Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I think we come from two different ends of the spectrum. I follow Maslow and Ellis. You seem to follow Freud. "Harmed for life" is the Freudian thought. If traumatic events occur, then the opportunity for a happy life is gone. The other end, my end, is that EVERYONE has life challenges. We don't all have the same ones. You take what happens to you, deal with, and be happy. The Freudian thought is that everyone is a victim. The Maslow/Ellis side is that your allow yourself to be a victim. I chose to treat people as organisms with the ability to chose NOT to let people victimize them. And that is a valid perspective.



This is exactly and precisely correct. The cult of victimology has deeply infused modern psychology, since at least the seventies, as has the rise of therapy as an overarching concept replacing actual behavior change and the taking of personal responsibility for the course of one's life as a major cultural attribute (see Christina Hoff Summers' One Nation Under Therapy for an excellent discussion of the matter).

This idea has had extremely malignant effects on western society over the last three or four decades, from the "powerlessness" ideology of the modern 12 Step program of addiction counseling, to endless excuse making for violent criminality (based in early family dynamics), to the seeing of competitive sports in public schools as psychologically traumatizing (sports have both winning and losing sides). The point is not the (alleged) traumas themselves but the idea that once traumatized, the human psych is scarred permanently. Human beings are fragile (see the chapter The Myth of the Fragile Child in the book mentioned above), brittle, easily crushed beings who once violated, are crippled ontologically from that time and henceforth. Mental health must be monitored, nurtured, and tended incessantly by "experts" and mental health professionals, from cradle to grave, lest the human psych collapse.

All are victims. We are all victims of our parents, our teachers, our pastors, our bosses, our society and its institutions, and of life itself. The only answer is continual psychotheraputic intervention to protect the fragile human psych from any brushes with the hard realities of the world that may be unfair and require confrontation with each individual's very real limitations and boundaries. From long personal experience, the concept of open ended permanent "recovery" in addiction counseling is a primary example of the reach this concept has within the helping professions.

After being addicted to something, one enters "recovery" but one never recovers. One is always a "recovering addict" but is never beyond the recovery phase and within a state in which one has recovered what one has lost. One then stays in the 12 step program for life, regardless of the amount of time he has been sober. One is, you see, scarred, marred, crippled, and marked for life by his experiences here. I will never get to be a non-addict, only a recovering one.

I have long considered this a damaging and counterproductive manner in which to look at things of this nature.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

truth dancer wrote:
I didn't say it was a part of any psychological theory. I said it was a mistaken idea to do the pity thing. And too many therapists get caught up in that.


You mentioned two approaches... pity and back patting, OR, telling a woman to "get a spine." Neither approach are part of any therapy or theory of which I am aware.


This was a general statement of the two different ways to approach any kind of therapy--one is based on the Freudian idea of the primacy of early experiences and minimal possible change and the other is based on behavioral and cognitive abilities to change.

truth dancer wrote:
And yet you never before heard of the phenomeonon of the victim deliberately provoking an attack to end the UNBEARABLE tension?


I never said any such thing and you know it. I stated that abuse is never the victims fault. Your version of the cycle of abuse is not the norm and suggesting abuse is the woman's fault is not part of any therapy or theory of which I am aware.


Actually you did say that. Now you are denyiing it because beastie confirmed it. But even worse is that you keep yelling at me that I say that abuse is the victim's fault, which I have repeatedly denied. So, since you think large type and color makes a difference

ABUSE IS NOT THE VICTIMS FAULT.

Now have you go my idea on the subject?

This is in no way changes the fact that some women do deliberately provoke an attack. Ask beastie. She will tell you. But you can look at it as self-defense. The tension is UNBEARABLE. You do understand unbearable? NOT bearable. Something has to happen to fix it. The abusive incident ends the tension. If you are counseling victims you should know that physical pain isn't the worst part of abuse. It is the mental and emotional pain. The scenario I described helps the victim deal with the mental and emotional pain.
Enough folks on the board have addressed this and have attempted to help you understand.

truth dancer wrote:
Just tell me which type of therapy does NOT work with victims to get them to the point where they can make the decision to leave the abusive situation?


