Optical Allusionist

This is a discussion I had with a friend about spiritual abuse.

Thoughts?

Hey Shelly,
As a rule I try to be open minded about things, so I'm trying to understand this spiritual abuse thing. Some of the signs don't really make sense to me. The website doesn't really explain what spiritual abuse is. I thought I would ask you before I tried googling it.
Thanks!
-Katie



No, it doesn't really explain it. Actually wikipedia has a pretty good entry on spiritual abuse. Tell me how you find it. :)



Well, Shelly, I am kind of curious as to your opinion on this. Do you think it's possible to have standards of conduct in an organization without them necessarily being abusive? I think it is, but I can easily see how such circumstances can be abused by some people. By standards of conduct, I mean specifically diet, clothing, tithing, etc. I don't view those things as being requirements as much as guidelines for health and happiness. I know plenty of people who choose not to follow them lol. In fact, I know I still engage in plenty of unhealthy behaviors regardless. I only say that they are a happiness guideline for me personally based on when I was not an active member of the LDS church. I used to feel like the church as a whole was an abusive and negative thing, but I feel differently now. The people aren't necessarily the gospel. This is not meant to be preaching at you, just sharing my opinion and thoughts lol.



Katie, I want to warn you that I've been sick for the past few days, but I've been thinking a lot about writing you back, so I want to write you, but I hope I'm understandable ;)

I don't think it's a problem to have those standards of conduct. But the way an organization sets about getting their people to follow those standards, can be abusive. In the case of the LDS Church, they set very clear boundaries on what is immoral or moral. So, if one is drinking coffee, they are unable to enter the temple. If a woman is immodest, she is "becoming pornography" (Dallin H. Oaks, “Pornography,” Ensign, May 2005, 87). If a member is not paying their tithing, they are not allowed into the temple.

The Church sets up a black/white, dirty/clean dichotomy. I say dirty/clean because no clean thing can be in the presence of God, nor in the Lord's house, namely the temple. Therefore we must assume that if one cannot enter into the Lord's presence, they are not clean, or dirty, and that whatever keeps them from the Lord's house makes them dirty. So, if I drink a coffee, I am not clean, or I am immoral.

I understand the need for health, but if the Word of Wisdom was simply about health, why include tea when there are many health benefits for those who drink tea, and why exclude sugar, and fatty foods? We must take care of our bodies, but if I drink tea, I can reduce my likelihood of having a stroke, or a heart attack, or developing Alzheimers. It bolsters my immune defenses, and fights against cancer. Tea lowers stress hormones, eases irritability, headaches, nervous tension, and insomnia. Tea helps to lower cholesterol and blood pressure. Tea helps with acne and bad breath. Tea can even lead to the inhibition of HIV.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14361.php
http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/18/33-health-benefits-of-drinking-tea/
http://healthmad.com/health/why-you-should-drink-tea-more-often-five-health-benefits/


Modesty is a good standard to have, in body, in mind, in speech, but to create the dichotomy between pure and porn is absurd and insulting. Those who imply that a woman who wears a low-cut blouse is synonymous to pornography, are unfamiliar with it. And this dichotomy again creates the clean/unclean boxes.


Giving 10% of one's earnings to an organization that aids the world is a noble thing. But when the organization says your soul, your eternity, and your family's eternity depends on you giving 10% of your earnings to that organization, and the organization will not open their books so that those donating their money can see where there money is going, it is suspicious at best, extortion at worst-- as the threat is your eternal damnation to a lesser kingdom. My problem with tithing, is not that they ask for 10%, or that they ask for anything at all, but that they 1) ask for it under threat, and 2) will not open their books, so the members know what their money is going to. We 'know' what it goes to, because we take their word for it. If it is what they say it is, what would the problem be in opening their books? This is an abusive tactic.

So far, firstly, the Church sets up a clean/dirty dichotomy-- those that can and do go to the temple, are good/clean/worthy. Those who can or do not, are unclean/dirty/unworthy. This dichotomy does not allow dissent, which is an abusive tactic. I'm reminded of the hymn "Ye Simple Souls Who Stray". It is a fair reflection of what the Church teaches in terms of people being happier, more enlightened, and more successful within, and not with-out the Church. If someone in a relationship were to say "You could not be happy without me", or "You could not be close to God without me", or "You will not be as good of a person without me", it would be seen as an abusive relationship, and that is the dichotomy that the Church is very clear about.

I don't want to offend, but I do want to have an honest discussion. So, I will bring up temple ceremonies, and you are welcome to skip this paragraph. I do not mean to desecrate something sacred to you, but I do believe this to be a key puzzle piece in the abusiveness of the Church. Without the temple, we are estranged from those closest to us, from those we love for eternity. We are destined to a lower kingdom, or a lower degree if we have been baptized. It is absolutely crucial, in our understanding, to attain that highest degree, and therefore, we must, for our sake and for the sake of our family, go through the temple. Do we know what happens in the temple, before we go? No, usually not. There are two reasons one goes through the temple for the first time. To be married and take out one's endowments, or to take out one's endowments-- perhaps for a mission. When the ceremony begins, the member is told that he/she cannot tell others about what happens inside the temple. They used to be taught the signs of the penalty, the brutal ways they would suffer if they went contrary to anything they had learned. They no longer include the signs of the penalty in the ceremony, but they continue to stress the precise, severe importance of not going contrary to anything they had learned inside the temple, and not telling outsiders about them either. So, a member has no clue what they are getting into, usually has to make a huge commitment-- marriage/mission- under threat of eternal damnation to a lesser kingdom/degree, and is not allowed to divulge or dissent, once pulled into the ceremony. This is an abusive tactic.

I really think the biggest problem is that the Church does not allow dissent, and that their members must follow, under threat of not being with their family.

So, that's my opinion. What do you think? You didn't sound like you were preaching at all-- I hope I haven't either. I'm glad we can share our viewpoints on the subject.



Hey Shelly, a proper response is still on my to do list. I have been working on it, but your message was quite lengthy, and I've been quite busy unfortunately. Hopefully my time will free up after I get these grad apps in.



Don't worry about it, Katie. Life gets busy. I totally understand.



I'm so lame; I still haven't responded to this. I forget things when I don't write them down, and I lost my to do list haha. But I remember now, if you would still like a response?



Whatever you want to do, I'm fine with. I don't want to impose on your life if it's too much of a hassle.