anyone—not just those who don’t have it very bad. And secondly, the wide range of contributors to mental disorder become more relevant—inviting us to look more deeply at all of life—the social, relational, cultural, and environmental conditions that can either intensify distress or support healing.

Lesson 14. Exploring the full range of contributors to mental/emotional distress

To understand mental and emotional distress, to really get at the roots of these kinds of challenges, we need to look beyond the biology and chemistry of individuals alone and start looking at the full range of life: All of life. That means surveying the variety of factors that can contribute to or subtract from our mental health. The environment we live in is an important place to start.

Lesson 14, Part 1

Lesson 14, Part 2

Review:

1. There is likely no single and solitary “cause” of mental/emotional distress.

2. Current research, instead, confirms lots of diverse contributors.

3. That’s actually pretty good news!

Reflection + Discussion:

• Why do you think we’re drawn to single-cause explanations for complex struggles like depression, anxiety, or ADHD?

• What are a few “hidden contributors” people often overlook (sleep, pace of life, isolation, screen exposure, food, stress load, etc.)?

• How does it change things to hear, “Your feelings may be an understandable reaction to an abnormal situation”?

Depression + ADHD risk factor questionnaires

The majority of mental health questionnaires focus on symptoms—the observable, behavioral manifestations of how someone is currently feeling. While this is an important aspect of any experience to consider, we typically end up paying far less attention to the root risk factors of what is going on.

As part of our educational efforts, we decided to create several questionnaires looking at the variety of root contributors to mental and emotional distress. That involved going to PubMed and searching for “depression and risk factor,” “ADHD and risk factor” and so on.

We were honestly surprised to find thousands and tens of thousands of studies—leading us to distill down and summarize what we learned in these surveys. Feel free to share them with anyone who might be benefitted!

Depression Inventory (clean - non-referenced)

201KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Depression Inventory (referenced)

580KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Depression Inventory (child/adolescent - referenced)

471KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ADHD Inventory (referenced)

1.04MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

So there you have it: the world around us seems to be playing a role in what we’re feeling and thinking. Not too surprising, right? By paying attention to all these contributors to mental and emotional distress, who knows? Maybe that will even change how we respond to them.

On to the final lesson!

Lesson 15. Considering the full range of options

If there’s a wide range of factors contributing to mental and emotional distress, that means there is a wide range of ways to support recovery too! Rather than relying on one solution alone, people who find deeper healing often explore a broader menu of supports (relational, behavioral, environmental, spiritual and sometimes medical)—moving forward step by step over time.

Lesson 15, Part 1

Lesson 15, Part 2

Lesson 15, Part 3

Review:

1. If lots of things contribute to mental/emotional distress, then maybe there are also lots of things to do about it!

2. Whatever the problem, then, there are likely a range of ways to respond.

3. Small changes can turn out to be BIG!

Reflection + Discussion:

• Why can appreciating the reality of multiple risk factors feel strangely hopeful instead of discouraging?

• What happens to people’s sense of agency when they realize there are many possible supports—not just medication or therapy alone?

• What kind of life adjustments have you found help lift your own mood? (sleep, movement, food adjustments, sunlight, connection, quiet, reading, prayer)?

• How would it feel to start to get more curious about these lifestyle areas (for instance, how much do you ‘get out’ into the natural world? How much movement do you get in an average day?)

• How do you balance urgency for relief now with patience for real, lasting change?

• Where do you see resistance to change show up most—fear, overwhelm, habit, convenience, identity, or something else?

• If you were building a realistic “All of Life” wellness plan, what 2–3 areas would you start with first—and why?

And there you have it, All of Life! You made it to the end. Now all you have left is your own life ahead of you....Oh yes, and there’s some concluding words from us.

A few tips on developing your ‘Wellness Recovery Action Plan’

If it’s true that many things contribute to mental and emotional distress, then the good news is there’s lots of things we can start to look at adjusting that might make a difference. In the previous Lesson 14, we referred you to several vulnerability questionnaires we’ve developed for depression and ADHD that help someone explore the particular risk factors in their situation. We’ve done some work on other inventories for Postpartum Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, and Schizophrenia.