This is much different than your previous statement... "trying to convince women to leave." Do you understand the difference?


You are picking at straws.

truth dancer wrote: Therapy for survivors of abuse, is NOT about telling a woman what to do, trying to convince her what to do, or giving a woman one more person to whom she must please.


I didn't say it was. I said it is about getting the woman to the point where she can make healthy decisions for herself. How is that giving her one more person to please?

truth dancer wrote:
It is about helping a client be safe, supporting her as she makes decisions which SHE feels are most healthy. You may want to read up on empowerment counseling.


If you could stop being condescending for a minute, you would know that was what I said.

truth dancer wrote:
Or do you only deal with women who have already left the abusive situation? Do you have any clients who are men who have been in abusive situations where the female is the abuser?



I have done everything from extensive crisis intervention work, to helping women who have been in an abusive relationship for decades. Yes I have had clients who are men in an abusive relationship where the female is the abuser. I have also worked with hundreds of men convincted of domestic violence and abuse.

I have yet to know of even one situation where a woman or man survivor of abuse could benefit from a therapist telling her/him to get a spine, OR a pat on the back with lots of pity. Neither is therapy Charity. And I feel quite certain if I were to do such a thing I would not have a job in the field of abuse.


You persist in misunderstanding. One of the best qualities a therapist has is to UNDERSTAND and not to bring his/her own prejudices into the therapeutic relationship.

I apolgoize if I have been catty. But it is a little hard when I have had to take the abuse that TD has been dishing out. Questioning my credibility in every post.


truth dancer wrote:I do not think questioning your credibility is abuse. It is quite clear to me you have not worked in this field. I truly do find some of your statements unbelievable, even shocking. I appologize if this offends you.


Even when beastie confirms it?

I think we come from two different ends of the spectrum. I follow Maslow and Ellis. You seem to follow Freud.

truth dancer wrote:What could possibly give you the impression I follow Freud. NOTHING can be farther from the truth. I have no idea what gave you this idea. Again, you make up stuff so you can find some sort of argument... or something. Maslow and Ellis are two of my favorites!


Then why do you use the catastrophism line?


"Harmed for life" is the Freudian thought.


Yes, a child who is caught in gunfire, by a man trying to kill his mother, and becomes paralyzed is harmed for life. Nothing Freudian about this. (I started a program for children in seriously abusive homes hoping to stop the cycle of abuse). [/quote]

What's wrong with incarceration? Or removing the child from the abusive home? And did you notice that I told all my developmental psych students that if they came from an abusive home they needed therapy? EVen when they thought they were fine? This can help stop the cycle of violence, too.
truth dancer wrote:The woman whose body was mutilated by her abusive husband is harmed for life. The woman who got HIV when she was raped by former boyfriend, is harmed for life. It happens Charity... we all wish it were not the case but all the therapy in the world is not going to cure HIV, or take away the knife wounds.


And victims/survivors of abuse aren't the only ones who suffer life challenges. I just want to see EVERYONE learn that it isn't the circumstances of your life which determines happiness. AS far as you can see the people you work with as something other than a special class of people, that's fine.Please tell me when I have used the term "victim" as opposed to survivor? I know of no abuse counselors who look upon survivors of abuse as victims. None. I look upon survivors of abuse as strong, amazing women (and men) who have found a way to stay alive.[/quote]

That's good. That isn't what I have seen from some women who have not had to survive abuse, but badly handled therapy. I'm not saying you have harmed any of your clients/patients. But I know of many who have.

truth dancer wrote:
I chose to treat people as organisms with the ability to chose NOT to let people victimize them. And that is a valid perspective.


Again I have no idea why you think there is some psych theory that suggests a therapist should approach their clients/patients with pity. I have never come across this theory you seem to know. Nor have I come across ANY therapists dealing with abuse who approach therapy with this mindset. I have never attended a conference, read a book, heard a speaker suggest such a thing... in fact the opposite is true.


