Before Lovebombing

[Give It Time]

I'm actually posting this in the hopes that the COB is lurking.

I'm a domestic violence survivor, but this information has many more applications than that situation.

First of all, the church has a few sound bites , here and there, about the church not tolerating abuse. Its part of church policy. Just a quick illustration, when the man who is now my ex-husband told my former bishop he was abusing us, that bishop issued him a temple recommend and had him start blessing the Sacrament. This rewards abuse. This sends the message what they do is okay.

I had several incidents in my ward that made it very clear my ward was in my ex-husband's corner. This may be a common thing in divorce, but think about it. My husband very contritely confessed that he was abusive. I'm not going to explain this behavior, I'll invite you consult with a DV professional on this. Anyway, stop to consider that people knowingly sided with an abuser. Knowingly making themselves his allies. Think about how this might look to his former wife and children. Now, ask yourself the question, do you think that former wife and children feel safe in their ward? It doesn't matter what is said over the pulpit about not tolerating abuse. That wife and those children are now being served bitter, poisonous fruit by their ward members.

Bottom line: that wife and those children no longer feel safe in their ward. Not just unloved. They don't feel safe. Here is a Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is one that places religion on it.



Now, when the wife and children stop attending in situations like this, the common assumption is they don't feel loved and to lovebomb and fellowship them. The problem is much deeper. It's not a matter of having been offended. It's a matter that, in having coddled the abuser, the victim has received the very clear message they aren't safe in the ward. They aren't safe trusting that bishop. It's not a matter of offense and feeling unloved (a social need). It's a matter of condoning abuse and the victim feeling unsafe (a violation of the security need).

As you can see, feeling safe is a more basic need than feeling loved. If a person (not just an abuse victim) doesn't feel safe, they'll never feel loved.

So, before the lovebombing, I propose earning trust. Not just delivering speeches about trusting in the Lord. We disaffected frequently don't see Christ in the behavior of their fellow saints and justifiably pull away. I suggest doing things like stop rewarding the abuser. Stop gossiping. If that means home visits are drastically changed for that family. So be it. Send the message they're safe, not that you're checking up on them. Treat them with respect. That's a big one. No passive aggressive jokes at their expense. Stop euphemising and diminishing the seriousness of abuse by calling it "stress in the marriage"

These are just initial thoughts. If you want more suggestions. I mean if you honestly care. If this honestly matters to you, open up a dialogue with the disaffected. In my case, the triage takes more expertise. I'll refer you to a domestic violence shelter.

Anyway, just putting this out there. Yours to utilize respectfully or non. Yours too utilize or not.

[blazerb]

I am so sorry you went through this. It is clear that you were not safe attending church. Anything you said or did could get reported back to your husband and be used against you and your children. The church encourages breaking down boundaries, but those boundaries exist for a reason and should not go away unless safety is firmly established.

[document]

Thank you for this post.

I wrote up a long post about my parents' divorce, but I realized short and sweet is better.

My father was very abusive and charismatic. When they divorced my father turned the ward against my mother which was emotionally abusive and in a few cases, physically dangerous for her. She stayed active due to her sheer Brummy obstinate nature. But, she felt physically unsafe at church. She requested to go to a different ward which was denied because of "church policy" and that she was "finding a reason to be offended". When she moved wards when her house sold, the new ward didn't know my father and they rallied around her and protected her. At one point, the bishop even assigned to male escorts because my father was in the building. That fairly basic need of safety was returned and she no longer _feared_ church.

Her experience at church went from insanely depressing and unsafe every week back to normal, where she felt safe. I really believe that had she moved into a place in that same ward she would have eventually left the church. A stalwart member she was and a true-blue believer, but even that isn't enough when your need of physical safety is not being met. Unfortunately, if she had left, I'm very sure that people would have clucked their tongue and furrowed their brow in an attempt to justify their horrific behavior and shift the blame onto her. They would have called her weak, offended, lazy, and wanting to sin.

During this period of time, the only people who would help her out were women who had found themselves in similar situations in the church. She assumed for a while that it was just this particular bishop. Over the years and through multiple wards and stakes she has found dozens and dozens of women who have had similar situations. This led her to the conclusion that this isn't isolated and is a fairly common experienced among abused women. That made her very sad although, unlike me, she doesn't link the problem to an abusive culture but rather to a series of bad apples.