Once we pay attention to the variety of contributors to mental and emotional distress, we can begin to create our own personalized plan—a unique and comprehensive plan specific to our personal or family (or child’s) situation that includes any adjustment that feels important for us to consider. If you’re interested in doing that, here are some basic steps to consider:

(1) Review and inventory anything that might be contributing to you or your child’s current mental or emotional state. This can include hunches you’ve had, as well as issues that other professionals or family members may have brought up. If you’re facing depression or ADHD, one of our vulnerability inventories mentioned in the last lesson may be helpful.

(2) Once you have a list of all the potential contributors in your situation, it’s time to lay out a plan. Take out two pieces of paper, labeling one “Short-term plan” and the other “Long-term plan.” For your short-term plan, sketch out anything that feels important to do in the next three months. Just like you would do if you had the flu, your short-term plan should include any special self-care that needs to happen immediately. If not chicken noodle soup and lots of rest, what is the equivalent for mental and emotional distress? Is there anything you or your loved one needs NOW that could really help decrease the stress of this experience and begin to stimulate healing?

Trust your gut on these plans. Write items that come to you, and put them in the place that feels right (short or long-term). Keep these papers close to you in case other ideas come to you, or if others you trust have good suggestions. In these suggestions, we thank Mary Ellen Copeland for her pioneering work in developing what she calls “Wellness Recovery Action Plans.”

For the long-term plan, list actions that feel important to put into place later on, but not necessarily over the next couple of months. This longer-term plan is about achieving a sustainable and stable wellness over time.

(3) As you begin to put your plans into place, be willing to improve and upgrade them over time—even as you “stick with” what feels important to practice and change. Get others you love and trust involved, including family members, and professionals who are supporting you.

Let me know how it goes! I’d love to hear about your experience.

AI image created by Google Gemini (pretty amazing - you should try it)

I ran across a social media post this week from a friend from years ago. At the time we knew her, this woman got frustrated with her faith community and began posting sweeping, fierce accusations against the motives and character of the entire institution.

Eight years later, my heart sank to see her still doing the same thing. I wonder, does the anger ever get old? Does she ever feel wearied of a life full of so much condemnation of others she’s never met?

In many popular ideologies today—the kind that dominate podcasts and social media, especially TikTok—they always sound very smart and enlightened. But dig a little deeper and you’ll often find unvarnished resentment at the core: an enmity that sets people against each other fundamentally.

The most common form of condemnation, of course, is individually directed: the kind we see showing up in so many families (“That spouse of mine is the reason I’m unhappy … that child of mine … that parent of mine … that sibling … that neighbor … that roommate … that coworker.”)

No book I’ve read better gets at the heart of this kind of personal resentment and how to be free of it than Bonds that Make Us Free (see this talk by the author).

But individual-level condemnation is tame compared with the more sweeping, broad-based variety taking hold of so many American hearts and minds.

Group-based condemnations

When was the last time you saw or heard:

• Conservatives condemning “hypocritical, dangerous” liberals—and liberals dishing out the same to their country’s benighted conservatives.*

• Women condemning men generally, and many men now doing the same to women as a whole.

• White folks casting minorities or immigrants as threats, contrasted with Black Lives Matter-styled cynical narratives about pervasive “white privilege” everywhere you look.

• Sexual and gender minorities also tend to condemn anyone not “allied” with popular ways of approaching LGBT issues. And increasingly, a subset of that latter group more vocally and forcefully condemns sexual minorities too (especially those identifying as “trans.”)

• Then, there are non-religious folks condemning believers, and believers often painting atheists and agnostics with malevolent-toned broad-brush strokes.

• And, of course, the poor are prone (even without Marx in their ear) to condemn those with wealth or “elite status” as inherently selfish and corrupt, while the wealthy have plenty to say about lazy commoners.

There are official labels for all of this, from hyper-partisanship and Marxism (or “cultural Marxism”) to toxic feminism and toxic masculinity. There’s also anti-religious bigotry and anti-atheism (atheistophobia), along with garden-variety bigotry, and queer liberation ideologies or “pride culture.”

Whatever other virtues and enlightened sentiments these ideologies might share, in practice, every one of them effectively turns entire groups against each other: men against women, rich against poor, white against black, Reds vs. Blues, secular vs. religious, etc.

