[Spiritual Abuse (s/o Duggar fiasco, CC but all religions or lack thereof welcome)]

I've thought a lot about this today, and I don't know if this will be the least bit helpful, but I've thought of four primary ways that the sect that I grew up in created the kind of atmosphere that leads to abuse (spiritual and otherwise). I also debated whether or not to say which sect that was, but I've said it on these boards before so it's not a secret. I grew up Jehovah's Witness. This is not intended to be an anti-JW rant, and in fact I have tried to keep this general and delve into specifics only when necessary to explain, but I feel it's appropriate to be honest about that. Plus it's a whole lot easier to say JWs than it is to keep saying "the sect I grew up in."

 

I also don't put this forward as any kind of comprehensive list, it's just some points I noticed and remember. The list isn't perfect, because these things can overlap, and also because it's a matter of degree. A perfectly healthy church might have a characteristic I've listed here to a lesser degree. Where does one draw the line? How many characteristics have to be present before abuse is likely? I don't know. But those are important questions to ask.

 

 

1. Absolute Authority

 

I'm putting this first because it's probably the most important (without it, none of the others would even be an issue). But it's also rather difficult to explain and describe, so I ask forgiveness in advance for not doing a better job.

 

An abusive sect puts itself (its leadership) in the role of savior instead of Christ. No possibility of salvation exists outside of the sect, not even among other Christian churches, because faith in Christ is not what saves, faith in the organization is what saves.

 

Merely questioning their authority is seen as a challenge to it - you will be accused of having an "independent spirit" and will have disciplinary action brought against you. In some cases you may even be excommunicated (more on that below).

 

All churches, of course, offer their membership advice and guidance, and the laity has the freedom to accept or refuse it. Abusive sects don't merely advise or guide, they control. Decisions that any reasonably healthy adult should be able to make for herself, such as what kind of tv shows she wants to watch, get made by the leadership instead. Christian unity, which is healthy and good, gets twisted into uniformity, which is destructive and oppressive.

 

In abusive sects, pastors are given an inordinate amount of power over their flock. For example, they have the ability to disfellowship (excommunicate) someone from the sect, meaning that they have the power to convince your friends and family to never speak to you again, to cut off all ties with you and basically make you "dead" to them, and they don't even have to explain WHY they are doing this. Their authority is that final. They say it, it is done.

 

The anti-education thing can be one aspect of this too. Colleges can't be trusted. Only the sect can be trusted.

 

2. Fear

 

People who are terrified and/or furious are easier to manipulate and control than those who have peace and contentment. Abusive sects keep the membership constantly in fear: fear of God's wrath and therefore one's own destruction/damnation/hell, fear of some event such as armageddon, fear of outsiders who are perceived as a threat to the group. No matter how much you're doing, no matter how hard you are trying, it's not enough - the anxiety is palpable. The admonishments, scoldings, and warnings of danger will vastly outnumber the messages of support and encouragement.

 

 

3. Isolation

 

Abusive sects go to great lengths to separate their membership from society at large and from non-members. They strongly discourage or even forbid associating with people outside the sect - even if those people are your family. And this applies even to people who are the same general religion but not part of the particular sect. You may have to go to work or school with people outside the sect, but you can't participate in social events with them. No dinners with coworkers or movies with school friends. They may not even be allowed to set foot in another church for any reason whatsoever (my mom, for example, was not allowed to attend her sister's funeral). All of this is justified as "protection" from evil influences. In reality of course it's just that the leadership is terrified that the members will realize how much better off they'd be outside the sect!

 

The anti-education thing rears its ugly head again here. Getting a higher education means spending a lot of time around non-believers. Best be safe and avoid that!

 

 

4. Caste System

 

Abusive sects may have a caste system by which some people are superior and closer to God, and others are inferior and further from God. I guess one easy way to control a large group is to put some of them in charge of the others. In some sects, the castes might be defined by gender. Now I want to state for the record that I don't think there's anything wrong with having different gender roles if both roles are equally respected, valued, and appreciated. But when one is greater than and the other less than, when one is given power and authority over the other, that is a sure-fire recipe for abuse.