To me, church is a place that you should feel safe. They should be doing everything in their power to make it a safe place. This should be a sanctuary from the world, a place of refuge. It sickens me to think of any person who uses this sanctuary to abuse or further abuse.

My heart goes out to you.

[oliver_denom]

The problem is that I think the issues you describe are systemic. The ward will side with the priesthood holder because it is the priesthood holder who receives the majority of support from the leadership, especially if priesthood holder expresses remorse and repentance.

If we were to diagram a hierarchy of needs for the church, then what would form the base levels of the pyramid? The most basic of the church's needs is the establishment of its authority. I think any objective analysis of what is spoken and taught in church would backup up this proposition, that most focuses on the rights and authority of the church and the men who hold power.

One of the most important lessons I learned during my time in stake and ward leadership, is that the disciplinary process is essential to cementing power and authority within the church. It binds the men together who perform the disciplining and instills the fear that the same may happen to them if they step out of line. More importantly, the individual being disciplined makes a display of how deferential and beholden they are to church authority by voluntarily humiliating themselves, sometimes in very degrading ways, and admitting by their presence that yes, in fact, they recognize that the church has the right to pass judgement on them and do what ever they will. This act, even behind closed doors, strengthens the church's claim to authority more than we realize. It penetrates the entire organization through whispers and the terror of being ostracized. You could be "disciplined" for just about anything, no one would know the details, but they would know it had occurred.

But here's the upside to being disciplined, or for properly showing respect to the church's base need of authority. All a person has to do is whatever they're told, and *poof*, you get complete forgiveness. That's the upside to submitting to the process. The church claims the exclusive right to forgive sins, and they often display that power by the callings they give. Callings = status, and once you've been forgiven, then the leadership is often eager to reward willingness to grovel with status. It's a quid pro quo. I eat dirt and kiss some boots behind closed doors, and in return, I get restored in the public's eye. When they see someone who has been disciplined blessing the sacrament or leading the Elder's quorum, then the assumption is that God and God's chosen servants have wiped the slate clean. No one really knows what happened, because that's secret, but the forgiveness element is more or less public.

What I experienced by watching the process unfold, is that time and time again is that women were treated more harshly, even when they had done nothing wrong. I'll never forget the wife of a former Bishop, a man who had confessed to a decade long affair that partly occurred while Bishop, who was told in the high council room in front of 15 men that the Lord had forgiven her husband and that it was her duty to do so as well. He went through the requisite 12 months of repentance, cried a sufficient amount, read the books he was told to read, and visited with the bishop once a month, so that was good enough. Any further strain in the marriage would be due to her ability not to forgive, not because of anything the husband did "in the past". Only her pride and misunderstanding of the atonement could harm the marriage now. The guy did everything he was told, and that was emblematic of the highest possible good.

I've participated in about a dozen or so disciplinary councils, and they were a primary driver for my disconnecting completely. They were what really convinced me that there was little I could do to change things in the church. It's problems were mixed into its foundation, and only people at the top had the power to tear it up and rebuild. All I have the power to do is withdraw my support in the form of time, talents, and donations, so that's what I did.

[Give It Time]

Thank you for this post.

I wrote up a long post about my parents' divorce, but I realized short and sweet is better.

My father was very abusive and charismatic. When they divorced my father turned the ward against my mother which was emotionally abusive and in a few cases, physically dangerous for her. She stayed active due to her sheer Brummy obstinate nature. But, she felt physically unsafe at church. She requested to go to a different ward which was denied because of "church policy" and that she was "finding a reason to be offended". When she moved wards when her house sold, the new ward didn't know my father and they rallied around her and protected her. At one point, the bishop even assigned to male escorts because my father was in the building. That fairly basic need of safety was returned and she no longer _feared_ church.