Theory and practice are not the same.

truth dancer wrote:
If you have not been trying to help men and women make healthy decisions, then what have you been doing?


Of course I have tried to help men and women make healthy decisions.

There is a big difference between trying to help people make healthy decisions, and trying to convince them or tell them what they must do.


And have you read where I have said the woman must make the decision herself? I have to repeat myself with you all the time it seems. MAKE HER OWN DECISION. That is opposite to tell them what they must do.

truth dancer wrote:You have a way of making up stuff that is seriously amazing. How many times must I repeat myself. I have never heard of any theory that supports patting a survivor on the head and showing pity?


And I see the results of therapists in practice who do just that. If you aren't one of them, I'm glad.

truth dancer wrote:
YOU seem to mistakenly think this is some approach therapist use.. again, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH AN APPROACH.
Do you understand this? Unless you can show me otherwise, I think it is something you made up Charity.


I guess the only valid experience is yours. And if it isn't your experience, it didn't happen. I've got it.

truth dancer wrote:
Therapy is to help people learn how to make HEALTHY decisions for themselves.


Of course... I would highlight the, "themselves."

Telling survivors of abuse to, "grow a spine," is not taking abuse seriously.


And if you repeat that one more time, I will know you are reading only half my posts and trying to cause a rucus when there isn't one.

truth dancer wrote:The thing is Charity, therapy is more than repeating what is in a book. It is more than knowing Maslow, Freud, Ellis, Rogers, or anyone else. It is more than understanding theory. It is about real people, real situations, real families, real lives.

~dancer~

\
And it is about more than a one size fits all treatment plan. People are different. It's about agency. It's about accountability and responsibility.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

The reasons to stay are fear based and negative, denying growth.. The reasons to leave are life promoting. That's what I mean by "growing a spine." "Confronting the abuser" isn't in the physical sense, standing toe to toe. To leave she has to commit herself to oppose him


After interacting with you on several threads here and on MAD, I have concluded you have a very difficult time admitting when you misspeak. Add to that the possible problem of reading/posting in a rush, which escalates the odds of misspeaking. Yes, you have admitted misspeaking in the past, but only when you really had no other choice, and it took pages to get to that point. Right now you're still in the spin mode, still loathe to admit that you misspoke. What bothers me isn't that you misspoke, because we all do that, but rather that the words you typed may actually reflect your automatic, uncensored feelings towards victims of abuse. It's not an uncommon attitude in our society. But it's unusual in someone with a background in psychology, who should understand the complexities of the cycle of abuse a bit better.

Here's why I think the above is nothing but spin - "growing a spine" indicates that, when the victim remained in the relationship with the abuser, the victim did not HAVE a spine at that point. In other words, the victim is a coward. The victim only stays for cowardly reasons. This is not reflective of reality at all, and minimizes the effect entraining has on the victim, as well. The complicating factors are many - the victim has been carefully taught that he/she is not worth anything, no other person would want a relationship with him/her, he/she cannot take care of him/herself much less dependent children. In addition, there are very real factors that DO impact whether or not the victim can, indeed, take care of him/herself and children. And if the abuser is powerful in the community, there is the real risk of loss of custody. Do you know what it feels like to have to make a choice that means your dependent children will spend a certain amount of time ALONE with the abuser, without you there to protect them? It's not easy, in our legal system, to obtain permanently supervised visitation, and often the supervision is lacking, anyway. I know victims of abuse who have decided to stay simply to avoid that scenario - they didn't want to be FORCED - by the court - to hand over their children for X amount of time to the abuser. And, of course, often the abuser has created a very real financial dependency in the victim.

These are REALITIES, and it takes a SPINE already in place to try and deal with that. To declare they must simply "grow a spine" is incredibly disrespectful, dismissive, and ignorant of reality.

And please - now you're trying to say "confronting the abuser" doesn't actually mean - well, CONFRONTING THE ABUSER??? Besides, what you're now spinning about that statement doesn't make sense within the context of your original statement, which was:

If they don't have the strength to confront their abuser, they need to get out of the situation!


