Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_charity]

Hi Guy....

Charity you strike me as someone whose book learning hasn't translated well into ACTUAL learning.

I question even the "book learning".

I HIGHLY doubt Charity has read even one book on the cycle of abuse, abusive relationships, or domestic violence.

~dancer~

You are guessing wrong. And your information comes from education and training or from pop psychology in magazines?

And 30% is a significant number. But the point was that if more than double the number of women who have experienced the abusive relationship of their parents go on NOT to be abused, there is something reallydifferent in their actions and the actions of the 30% who repeat the cycle.

There should be far more research on what the characteristics are of the 70%.

[_guy sajer]

Hi Guy....

Charity you strike me as someone whose book learning hasn't translated well into ACTUAL learning.

I question even the "book learning".

I HIGHLY doubt Charity has read even one book on the cycle of abuse, abusive relationships, or domestic violence.

~dancer~

You are guessing wrong. And your information comes from education and training or from pop psychology in magazines?

And 30% is a significant number. But the point was that if more than double the number of women who have experienced the abusive relationship of their parents go on NOT to be abused, there is something reallydifferent in their actions and the actions of the 30% who repeat the cycle.

There should be far more research on what the characteristics are of the 70%.

But the context of your post had nothing to do with where scientists should focus their research; it was intended as a dismissive put down minimizing the experience of those who have experienced the abusive relationship of their parents and go on TO be abused.

I stand by what I've said. Your posts demonstrate little understanding/empathy of the human exerience. Book smart, perhaps, empathy and understanding, zilch.

by the way, I do not claim any specialized knowledge in psychology, I am simply responding to your apparent lack of practical expertise despite your claims of book learning.

[_charity]

And, by the way, why wasn't Jesus telling the leaders of his church to tell victims of abuse to get the h**l outa dodge?

I don't understand your by the way comment. Please clarify.

To venture a guess, I think beastie is saying that if your proposed methodology is indeed the superior way to counsel abused women, then why doesn't God inspire the bishops, stake presidents, etc. to do things the way you advocate (as opposed to the way they've handled such things in the past)?

I don't know how you get that out of beastie's words. What her words say is that Jesus should be telling the bishop to tell the abused woman to leave the Church. That doesn't make sense.

And your suggestion that bishops and stake presidents act as therapists is not a reasonable suggestion either. It takes a lot of training to make a good therapist. Maybe that is why there are so many poor ones around.

From some of the comments it appears many of you have a wrong idea about what psychology is and can do. Psychology is an infant science. It works with the most complicated subject set there is, and is hamstrung in how it can get information about those subjects. Any other science can take its sample and do whatever it wants with it. You want to find out about a rock, you can pulverize it, burn it, pour acid on it, freeze it, put it in a vacuum, bombard it with sound, light, etc. But you can only study a human being with his/her own permission. And even if he/she gives consent, there are many things you can't do anyway. And the rock doesn't change its behavior if it knows it is being observed. Just observing a human makes a difference.

Then we take the flawed science, and inject our own human inclinations into the situation, and come up with treatments. And many of those treatments are flawed as seriously as the science. There is hardly any more problematic than those treatments which inject sympathy and pity into the therapeutic relationship. A woman who is in a abusive relationship does not need someone to pat her hand and say, "there, there, dear." She needs help to change the situation. If you knew anything about abusive relationships, you would know that the hardest thing to do is to get the woman to DECIDE to leave the abusive relationship. To press charges against her abuser. Get a grip.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity

I don't know how you get that out of beastie's words. What her words say is that Jesus should be telling the bishop to tell the abused woman to leave the Church. That doesn't make sense.

I think when beastie used the "Get the hell out of Dodge" phrase, she meant get out of the marriage, not the church.

[_Inconceivable]

So which is better?

Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.

OR

Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.

You clearly don't understand the basic division in philosophies of treatment. One side stresses "understanding." The other stresses changes in behavior. I've seen the behavioral change processes work best. On the other hand, I have seen some real disasters with the "softer" line of treatment.

Psychology has only two sides (???). Poser. Poser. Poser.

"delete"

[_BishopRic]

Get a grip.

Now THAT'S certainly a pot calling the kettle black...but what's new?!

There is one very small thing I'll agree with Charity on. Sometimes it takes some real intervention to break the abuse cycle. I don't think anybody is suggesting a "pat on the head and send them away."

It IS NOT the fault, in any way, shape or form, of the victim!

And yes, some real compassion and empathy IS appropriate. Most of these women have some major self-worth issues, because they have been told many times that they are worthless, inadequate human beings by abusive people in their lives, and to a degree, they have believed it. The strange part of the abuse cycle is that deep down, they believe they deserve to be abused. The intervention and therapy that helps to break the cycle is work that instills a new self-concept of being valid, worthy, and lovable. They are indeed beautiful, amazing people that somewhere in their life lost their self-worth, typically because a parent or partner abused them.

The last thing they need is for somebody to tell them it is their fault! That is what their abuser tells them everyday. Does it take work and courage on the part of the victim? Absolutely! But I believe the way to encourage and motivate them to take the risk to get out of the abuse cycle is to help them feel good about themselves, rather than tell them to "get a grip!"