 

JWs do that with gender to an extent, but not to the same extent as other sects that I've heard of. They have another, unique, caste system: the "anointed class" (this is about 14,000 out of their 8-million members) and the "great crowd" which is everybody else. Only the anointed may partake of communion. Only the anointed will go to heaven. Only the anointed have Christ as their mediator (the "great crowd" has the anointed as their mediator). It's a way of putting people in their place, and it's far more effective than defining it by gender since it works on 99.99% of the group instead of just half.

 

(And regarding what I said above about questioning authority - people have been excommunicated for merely questioning this system and the Biblical (lack of) support for it. That tells me that this is a critically important way that they maintain control and authority, because they protect it at all costs.)

 

 

 

I can think of other problems, red flags, and signs of dysfunction. But everything else that I think of really can be put into one of those four categories. So I'm thinking that's about as straightforward as I can make it. I don't know if that will be of any help or interest to you, but it has been very interesting for me to think about this dynamic. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

I have a question. I have no clue how this works.

 

There were FIVE victims mentioned in this report, right?

 

ONE of those victims requested that the report be destroyed, so the report is going to be destroyed (has been destroyed?).

 

What about the wishes of the other four victims? Did they get a say? Did they all have to agree to this, or is a request from one sufficient for this to be carried out?

[Spiritual Abuse (s/o Duggar fiasco, CC but all religions or lack thereof welcome)]

Katy, this is an important question you have raised, and while I have no formal training or education on this topic whatsoever, I did grow up in a spiritually abusive sect. If I can manage a calm and rational response, I will share some of my experiences and thoughts with you. But it will have to wait until later today, as I am going to attend my healthy, normal, mainstream church this morning. :)

 

Hugs,

G.

[Spiritual Abuse (s/o Duggar fiasco, CC but all religions or lack thereof welcome)]

I don't think its the lack of degrees that is a problem. It's more the disdain for education. And the discouragement of anyone getting an education. That is something you are more likely to find in a denomination which doesn't require a degree for the pastor.

 

When people are ignorant you have control.

This is exactly the point that I was going to make, except I would have done it in a much more rambly, ranting, emotional way. (I still have some baggage where this topic is concerned. Maybe more than "some".)

 

Opposition to education is not just a red flag. It's a gigantic waving red flag in flames.

[Your favorite musical]

I've just loaded up my Netflix queue with as many of these as I could find. I really hope that I get the chance to see more musicals live, though, because that is the best! I saw Rent and Wicked live, as I mentioned, but I forgot to mention that I had seen Les Mis, Phantom of the Opera, and Miss Saigon live many many years ago. Unfortunately for all three, I had really terrible seats in huge venues, and I wasn't familiar with the music/stories before going, so I think I missed out on a lot.

 

Oh, and I do have the soundtrack for Chess! Never got to see a production of it, but I do enjoy the music.

 

Thank you all again for the many great suggestions!

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

I think I need to distance myself from this story for awhile. I clearly can't handle it any more.

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

Matt Walsh!

 

:laugh:

 

That explains it.

 

^_^

 

ETA: I'm awfully surprised The Blaze carried this.

 

:huh:

Actually, that was the first time that Matt Walsh said something that I agree with: "I guess I'm just a horrible person then."

 

Yes, Matt, yes you are.

 

You are a horrible person for saying that Josh "touched" and "fondled" when the truth is that he REPEATEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED five innocent little girls over the course of a year.

 

You are a horrible person for being more upset about the sh*tstorm that Josh has created for himself than for the hell that he created for his victims.

 

You are a horrible person for trying to sweep this all under the rug as nothing more than liberals vilifying a good guy who made a mistake.

 

Horrible. Disgusting. You know, your usual.

[Need to vent for a minute.]