You presented "confronting the abuser" as an ALTERNATIVE to "getting out of the situation". Now you're claiming "confronting the abuser" really is code for "getting out of the situation."
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:
The reasons to stay are fear based and negative, denying growth.. The reasons to leave are life promoting. That's what I mean by "growing a spine." "Confronting the abuser" isn't in the physical sense, standing toe to toe. To leave she has to commit herself to oppose him


After interacting with you on several threads here and on MAD, I have concluded you have a very difficult time admitting when you misspeak. Add to that the possible problem of reading/posting in a rush, which escalates the odds of misspeaking. Yes, you have admitted misspeaking in the past, but only when you really had no other choice, and it took pages to get to that point. Right now you're still in the spin mode, still loathe to admit that you misspoke. What bothers me isn't that you misspoke, because we all do that, but rather that the words you typed may actually reflect your automatic, uncensored feelings towards victims of abuse. It's not an uncommon attitude in our society. But it's unusual in someone with a background in psychology, who should understand the complexities of the cycle of abuse a bit better.

Here's why I think the above is nothing but spin - "growing a spine" indicates that, when the victim remained in the relationship with the abuser, the victim did not HAVE a spine at that point. In other words, the victim is a coward. The victim only stays for cowardly reasons. This is not reflective of reality at all, and minimizes the effect entraining has on the victim, as well. The complicating factors are many - the victim has been carefully taught that he/she is not worth anything, no other person would want a relationship with him/her, he/she cannot take care of him/herself much less dependent children. In addition, there are very real factors that DO impact whether or not the victim can, indeed, take care of him/herself and children. And if the abuser is powerful in the community, there is the real risk of loss of custody. Do you know what it feels like to have to make a choice that means your dependent children will spend a certain amount of time ALONE with the abuser, without you there to protect them? It's not easy, in our legal system, to obtain permanently supervised visitation, and often the supervision is lacking, anyway. I know victims of abuse who have decided to stay simply to avoid that scenario - they didn't want to be FORCED - by the court - to hand over their children for X amount of time to the abuser. And, of course, often the abuser has created a very real financial dependency in the victim.

These are REALITIES, and it takes a SPINE already in place to try and deal with that. To declare they must simply "grow a spine" is incredibly disrespectful, dismissive, and ignorant of reality.

And please - now you're trying to say "confronting the abuser" doesn't actually mean - well, CONFRONTING THE ABUSER??? Besides, what you're now spinning about that statement doesn't make sense within the context of your original statement, which was:

If they don't have the strength to confront their abuser, they need to get out of the situation!


You presented "confronting the abuser" as an ALTERNATIVE to "getting out of the situation". Now you're claiming "confronting the abuser" really is code for "getting out of the situation."


Yep, I goofed. I tried to respond to a post in "popspeak" and eschewed scholarly language. Okay, beastie, from now on, I won't post (on psychological topics) in popular mode, but only in the most scholarly, dry and technical terms. That's the only way to avoid such misunderstandings.

But in return, people like TD ought to accept clarifications. You are somewhat better at that than she is. Also, people who want to post in opposition to what I say should read all the post. But of course, they would have no argument if they don't hone in on one phrase or one word and then perseverate beyond reason.

Your description of the realities of the legal and financial circumstances is correct. That is why in one post I said that often the abused person makes a choice between alternatives and chooses to stay. "The reasons to stay are more compelling than the reason to go." Those were my exact words. TD ignored that.

Also, would you please, by PM so as not to embarrass her further, educate TD on the situations where an abuse victim will provike an attack? For all her training, she doesn't know that. This could lead to some very sad situations if she happens to be treating one such person and denies that.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Yep, I goofed. I tried to respond to a post in "popspeak" and eschewed scholarly language. Okay, beastie, from now on, I won't post (on psychological topics) in popular mode, but only in the most scholarly, dry and technical terms. That's the only way to avoid such misunderstandings.