Her experience at church went from insanely depressing and unsafe every week back to normal, where she felt safe. I really believe that had she moved into a place in that same ward she would have eventually left the church. A stalwart member she was and a true-blue believer, but even that isn't enough when your need of physical safety is not being met. Unfortunately, if she had left, I'm very sure that people would have clucked their tongue and furrowed their brow in an attempt to justify their horrific behavior and shift the blame onto her. They would have called her weak, offended, lazy, and wanting to sin.

During this period of time, the only people who would help her out were women who had found themselves in similar situations in the church. She assumed for a while that it was just this particular bishop. Over the years and through multiple wards and stakes she has found dozens and dozens of women who have had similar situations. This led her to the conclusion that this isn't isolated and is a fairly common experienced among abused women. That made her very sad although, unlike me, she doesn't link the problem to an abusive culture but rather to a series of bad apples.

To me, church is a place that you should feel safe. They should be doing everything in their power to make it a safe place. This should be a sanctuary from the world, a place of refuge. It sickens me to think of any person who uses this sanctuary to abuse or further abuse.

My heart goes out to you.

Document, there are a lot of women who struggle with this and many of those women do write it off as a few bad apples. It has occurred to me that a bishop shouldn't even have the discretion to allow this to happen. There should be very clear steps, yeah verily a form and checklist very much like the one I've seen screenshots of for a person being rebaptized.

Successfully completed abuse program
Counselor approves further progression toward full activity
X months/years (yes, that long) since an incident has happened
Children feel safe (there could actually be quantifying questions)
Wife feels safe
No reports of misbehavior from other members

You get the idea.

Your mom's case and so many others is why I don't think the church should be allowing the idea of a few bad apples to continue to perpetuate. What if each of those bishops has one case. That's me and my two sons impacted by this bishop's mismanagement. My son not only has left the church, but he carries a poor opinion of it. My testimony was gone, but I was willing to stay involved. My younger son has a testimony, but is for all intents and purposes inactive, because ​he hates the ward.

My family is small by LDS standards. Each of those bad calls represents a life, represents a family. Those people go out and tell their friends about their experiences and the church loses potential converts.

The problem is that I think the issues you describe are systemic. The ward will side with the priesthood holder because it is the priesthood holder who receives the majority of support from the leadership, especially if priesthood holder expresses remorse and repentance.

If we were to diagram a hierarchy of needs for the church, then what would form the base levels of the pyramid? The most basic of the church's needs is the establishment of its authority. I think any objective analysis of what is spoken and taught in church would backup up this proposition, that most focuses on the rights and authority of the church and the men who hold power.

One of the most important lessons I learned during my time in stake and ward leadership, is that the disciplinary process is essential to cementing power and authority within the church. It binds the men together who perform the disciplining and instills the fear that the same may happen to them if they step out of line. More importantly, the individual being disciplined makes a display of how deferential and beholden they are to church authority by voluntarily humiliating themselves, sometimes in very degrading ways, and admitting by their presence that yes, in fact, they recognize that the church has the right to pass judgement on them and do what ever they will. This act, even behind closed doors, strengthens the church's claim to authority more than we realize. It penetrates the entire organization through whispers and the terror of being ostracized. You could be "disciplined" for just about anything, no one would know the details, but they would know it had occurred.

But here's the upside to being disciplined, or for properly showing respect to the church's base need of authority. All a person has to do is whatever they're told, and *poof*, you get complete forgiveness. That's the upside to submitting to the process. The church claims the exclusive right to forgive sins, and they often display that power by the callings they give. Callings = status, and once you've been forgiven, then the leadership is often eager to reward willingness to grovel with status. It's a quid pro quo. I eat dirt and kiss some boots behind closed doors, and in return, I get restored in the public's eye. When they see someone who has been disciplined blessing the sacrament or leading the Elder's quorum, then the assumption is that God and God's chosen servants have wiped the slate clean. No one really knows what happened, because that's secret, but the forgiveness element is more or less public.

What I experienced by watching the process unfold, is that time and time again is that women were treated more harshly, even when they had done nothing wrong. I'll never forget the wife of a former Bishop, a man who had confessed to a decade long affair that partly occurred while Bishop, who was told in the high council room in front of 15 men that the Lord had forgiven her husband and that it was her duty to do so as well. He went through the requisite 12 months of repentance, cried a sufficient amount, read the books he was told to read, and visited with the bishop once a month, so that was good enough. Any further strain in the marriage would be due to her ability not to forgive, not because of anything the husband did "in the past". Only her pride and misunderstanding of the atonement could harm the marriage now. The guy did everything he was told, and that was emblematic of the highest possible good.