I'm so sorry. :grouphug: Glad that no one got hurt, but still very sorry that it happened.

[Jawm...I am not an awful mom]

You are a wonderful mom. :grouphug:

[s/o narcissism or just self- centered?]

It is possible that they are deluding themselves into believing the lies they are telling, but in my experience it is something different. They are the ultimate bullies and always want to be cast in the best light, so they will stop at nothing in order to illustrate their own greatness by comparison to others in terms of how "concerned" and "sympathetic" they are towards the scapegoat's made-up plight. For example, they often want to cast the scapegoat as mentally ill, after the scapegoat draws a line or puts up a boundary for the Narcissist. Under the guise of deep concern they will start calling others up to pull into their made up reality: "Have you talked to Jane lately? Oh you haven't? Well I am quite concerned! She wasn't making any sense when I talked with her and she started making crazy accusations against me! It was so unlike her! I am afraid she has finally gone over the edge! She accused me of tampering with her personal life and making up lies about her! Can you believe it? I felt so awful for her because I know she didn't mean it and I know she loves me, so I didn't take it personally, but I feel so worried about what will happen to her now. Oh yes, I've seen this coming for years! Well, since she is so fragile right now, if you do see her, please don't mention that I told you anything. We don't want to upset poor Jane anymore when she is in such a state. All we can do is pray for her. Please tell me you will pray for her. I appreciate it. Thank you, dear."

 

I have listened to this kind of conversation between my mother and others all my life. She subtly makes herself sound like the victim and the hero all at once. They are crafty as heck! They don't believe their lies, but they sure as heck want other people to and people give a lot of credence to concern for other people's well fare.

Thank you for this explanation. It is a very disturbing and difficult to understand disorder.

[s/o narcissism or just self- centered?]

yes.

 

let me share my experience. my grandmother's favorite/victim (so she could "rescue her") engaged in many inappropriate/unhealthy activities, things that made her life much harder than it needed to be. etc.

 

I found out that in grandmother's mind - I was the guilty party. everything my sister did wrong, was blamed on me. in her mind, I was the one who did them. I found out because my brother berated me for the horrible things I had done. say what? (oh, and everything "good" that happened to me because I made good choices was stealing from my sister.)

 

my grandmother was convinced that it was the truth.

 

Uggh. :grouphug: I am so sorry. I honestly can't even imagine having to live with this from someone within the family. I've just seen a glimpse of it through a friend, and it looks pretty awful.

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

Oh, I think she was likely being honest as well. A few people had implied that maybe she didn't actually know, and I was responding that I certainly don't know why she would say she knew if she didn't - it makes her look worse, not better.

Ah, yes, I see. Sorry I misunderstood.

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

I don't mean to be nitpicky - but can we please use "sect" in this case?

Oh, my, you are absolutely right and that came across in a way I did NOT intend. I am a Christian too! Their version of Christianity is so different than the one that I believe in that I don't even think of it as being the same religion. But I should have chosen my words more carefully (I'll go back and edit) because it did sound like I was possibly lumping them together with all of Christendom. Not my intention.

 

I'm also a Christian - not their version - forgiveness does not equal absolution in this type of case. the law would be encouraged to be brought in, and all parties get the professional help needed at the time of discovery. not 20 years and lots of heartache and damage later.

Yes, well said. I absolutely believe in repentance and forgiveness. Whether Josh has repented or not, I certainly can't determine (though I have my doubts based on his public statement). But more importantly, victims are allowed some grace, actually a LOT of grace, in when and how they forgive, and that grace does not exist in their sect. Also, forgiveness does not necessarily mean allowing someone who has abused you back into your life. Forgiveness can be given from a safe distance!

 

{edited for typo}

[Accusations in the past against Josh Duggar? (warning: sensitive content)]

I guess I don't see how it benefits her at all to say she knew; it just makes people think badly of her and her parents as well as Josh. She could have said she supported him and left it at that, but she made a point of saying that she knew.