No, it's not an issue of "popspeak" versus "dry, technical terms" AT ALL. It wouldn't have mattered if you had used technical words instead of "grow a spine". The misstatement has to do with the fact that you insinuated that women who remain in abusive relationships do so out of lack of courage, or, lack of a "spine". While it certainly requires courage to envision a new life, victims do not stay in abusive relationships simply because they lack courage. The second misstatement had to do with "confronting" an abuser, and IF she can't do that, she should get out. Then you tried to say that by "confronting" you really meant "get out". Baloney. So if you think that the only "goof" was not using technical terms, then the issue really is your underlying attitudes towards victims of abuse. You may try to help them, but do you respect them?




Your description of the realities of the legal and financial circumstances is correct. That is why in one post I said that often the abused person makes a choice between alternatives and chooses to stay. "The reasons to stay are more compelling than the reason to go." Those were my exact words. TD ignored that.


The difficulty is reconciling these statements you make with your connecting remaining in an abusive relationship simply due to lack of courage or strength. You're giving mixed messages.

But in return, people like TD ought to accept clarifications. You are somewhat better at that than she is. Also, people who want to post in opposition to what I say should read all the post. But of course, they would have no argument if they don't hone in on one phrase or one word and then perseverate beyond reason.


Also, would you please, by PM so as not to embarrass her further, educate TD on the situations where an abuse victim will provike an attack? For all her training, she doesn't know that. This could lead to some very sad situations if she happens to be treating one such person and denies that.


I've known TD for years online, and in real life for quite a while, too. You are absolutely incorrect when you state she does not accept clarifications. The problem is that you are giving mixed messages even when you clarify You've done it again in this post. You will admit to "goofing", but not because what you said was contextually wrong, but because of the words you used - "popspeak" versus "dry technical terms'".

In regards to provoking the attack, I want to be very clear on what that means, again. The only reason I am aware that this sometimes happens is because Patricia Evans mentioned it in one of her books about verbal abuse. What happens is that the abuser begins the "bitch" internal cycle - for whatever reason, the abuser's internal state is disrupted (again) and because the abuser is not emotionally capable of dealing with life as it is, the abuser seeks to blameshift and "self talks" him or herself into fixing all blame for his/her current malaise on "the bitch". "The Bitch" could prevent this malaise if only "The Bitch" wanted to. (obviously this entails all sorts of irrational and magical thinking but that is part of the emotional handicap of the abuser) "The Bitch" becomes the dragon that haunts him, that causes him constant pain, that makes his life miserable. He wants to "slay the dragon" by attacking "The Bitch". Only this will alleviate his/her current malaise and internal stressful state, which threatens to consume him/her. So he begins to fume and pick, looking for a trigger to pull. The victim is very familiar with this cycle, and knows what is coming. The victim knows there is nothing she/he can do to prevent the final attack. So some victims (a small subset) will deliberately do or say something they know will provoke even more anger in the abuser. This provides the trigger for the final attack, and then it's over with and the cycle starts again.

As I stated before, you have to be very careful when discussing this possibility, because it can mislead people (like coggins, by the way) into misinterpreting what has occurred. These ignorant people will believe that the "Trigger" is what is important in the cycle, and if the victim had not provided "the trigger" then the attack would not have happened, hence, the victim is partially responsible for the abuse. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

But the problem is that you included this reference to a small subset in your primary definition of abuse, and it really doesn't belong there, and confuses the picture. This has contributed to the mixed messages you've given on this thread, and I think you should pay attention to the fact that most posters on this thread have been confused by those mixed messages.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:
Then the issue really is your underlying attitudes towards victims of abuse. You may try to help them, but do you respect them?


Respect them as children of God? Of course. And I know that it is impossible to really KNOW what anyone's circumstances are--the way they were rasied, what the totality of their life experiences are--therefore we cannot judge.

Do I think they have made unwise decisions? Of course, I do. Research indicates that abuse begins very early in a relationship. Long before marriage, children. Do I think there was the opportunity early on to get out when getting out is relatively easy? Of course.