I've participated in about a dozen or so disciplinary councils, and they were a primary driver for my disconnecting completely. They were what really convinced me that there was little I could do to change things in the church. It's problems were mixed into its foundation, and only people at the top had the power to tear it up and rebuild. All I have the power to do is withdraw my support in the form of time, talents, and donations, so that's what I did.

What Oliver said is right. It's about authority being the church's basic need is absolutely right. Right now, I'm trying to place other needs on the church's pyramid and I'm drawing a blank. Having lived in a situation that was entirely about authority and not about love, I can tell you it isn't a good place to be. The one with authority is in constant fear of losing it--hence, the abuse--and the one who is oppressed is in constant fear of discipline or reminders of who is in charge. No room for Christ, there. It is systemic and I was shocked and dismayed to discover this.

I have been really kind of interested at rediscovering this more basic need for safety. I chose safety over love and I don't regret it. I think of the relationship between a disaffected and a TBM and fear is going to be an underlying current there.

[document]

It was interesting seeing how my current church handled our divorce. We were treated separately and the church itself stayed as far away from divorce as possible. They saw to spiritual needs and asked both parties if there were issues and whether one person would be willing to go another parish nearby or just take a break. As we were both working out our issues fairly nicely, we just opted to stay in the same parish and the same time for the most part. The priest did offer to help get a good counselor, but by policy stayed out of matters of domestic issues unless those issues were abusive at which point she would get the authorities involved.

There was a clear distinction between the role of the church (spiritual well being and a welcoming place) and everything else. It was wonderful and I relied upon the help of my priest a lot during our divorce.

It also helps that most seminaries have training in these things. :/

[Give It Time]

It was interesting seeing how my current church handled our divorce. We were treated separately and the church itself stayed as far away from divorce as possible. They saw to spiritual needs and asked both parties if there were issues and whether one person would be willing to go another parish nearby or just take a break. As we were both working out our issues fairly nicely, we just opted to stay in the same parish and the same time for the most part. The priest did offer to help get a good counselor, but by policy stayed out of matters of domestic issues unless those issues were abusive at which point she would get the authorities involved.

There was a clear distinction between the role of the church (spiritual well being and a welcoming place) and everything else. It was wonderful and I relied upon the help of my priest a lot during our divorce.

It also helps that most seminaries have training in these things. :/

What you illustrate, here, is a simple adjustment in procedure that our church could adapt that would call for no change in doctrine.

As I have been thinking about this, the bishops who mean well with this, who view the church as a hospital for sinners, I can see your point of view. However, please consider. Abusers are manipulative. What you see in your office is not what goes on at home. It would take a course correction and rewriting of some manuals, but it could still be upheld doctrinally to do things a different way.

I'm going to assume abuser and victim stay in the same ward, although I think they shouldn't. Being judged harshly, shamed and ostracized is one of our biggest fears. It isn't just a loss of love. It's primal in that being shut out from the group, can cut a person off from supplies and safety in an emergency. If a bishop had no alternative but to take the man's recommend, release him from his calling, no taking the sacrament, this would be scene as necessary medicine. However, instead of selling the situation as shameful, it could be sold as something the man is doing to get healthy.

He shouldn't get too much adulation, but he certainly doesn't need to be shamed if he's on the path to getting centered and making his family healthy and whole (if that's what she wants). In the meantime, she could be getting her own spiritual triage. Personally, I think she should get it from a different ward. Frankly, I don't know what her triage would look like, because I never got it, myself. Possibly, helping her to feel capable, again. This means all that Mormon desire to "rescue" needs to clamped down. Don't help her until she asks for it. When she asks for it, give it, give it willingly, with none of that passive aggressive attitude service recipients can get from their benefactors.

I've been considering judgement, how it makes us feel unsafe and how things could be put in a different light for a better outcome.