Institution-wide condemnation

Another form of condemnation brands entire institutions as wholly corrupt and unworthy of respect and trust. That includes wholesale condemnations of:

• The university system in America as largely corrupting and radicalizing in its impact.

• Newspapers and media outlets as entirely agenda-driven, and impossible to trust—along with every politician.

• The modern healthcare system as “wholly corrupt” and “really wanting to keep us all sick!”

• Any and all government as useless at best, and destructive and oppressive at worst.

• Organized religion as “really only about power, and money and control.”

• Any organization financially prospering—whether businesses or churches—as corrupt and self-serving.

My friend Ben Pacini wrote in Deseret News recently about “Super Distrusters” who are defined as people with “no faith” in at least three of five core institutions of society.

Notice how all these flavors of condemnation, importantly, are packaged in ways that make them appear virtuous. (And in fairness, there are virtues that can show up in many of these appeals for change. By inviting some scrutiny here, I’m not seeking to raise my own condemnation-of-condemners. As Peter says of Jesus, “when he was reviled, (He) reviled not again.”).

Cloaked in nobility

When was the last time you saw someone say anything fully condemning, prefaced by something like: “now, what I’m about to say (about that individual or group or institution) is going to sound very sweeping; that’s because I have so much resentment that the only thing I can see about this is purely negative.”

No way. Not going to happen. That would be a little embarrassing for anyone to admit. Far better to wrap all that harshness in a prettier package—with some kind of sophisticated, moralistic language to back it up.

And, in fact, virtually every one of these sweeping condemnations referenced above are, indeed, typically wrapped in language that sounds incredibly noble and lofty:

• Condemnations of our political opposite are cast as “fighting for democracy” or “standing up against tyranny” or “loving the country.”

• Liberal condemnations against anyone hesitant to embrace pride culture is cast as “standing up against hate” or “fighting bigotry,” while blanket condemnations of the gay community are cast as “standing up for morality” or “defending the family.”

• Condemnations of men as a whole are positioned as brave attempts to “confront sexism” or “dismantle patriarchy,” with condemnations of advocates for greater female empowerment are rationalized as standing up to “toxic feminism” with “anti-male bias.”

• Condemnations of a particular faith are positioned as “brave truth-telling” with a kind of martyr’s “integrity,” some of whom also position themselves as ceaseless victims of past religious dogma.

What’s important here is how sophisticated-sounding and morally superior these explanations sound. Rather than admit to being consumed by resentment and grievance, the condemner positions himself or herself most often as a courageous truth-teller, who is simultaneously publicizing a brave exposé, and standing up to the (despicable) system.

Any subsequent push-back or resistance is further cast as persecution or expected consequences for the courage to raise their voices for truth, justice, etc.

But isn’t condemnation sometimes deserved?

In fairness, some people and practices certainly do deserve condemnation. Evil is real. And when it shows up, we should say something and do something about it.

Yet it was Jesus Christ himself—one with more authority than most to actually confront evil—who famously told Nicodemus that God didn’t send Him into the world “to condemn the world,” but instead, to save it!

If that was Christ’s focus, wouldn’t it be strange of our personal focus became condemnation more than salvation?

Yes, that ultimate salvation will one day include a “day of vengeance,” something that the prophet Isaiah repeatedly warned about. That event will, I believe, center on bringing horrifying evil to justice (such as abuse and other violence): all that is most worthy of condemnation.

Perhaps some institutions, groups and individuals merit the same kind of vociferous condemnation. But how can we be sure? And who gets to decide?

Compared with objective evil, so many of the examples referenced above are debatable, with competing arguments and theoretical frameworks at odds. For instance, various group-level transgressions by “men” or “feminists” or “white people” require a great deal of theoretical, structural explanation and words that end in “-ism” to make any sense of the concerns.

That might mean more discussion is needed, rather than just more resentment.

The alternative to condemnation

The alternative to condemnation, by the way, is not resignation or pretending everything is all okay (with our family members, our faith, our government, our world, or different groups in the world).

Rather, it’s keeping the sincere concerns we have more specific, focused and bounded, in a way that doesn’t color our view of anything and everything related to that institution, group or individual: “Hey, the fact that conservative scholars struggle to get hired in higher education is a real concern, along with fears so many students have to share what they really think.”