I will remind you again, that of all the theories of human behavior, the one that makes the most sense to me is behavioral theory, cognitive behavioralism more presicely. We perform any behavior because it is reinforced. Behavior which is punished extinguishes. When you look at abusive situations it becomes much more complicated than most people assume.

beastie wrote:
Your description of the realities of the legal and financial circumstances is correct. That is why in one post I said that often the abused person makes a choice between alternatives and chooses to stay. "The reasons to stay are more compelling than the reason to go." Those were my exact words. TD ignored that.


The difficulty is reconciling these statements you make with your connecting remaining in an abusive relationship simply due to lack of courage or strength. You're giving mixed messages.


The only mixed message comes from the victims. They want out but they choose to stay because they want other things more. I am not saying those other choices are not valid. Protect the children from abuse, they want to keep their present financial status rather than ADC,etc.
beastie wrote:In regards to provoking the attack. . .

As I stated before, you have to be very careful when discussing this possibility, because it can mislead people (like coggins, by the way) into misinterpreting what has occurred. These ignorant people will believe that the "Trigger" is what is important in the cycle, and if the victim had not provided "the trigger" then the attack would not have happened, hence, the victim is partially responsible for the abuse. THIS IS NOT TRUE.


And if you do not teach and instruct people who are going to be counseling victims, and they are ignorant of this, they can do real damage to those they are counseling. That is who should not be left to misinterpret.
beastie wrote:But the problem is that you included this reference to a small subset in your primary definition of abuse, and it really doesn't belong there, and confuses the picture. This has contributed to the mixed messages you've given on this thread, and I think you should pay attention to the fact that most posters on this thread have been confused by those mixed messages.


I think my message is quite clear. Trying to hide something that needs to be understood is not going to garner the understanding it should have. How about the woman who is abused who knows she deliberately did something to provoke an attack? If she doesn't understand the underlying dynamic what is she left to think? She thinks she is causing the abuse! Which is why any counselor worth his/her salt should know about it and know how to deal with it in a therapeutic relationship.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

charity wrote:The reasons to stay are fear based and negative, denying growth.. The reasons to leave are life promoting. That's what I mean by "growing a spine." "Confronting the abuser" isn't in the physical sense, standing toe to toe. To leave she has to commit herself to oppose him


I guess I can hi-jack the thread a different direction (since I wrote the OP....). When I read this, I thought of the "spine" I had to grow to leave the church, and the "reasons I stayed were fear-based" as well...and "the reasons to leave are life promoting...."

Interesting to see the similarities....
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Respect them as children of God? Of course. And I know that it is impossible to really KNOW what anyone's circumstances are--the way they were rasied, what the totality of their life experiences are--therefore we cannot judge.


Well, how generous of you. You respect them as “children of God”. Of course, this phrase becomes less meaningful when you realize that, under Mormon theology, every human being on the face of the earth merits that kind of “respect”, even Hitler.

But they were “unwise”. This is another one of your statements that leads me to doubt you’ve studied abuse in particular. Abusers are predators, and, like any predator, are very cunning about choosing their victims. They’re going to target individuals whom they sense may be easier to manipulate, train, and control. Was it being “unwise” that led these future victims to this state?

Of course, you rush to include that we can’t KNOW life’s circumstances – after all, there may be something in their background that means they shouldn’t be JUDGED for ending up the victim of abuse. For example, maybe their culture, say in the form of their religion, teaches them to forgive over and over and over, and teaches them that divorce is very close to sin, if not actual sin. Perhaps they are taught, by their culture, to look for advice from other authority figures, and maybe those authority figures actually don’t have the slightest clue about the cycle of abuse, so give horrendous advice. Maybe they’ve been taught that their marriage covenants are the most sacred promises made before God, and should not be disregarded even there is any hope for marital redemption. And, of course, they keep being assured by the abuser that THIS time they will change, it won’t happen again, and besides, some of it really WAS their fault.

Implicit in your statement that one should refrain from JUDGING the victims of abuse is the idea that some could rightfully be judged, by God, at least.

