Thursday, 30 August 2012

Inquiry into Women's Way's Charlotte Ramya Norell and her professional and academic qualifications

Charlotte Norell writes about herself on her Lifecoaching and Personal Development webpage:
Charlotte is a Certified Physiotherapist and Inner Management Coach. As well as being extensively trained in psychotherapy, spirituality, meditation, sexuality, tantra, relationship counseling, co-dependency therapy, healing chock&trauma, body- and dancetherapy.
(emphasis added by me)

Where did she get her certification? I find it odd that she doesn't mention this, and if she has formal education, that she doesn't mention her degree. It leads one to believe that she doesn't have formal education, and that she has simply worked as an assistant to a real physical therapist, and then taken a certification exam. It implies that she does not have a Bachelor's, Masters or Doctorate degree in physical therapy.

How does being certified in physical therapy, in any way, qualify her to be giving people intimate, personal advice about their life, and charging fees equal to or greater than professionally trained psychologists?

If you google "Inner Management Coach" you'll get only 52 results, where most of them mention Charlotte Norell. Inner Management Coach seems to be something she has invented herself. It is not a formal or recognized education.

What does extensively trained mean? Where and how much training? What kind of psychotherapy has she been extensively trained in? There's a long list of different kinds of psychotherapies.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

confronting your own mormon faith

a comment from some guy on stevebloor's blog:
It surely is entirely missing the point to suggest the student, (in this case Steve Bloor), is at fault for not paying attention, when the more concerning issue is that the instructor, (“The Church”), has failed to teach the subject matter thoroughly. I cannot recall having read about JS’s eleven polyandrous marriages in any church sponsored publication over the last 40 years, nor anything about his well attested method of procuring plural wives, some as young as 14, by claiming death threats issued by angels with drawn swords, or by promises of unconditional exaltation for whole families. Cherry picking for publication a few instances of JS’s polygamous marriages of which Emma may actually have been aware, and placing them in what amounts to small print, as far as present-day latter-day saints are concerned, hardly justifies claims of openness and honesty, and, may I say, it seems somewhat disingenuous to pretend that it does. Likewise, I have not seen the church producing any explanation which approaches credibility concerning the catastrophic demise of the Book of Abraham, which has been part of LDS canon since the 1880s. A straw poll of sacrament attendees in the UK would I suspect reveal gross ignorance about that particularly vital subject. Is it that they too have not been paying attention, or is it that once more the instructor has defaulted on his moral responsibility to make available the facts? Surely, when the man who is proclaimed to be the prophet of the restoration, translates a regular Egyptian glyph which we now know means “water” as “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”, we as latter-day saints really have a serious problem to address. And surely when a book which Joseph Smith assured the world in God’s name was written by Abraham himself, turns out to be a standard Egyptian pagan funerary text post-dating Abraham by eighteen centuries, and doesn’t even mention Abraham, its claimed author, it becomes morally incumbent upon the instructor to relay that information fully in class time to the students, so that they may give that information their prayerful consideration. Or do you disagree, Peter Bleakley? Who is it in the end who needs to be bolstered by lies and cover-ups in your view: the Lord, or a church which claims through Joseph Smith to be the Lord’s?