In practice, this means still believing in the redemptive potential of a university, and so much else. Isn’t this, again, the heart of what Christ taught and offered the world? For instance:

• Sure, there are serious issues with American universities. But have you ever experienced the beauty of students or scholars grappling with conflicting ideas in pursuit of truth?

• Likewise, we all know the American medical system has some major issues. But have you ever experienced loving attention from a (mainstream) nurse or doctor doing everything they can to alleviate your pain?

• Absolutely, various religious communities grapple with their own failings, weaknesses and sin. But have you not also witnessed equal measures of their grace, compassion and virtue?

I personally love how basic Christian teaching levels the playing field: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Translation: We all struggle. We all fall short. We all need grace (that includes all individuals, all groups, and all institutions).

The alternative to condemnation, therefore, isn’t to close our eyes and pretend “all is well.” Rather, while keeping our eyes wide open, this means prioritizing the redemptive love of the Living God who shows all of us—starting with our own heartaches—how Heaven can “make all things new.”

Feeling that grace for ourselves then allows us to say, “yes, the world is a mess—most of us are too. But there’s incredible potential in all of this (including you) that I can see. And I want to be a builder that works to help everything and everyone around me find more of that.”

Sweetness chased away

Why does any of this matter?

First of all, because there’s a painful drag that constant anger and resentment brings into life. When that burden becomes so omnipresent, however, I think many people stop realizing they’re carrying an extra load.

But it’s more than that. There’s also a joy that comes from being able to extend grace to others in their weakness. And being able to see truth showing up in many different places, and appreciate the beauty and goodness in people of many backgrounds.

In my experience, there’s also a tangible relief in being able to grant that most people are well-intentioned. They really are “doing the best they can” (including those engaged in problematic practices or holding views of how the world should operate that we find wrong, and even repulsive).

This is what people miss when their hearts and mind are dominated by some form of condemnation. But I believe the consequences go far beyond short-term well-being.

Progress stopped

The word “condemnation” is most often used in a Christian context to refer to an unhappy state in relation to God where one is “damned” (something our faith community defines as being “stopped in one’s progress”).

Doesn’t this definition line up with the psychology of condemnation? People in a state fixated on the mistakes of others struggle to grow themselves. They learn a lot less!

For me, this reveals another way to understand that word “condemnation.” When you find yourself in a “state of condemnation” towards another individual, group or institution, it becomes very difficult to hear God’s voice and grow as the person you need to be.

A cloud hangs over you. And it’s harder to see so much of the light God infuses into the world and people all around you.

As Jesus told Nicodemus, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light.”

In that constricted place, something about the flaws, the mistakes, the failings, and the wrong has captured our attention more than the virtues, the triumphs, the graces, the nobility of what’s going on around us.

In that place, it’s pretty darn hard to look around and see anything good or beautiful anymore—let alone become better ourselves.

Maybe Jesus was on to something in pleading with us to “judge not.” And maybe Paul really had good reason to plead for us to “think no evil.”

If nothing else, our hearts need the permission to turn away from the real evil that is at work around us. And focus our minds on something far better.

Thank Heavens for that.

*Note: One day I’m convinced we will look back on political hatred with shame, like we now do with racial hatred.

The purpose of the game, developed with our boys, is to help children learn how to relate to the full spectrum of emotions – good, bad and ugly – with the same patience and affection they would show a rambunctious puppy.

Even most adults don’t know how to relate with gentleness to especially hard feelings inside. But it’s something we can all learn! The game provides an opportunity for families to start new conversations, and introduce language and metaphors to their home – offering the same for teachers and therapists supporting their students and clients (see here for more details about the game).

Here’s a PDF of the Parent and Teacher Guide, “Training the Puppy Trainers” that comes with the game, so you can look through it to see what it’s like:

Training the Puppy Trainers: A Guide for Parents and Others Supporting Children

8.24MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The response was wonderful last holiday season. Without any chance for marketing during the year, we’re hoping to reach more families this holiday season. Are you looking for a unique gift for family with younger children, or grandparents and teachers providing crucial support?

If so, consider submitting an order (here). Our family packs the envelopes in the evening and my boys will help me make sure it gets sent out as soon as we can.

I sincerely hope this will make a difference for you or your loved ones. Your support is appreciated!