I have to say, it’s very easy for someone who has never experienced abuse to be glib about the “unwise choices” of those who have experienced it. Patricia Evens, in her books on verbal abuse, made clear that, in her research, there are no common factors in victims of abuse that one could call “unwise choices”. But I guess it makes you feel better to tell yourself it’s due to their “unwise choices”. But since you’re big on accountability, will you hold the authority figures who have given horrendous advice to victims of abuse accountable as well? Or how about institutions that place them in positions where people are encouraged to view these authority figures as having the insight and ability to help them with difficult life issues? Or the highest leaders in those institutions? And how about God? Are you going to hold God accountable for the fact that he apparently wasn’t willing to convey clear information to those people who act in his name, in order to help alleviate such vast human suffering?


Do I think they have made unwise decisions? Of course, I do. Research indicates that abuse begins very early in a relationship. Long before marriage, children. Do I think there was the opportunity early on to get out when getting out is relatively easy? Of course.


Oh, do tell me. Why would women make the “unwise decision” to stay with an abuser before having children, when the ‘getting out is relatively easy’? I really want to know why you imagine they do this.



The only mixed message comes from the victims. They want out but they choose to stay because they want other things more. I am not saying those other choices are not valid. Protect the children from abuse, they want to keep their present financial status rather than ADC,etc.


You are giving mixed messages about victims of abuse right now, and have done so throughout this thread. You “respect” them as “children of God” – just like you would have to respect their abusers, by the way – and you generously refrain from “judging” them because you don’t have all the information you need to judge.

Let me tell you, charity, these victims of abuse are stronger than you could ever imagine from your patronizing perch as someone who has never experienced abuse. They find a way to survive every single day, and to help their children survive. They aren’t weak. They always had a spine. They – like the rest of our culture, including YOU – just don’t understand the dynamics of abuse and keep hoping they can do SOMETHING to make it change – OR they realize the risks of exit are too great.

It’s almost a form of magical thinking, like child victims of parental abuse often develop. To accept that you have NO CONTROL over something so horrific that keeps happening is a fate worse than death. So they pretend they have control. They pretend if they’re perfect enough, then it won’t happen. Or if they do X, Y, and Z, it won’t happen. To really accept that the person who supposedly loves them more than anyone else in the world would do this to them for NO GOOD REASON is just too frightening a reality to accept. So they prefer magical thinking.


I’m going to share more of my own story, in the hopes of helping you understand. Up until my marriage, I had not experienced abuse, so knew nothing about how it works. When I became LDS as the age of 19, I became immersed in a culture that highly praised marriage and children, chastity, and the possibility of repentance, change, and forgiveness for ALL sins. I became immersed in a culture that taught me to view certain men as authority figures, who had the God-given “right” to be a steward of some sort over me. I became immersed in a culture that valued marrying other believers, in the temple, and viewed the covenants made the temple as the most serious promises one can make in this life.

Living in the “mission field”, there weren’t many eligible Mormon boys to begin with. So our dating pool was very small. My ex-husband actually counseled with the stake president and got names of eligible females in the stake, since there weren’t many in his hometown. My name was the top of the list, so he called me. I was quite willing to go out with him. He was a worthy Mormon, RM, temple recommend holder, and the stake president obviously thought he was a decent guy, else why give him my name? So we went out, had a great time. He was charming, very easy to talk to, very committed to the church and God. The attraction between us was incredibly strong, so strong it was difficult to refrain from going beyond kissing to touching. We decided, with the approval of our parents and church leaders, to expedite getting married to avoid sinning beforehand. We were madly in love, we were both active and temple recommend worthy, and according to what I’d been taught by the church, that was good enough. We knew each other exactly three months by the time we got married in the temple, and such brief engagements are not unusual in the LDS culture. In fact, young people were encouraged by their leaders to avoid lengthy engagements. Like I’d been taught to do, I fasted and prayed about marrying him, and had incredibly strong, good feelings about it. Every now and then he’d say something that troubled me, but I didn’t expect perfection in a mate, and was eager to forgive and love.