[Tator]

I don't know how you get that out of beastie's words. What her words say is that Jesus should be telling the bishop to tell the abused woman to leave the Church. That doesn't make sense.

And your suggestion that bishops and stake presidents act as therapists is not a reasonable suggestion either. It takes a lot of training to make a good therapist. Maybe that is why there are so many poor ones around.

Oh for heaven's sake, charity. Every person who read my statement except you understood exactly what I meant. Your church leaders, whom you presume to be inspired of God, do not generally advise abused women to "get a grip", file charges and leave the abuser. Instead, following the lead of their leaders who list "abuse" as one of the problems in a marriage that can be fixed through repentance and forgiveness (I have my old Celestial Marriage manual at home that says exactly this if you doubt me, and when I go back home tomorrow will cite it for you), they normally advise trying to work things out.

I want to know why your inspired leaders are advising victims of abuse in exactly the opposite way that you say it ought to be done. I'm not expecting them to act as therapists, although it would help if the church stopped presenting them as capable of "counseling" members with serious life issues in any way. I'm just wondering why they don't generally advise women to "get the h**l outa dodge (by which I mean, of course, get out of the abusive marriage).

[_beastie]

Charity's earlier words:

That's my question. In a couple of high profile suits against the Church, I wonder why the lawyers don't ask that quesiton. You have a brain, woman, figure it out and turn the creep in! Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.

Could you please describe the cycle of abuse and explain how "lacking a spine" figures into the equation?

[_charity]

Now THAT'S certainly a pot calling the kettle black...but what's new?!

There is one very small thing I'll agree with Charity on. Sometimes it takes some real intervention to break the abuse cycle. I don't think anybody is suggesting a "pat on the head and send them away."

It IS NOT the fault, in any way, shape or form, of the victim!

And yes, some real compassion and empathy IS appropriate. Most of these women have some major self-worth issues, because they have been told many times that they are worthless, inadequate human beings by abusive people in their lives, and to a degree, they have believed it. The strange part of the abuse cycle is that deep down, they believe they deserve to be abused. The intervention and therapy that helps to break the cycle is work that instills a new self-concept of being valid, worthy, and lovable. They are indeed beautiful, amazing people that somewhere in their life lost their self-worth, typically because a parent or partner abused them.

Any crime is the fault of the perpetrator. I have never said any different than that. And we are all children of Heavenly Parents, and are beuatiful, amazing, etc. We don't disagree on that. But even though we are beautiful, amazine, etc. all of us are misguided, unwise, and imprudent at times also. We make bad decisions and there are sometimes horrific consequences. And to the extent that our decisions are bad, we have some measure of responsibility.

Your psychology is the Carl Rogers humanistic theory. It really sounds nice, all touchy feeling, unconditional love, etc. But the problem is, it is not very efficacious in terms of treatment. The way to change feelings of self worth is not through sympathy. It is through supporting the individual in making changes toward competence.

The last thing they need is for somebody to tell them it is their fault! That is what their abuser tells them everyday. Does it take work and courage on the part of the victim? Absolutely! But I believe the way to encourage and motivate them to take the risk to get out of the abuse cycle is to help them feel good about themselves, rather than tell them to "get a grip!"

This is where you are wrong. They are never going to get out of the situation if all that is happening is somebody letting them cry on their shoulder and hearing, "you should feel good about yourself." They need to demosntrate competence and that brings about the feeling of self-worth. If they don't have the strength to confront their abuser, they need to get out of the situation!

You need to read up on Albert Ellis and RET.

[_charity]

I don't know how you get that out of beastie's words. What her words say is that Jesus should be telling the bishop to tell the abused woman to leave the Church. That doesn't make sense.

And your suggestion that bishops and stake presidents act as therapists is not a reasonable suggestion either. It takes a lot of training to make a good therapist. Maybe that is why there are so many poor ones around.

Oh for heaven's sake, charity. Every person who read my statement except you understood exactly what I meant. Your church leaders, whom you presume to be inspired of God, do not generally advise abused women to "get a grip", file charges and leave the abuser. Instead, following the lead of their leaders who list "abuse" as one of the problems in a marriage that can be fixed through repentance and forgiveness (I have my old Celestial Marriage manual at home that says exactly this if you doubt me, and when I go back home tomorrow will cite it for you), they normally advise trying to work things out.

I want to know why your inspired leaders are advising victims of abuse in exactly the opposite way that you say it ought to be done. I'm not expecting them to act as therapists, although it would help if the church stopped presenting them as capable of "counseling" members with serious life issues in any way. I'm just wondering why they don't generally advise women to "get the h**l outa dodge (by which I mean, of course, get out of the abusive marriage).

Bishops and stake presidents should be called upon to handle ecclesiatic matters. Areas of personal worthininess. Physical needs of the members which are beyond the member's abilities to provide for themselves. They are not trained, nor should they be expected to handle criminal matters. Abuse and domestic violence are criminal matters. We con't expect a bishop to handle the situation when a person goes to them with an intense pain in the lower right quardrant of the abdomen. We expect the person to be smart enough to go to a surgeon! Anyone who is a victim of a crime should be smart enough to know to go to the police.