Signs of an abusive partner/spouse/church

[_stemelbow]

Bull.

By this logic I could just as easily say that anybody can leave an abusive relationship any time they want.

I don't believe that, and I don't believe that adherants of religion can simply leave any time they want. There are much more powerful factors at play.

I'm sticking with my "spirit of" people's comments here. i don't think Harmony's point was that there was no other factors at play, but its a far cry for someone who still goes to church to preserve family relations (other factors that make it difficult to leave) to a person who stays in relationships for fear of their own life, or a child's life or something liek that. Again the spirit that Harmony suggests to go this route in argument is to disrespect those who suffer in abusive relationships. Its spot on.

[Guest]

I'm not sure that was the case. Any organization must take responsibility for the decisions of its leadership. And given the small size of the church at that time, If I recall correctly the leadership of the church directly involved in MMM were accountable for a sizable proportion of the church itself.

What was the proportion? I'm not sure you're making a good case on this, but I'd like to know the proportion anyway.

On top of that, your initial argument was that the Church, currently, is abusive. Not that 150 plus years ago something happened that can be characterized as the Church being abusive. Everyone here seems to agree--the Church has changed to some extent.

I remember hearing 1/3, but I can't substantiate it.

In any case, the point of that particular subject was gaslighting - denying things they've actually done.

[_Scottie]

Bull.

By this logic I could just as easily say that anybody can leave an abusive relationship any time they want.

I don't believe that, and I don't believe that adherants of religion can simply leave any time they want. There are much more powerful factors at play.

I'm sticking with my "spirit of" people's comments here. i don't think Harmony's point was that there was no other factors at play, but its a far cry for someone who still goes to church to preserve family relations (other factors that make it difficult to leave) to a person who stays in relationships for fear of their own life, or a child's life or something liek that. Again the spirit that Harmony suggests to go this route in argument is to disrespect those who suffer in abusive relationships. Its spot on.

I dunno...

While I do agree that it isn't a physical danger, there are many other dangers that are just as real to a person who no longer believes in the church. These are VERY powerful motivators to keep a non-believer from leaving.

Aside from non-believers, the church has some VERY good defensive mechanisms built in that keep believers from ever wanting to become an non-believer. All apostates turn into whoreing alcoholics that have no sense of morals anymore, they lose the spirit, they lose the priesthood, they are consigned to an eternity of misery and woe, reading anti-Mormon literature (even if it's LDS) will invite Satan into your life, etc.

[_harmony]

Bull.

By this logic I could just as easily say that anybody can leave an abusive relationship any time they want.

I don't believe that, and I don't believe that adherants of religion can simply leave any time they want. There are much more powerful factors at play.

It's a tiny bit different to walk away from a religion, even as all-encompassing a religion as the LDS church, than it is to walk away from someone with a gun who has already broken all restraining orders. Even the threat of the threat is enough for an abuser to keep control.

[_stemelbow]

I remember hearing 1/3, but I can't substantiate it.

one third? Oh my goodness, it'd be interesting to see the case for that figger. I'd guesstimate something closer to .3%. reality is probably somewhere in between the two figures--like at .4%.

In any case, the point of that particular subject was gaslighting - denying things they've actually done.

Whose actually done? I think leaving topics like this in the critics hands will cause people to start thinking their Mormon neighbors are going to come get them in the middle of the night.

[_Scottie]

It's a tiny bit different to walk away from a religion, even as all-encompassing a religion as the LDS church, than it is to walk away from someone with a gun who has already broken all restraining orders. Even the threat of the threat is enough for an abuser to keep control.

I'm certainly not saying it's apples to apples. But to wave your hand at just how easy it is to walk away from a church compared to domestic abuse isn't right either.

[_just me]

I think that it should be considered that there are different types of abuse and varying degrees of abuse.

There are many people who are victims of emotional or spiritual abuse who have never been physically harmed. Just because they wear their scars on the inside does not mean that they have not been abused and do not have scars.

To imply such is an insult to those who have suffered emotional abuse.

The god that is described in Mormonism *is* abusive. There is absolutely no doubt about it. He murders people. He denies access to him unless you do EXACTLY what he says. He tests and tricks people. etc etc

I have yet to meet an LDS child who was allowed to leave the church if they wanted to if they had 2 believing parents. No, you can't always just leave the church anytime you want.

[_just me]

One might think we’re avoiding each other if we don’t directly pose arguments against each others view. We don’t’ want that. So here goes.

The spirit of the “control” sign is that someone controls all of one’s finances and the controller becomes angry when a woman begins to show signs of independence. I think it takes a great deal of twisting to make this fit the Church. While I get the Church doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to women’s roles, I don’t think its fair to categorize it as the Church getting angry when a woman shows signs of independence. Afterall, we could take a poll and see how many women feel like they show signs of independence frequently without retribution. It’d be interesting to compare that with how you perceive things.

I'm certainly not ignoring you. I just don't understand your posts anymore. For a while there they were really good. Now they don't seem to be saying anything.

For example, I am not clear on what your "argument" is here other than you only partially agree.

The church goes out of its way to explain to women why they are not allowed in certain realms and why that is acceptable. Both men and women in the church throw around all kinds of silly reasons for it. Women who are unhappy with the role they have been given tend to be punished in some way when they start talking about it or, heaven forbid, trying to effect change within the church. I am speaking of specific examples of the priesthood ban on women and the ban of goddess worship. In addition to this women do not have control over their own women's organization. They do not have voice in all of the councils of the church. They do not have power over who serves in what capacity and only MEN get a say in that. If a woman steps out of line a man can fire her from her calling.

by the way, it is not uncommon for victims of abuse to believe that they are not abused and in fact at fault for anything wrong in their lives. A poll would not be all that helpful in determining if the church organization has features of an abusive situation.

Again the spirit of this sign is much different then “anyone who disagrees is wrong” (even though that characterization, in my eyes, is wrong). If Scottie thinks this is a strained example I think its far beyond that. I really do. This is more like twisting and spinning it to meet an agenda. That’s exploiting abuse, if you ask me.

I really have no idea what you are saying here. This isn't an argument.

[_harmony]

He murders people.

Let us not forget the Old Testament. Jews... Mormons... Christians. Same guy.

[_Buffalo]

I remember hearing 1/3, but I can't substantiate it.

one third? Oh my goodness, it'd be interesting to see the case for that figger. I'd guesstimate something closer to .3%. reality is probably somewhere in between the two figures--like at .4%.

If I remember right, I heard this from John Larsen of Mormon Expression.

In any case, the point of that particular subject was gaslighting - denying things they've actually done.

Whose actually done? I think leaving topics like this in the critics hands will cause people to start thinking their Mormon neighbors are going to come get them in the middle of the night.

Have you forgotten Packer's philosophy so quickly?