He began verbally attacking me on our honeymoon. Yes, our honeymoon. Why didn’t I have the sense to leave him THEN and THERE? Because of everything I’d been taught by the LDS culture. I’d made the most serious promises of my life in the temple, and I was going to break those promises so easily??? No way. This was just a “trial”, I could “endure”. Plus, I could pray and God would help me. I loved my husband. I didn’t want to abandon him. I thought he had abandonment issues (he did) and if I could love him steadfastedly enough, he would eventually stop this behavior. I prayed and prayed. I received “revelation” telling me it was better to love than BE loved, and God would reward me for my patience. I did not understand abuse, and neither did anyone else around me. I kept hearing that the first years of marriage can be hard, and you just have to stick it out. How did I know what “hard” meant? I went to bishops for help, and none of them indicated that what was happening to me justified ending the marriage. Of course they didn’t, they knew nothing about abuse, either.

So I kept trying, and then accidentally got pregnant. I already could not visualize divorce, so there was no reason not to have children, anyway. I wasn’t going to leave him, I wasn’t going to abandon him, spit on the covenants I’d made before God. No one said it was going to be EASY, only WORTH IT.

You know the real irony? My ex-husband was unusual in that he normally didn’t “honeymoon” me after abuse. Of course his situation is complicated by untreated bipolar, (another thing I had never heard of) as well, so who knows what he really remembered about his own behavior. But when I left the LDS church, he suddenly tried to shape up and began treating me better, began “honeymooning” me between episodes. When I first left the LDS church, he told me “I’ll be the next to go.” So he decided, apparently, that he could not abuse me at will without even trying to behave in between times, because he knew I would never leave him as long as I was a believer in the LDS church.

The LDS church was my effective jailer, in his eyes. Ironic, isn’t it?

In retrospect, the unwise decision I’d made that enabled me to be trapped in the cycle of abuse was joining the LDS church.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Hi Rick,

I was saddened to learn that you were traumatized by your brief experience covering for the Bishop. I have been acquainted with not a few Bishops who have face similar situations, and in some cases even worse, without their coming anywhere close to being traumatized. However, I suppose different people are affected differently by the same things. Perhaps you are more sensative in certain ways. I hope, though, that in the 15 years since then, you have been able to overcome the trauma and move on with your life, but if not, I would be pleased to be of any assistance that I can. Just let me know. I care about you, and just want the very best for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

wenglund wrote:Hi Rick,

I was saddened to learn that you were traumatized by your brief experience covering for the Bishop. I have been acquainted with not a few Bishops who have face similar situations, and in some cases even worse, without their coming anywhere close to being traumatized. However, I suppose different people are affected differently by the same things. Perhaps you are more sensative in certain ways. I hope, though, that in the 15 years since then, you have been able to overcome the trauma and move on with your life, but if not, I would be pleased to be of any assistance that I can. Just let me know. I care about you, and just want the very best for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Hi Wade,

Welcome! The point of my OP was that there appears to be an event, or series of events, that triggers many of us to study, dig deeper, or whatever course they take to (eventually) decide to leave the faith they have been following up to that point. I called it "spiritual trauma" just because I think that best describes what one goes through...and in fact, usually has an event that sparks the change in momentum. After participating in and facilitating quite a few ex-Mormon support groups, it's certainly more the norm than the exception.

I'm sure those that have been exposed to more inconsistencies between what has been taught and actually practiced might be more immune to the trauma. The idea of "inoculation" makes sense to me, and I think it would help retain those members who have not heard about or been exposed to some of the challenges. My experience is that most members don't have any real interest in studying or discussing the potential conflicts in church history unless they have had "an event" that is taking them out of their comfort zone. Some certainly become "stronger" after the research, and some leave.

My OP point is that after the "trauma," I think most are better off for having the challenge -- whichever place they land. I certainly did, and am quite grateful for the experience, as are most that I know.

by the way, after the holiday, let's try to finally get together? Happy New Year to you!
Post Reply