I suspect she was just being honest, and didn't try to calculate whether or not it would benefit her to say that. I think the dynamic in that sect is that you absolutely MUST forgive and forget, immediately and completely, and women especially must forgive men. So I suspect it never occured to her that people would think badly of her for forgiving him and marrying him knowing what he had done. Because in that group dynamic, it's the opposite: people would think badly of her for holding it against him, because that's tantamount to refusing to forgive, and that goes against everything they teach, and anyway it's certainly not a woman's place to judge a man, right?

[s/o narcissism or just self- centered?]

Several people have shared stories of someone with NPD spreading vicious lies about an "enemy". This struck me because I know someone (with NPD or sociopathy or some form of mental illness) who did this. And while I knew the people involved and the situation well enough to not be fooled for one second, I know that others believed the lie.

 

But here's my question/comment about this. I really think that part of the reason that people believed her lie is that she was not "lying" in the traditional sense. I can't explain why, but I believe that she convinced herself of the truth of the story she had fabricated, and therefore when she tells this story she comes across as completely sincere, because she is completely sincere.

 

So, this could be my misconception. It could be unique to this person. But I was wondering if this is a characteristic of NPD. It's almost like she believes that reality itself must conform to her will and wishes. If she has decided that something is true, then it is true, and there's simply no other possibility.

 

Does that make sense?

[Your favorite musical]

I enjoyed all the ones you mentioned. I'm not sure if you're asking for movie versions or the actual play, and I'm listing a mix of the two.

Both, so thank you!

 

Someone had apparently talked him into giving us a sample of his singing. I have to say that was probably the coolest thing that ever happened to me during a grocery shopping trip. :D

What a neat experience. :)

[Your favorite musical]

Wow, as always you guys are a wealth of information! :) Thanks so much!

[Your favorite musical]

Thank you all for the suggestions!  I'd heard of some of these and kind of forgotten - had never heard of some of the others.

[Your favorite musical]

I need a light/happy/fun topic.  :)

 

I fell head over heels in love with RENT the first time I saw it.  I got chills and I teared up during One Song Glory, which remains my favorite track from the musical, and one of my favorite songs of all time.

 

I also really enjoyed Mama Mia because those were songs from my early childhood.  I still remember when my baby brother was born and my Granny was taking care of me (I would have been 4).  I kept asking her to play the song about the pretty birds.  It took her a little while to figure out that I meant "Take a Chance on Me."  :D  But once she did, she must have played it for me a hundred times, while I sang and danced in the living room - she had the patience of a saint!  :lol:

 

I saw Wicked when we were in London, and that was great as well.  Mostly because it was in London  :)  but I liked the story and the songs too!

 

But that's really the extent of my experience with modern musicals.  I've seen the old ones like Fiddler on the Roof and The Sound of Music, and I enjoyed those as well.  But I'm sure there must be many good old ones and more recent ones that I've missed out on.  

 

Please enlighten me.  What musicals do I need to see?

 

 

[Anybody else feeling foolish?]

Your innocence is nothing to feel embarrassed about. Being shocked is the *right* reaction.

 

I am very cynical about this stuff, because I was raised in a religion that was obsessed with policing sex between consenting adults, while simultaneously helping rapists and pedophiles hide their sins and continue to abuse people.  So no, I am not shocked.  But that's because of my mistrust and bitterness.  That's not where you want to be.

 

Other people will continue to deny and defend, and that's not where you want to be either, because that is the most sick reaction of all.

 

You, OP, are just fine where you are.   :grouphug:

[Daily dose of Crazy]

Selfie taker got 10 days. Pantser got 45 days.

Wow, that does seem excessive. Both of them, I mean. Don't get me wrong, I think both cases warranted discipline, both teens did something they shouldn't have and need to be corrected, but 10-45 days worth of zeroes in the grade book? Is that the way this works? That seems very counterproductive to me. If the goal of discipline is to set someone on the right track, I don't see how that's going to do it.

 

Not claiming to have a better answer, though. If you (anyone who wishes to answer) were in charge, how would you respond to these scenarios?

[Why Do Obnoxious Atheists Act Like That?]

and sometimes something that wouldn't be a big deal to others is a huge deal to us when we don't agree with it.

 

For example, I have a SIL who is on the conservative side. I don't have facebook, but on occasion I have had to read her facebook page via my dh's account to find out some information. Her page is full of her complaining about how she "understands that people are allowed to post what they like but she wishes people wouldn't go overboard on politics" and it is always, always in response to someone posting something that is not in line with what she believes. I have never seen her have that response to something that she finds acceptable. That doesn't make her radar go off.

 

I doubt she is unusual in any way. When we agree or a neutral to something it slides right past our eyes. We don't even think about it. But, when it goes against our beliefs or challenges what we find important, then we tense up. We mentally start keeping count of how often that person 'annoys' us. And even though we say we don't care what people post, and it is really only THAT person who goes overboard...is it? or is it just that we don't like it?

 

It's just something to think about.

It's a very good thing to think about! I was wondering as I typed my last post how much this has played into my perceptions. Are my liberal friends really less likely to insult those who disagree, or do I just notice it more when my conservative friends do it since I lean left?

 

ETA: And then that leads to the question, "have *I* been more obnoxious than I realize?" And that makes me want to never go on FB again. :lol:

[Why Do Obnoxious Atheists Act Like That?]

Obviously everyone's experience will be different and it all depends on your facebook friends. In my case it's conservatives, believers, and anti-science types (many of that last group in my life are liberal and/or atheist) who post the most about their beliefs.

 

My atheist, liberal, pro-science friends are the quietest, probably because they'll get shouted down if the post about how they really feel.

 

Again, YMMV.

I grew up in a deeply conservative state, and my friends from there can be extremely obnoxious about politics. I live in a more moderate state now and my conservative friends here are more nuanced and careful in their posts. ETA (My first post was poorly thought-out, and I was unintentionally obnoxious myself. I apologize.): I think for those that are accustomed to having everyone agree with them, it's easy to communicate in a way that's annoying to those who don't agree. But when you're accustomed to more diversity of thought, you choose your words more carefully, and come across as less abrasive. And I think this is true of *both* sides of the political spectrum. I moved to one of the most liberal states in the country after having grown up in one of the most conservative, and I saw the same thing there, reversed.

[Why Do Obnoxious Atheists Act Like That?]

I don't think it's obnoxious to post things you believe in on your own fb page.

 

Oh, I think it depends. :) To choose a more emotionally neutral topic, I have a friend who is really into Cross Fit. Probably 90% of her posts are about Cross Fit: upcoming events, videos of workouts, her own progress reports, etc. And even though I'm not the slightest bit interested in Cross Fit, that's great! Now if 90% of her posts were things like, "anyone not doing Cross Fit is an IDIOT", or "only @$$holes like Zumba" or whatever, then that would indeed be obnoxious. :lol:

 

Posting something on your own FB page still means that you are sending it out to all of your friends. So yes, it's obnoxious if you're sending them insults.

 

And I have noticed that both atheists and believers, both conservatives and liberals, both sides of any debate you can think of do this. It's always obnoxious. And it's one of the reasons I don't spend much time on FB - I don't want to be subjected to it when others do it, and I don't want to fall into the trap of doing it myself! I have strong opinions about all of these topics too, but do I really need to voice them?

[Why Do Obnoxious Atheists Act Like That?]

Because he's close enough family that I don't want to miss something significant. I should just block him anyway. But, I just wish I knew why he's behaving like such a CHILD.

You could remove him from your newsfeed but keep him as a friend. That way you don't have to see his rants in your feed every time you log on. But when you're feeling up to the task of checking in with him, you can go directly to his page, and wade through the rants to find any updates.

 

I have removed a whole lotta people from my newsfeed. It has made FB so much more pleasant.