Unhealthy Group behaviors

[The Nehor]

Did you make these up?

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree with you, you foolish man. 

"Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability"

That's pretty hard to maintain since the word "absolute" is in there and the all encompassing "without meaningful accountability".  While it's true to some extent, the absoluteness of this makes it not a perfect match to Mormonism.

"No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry"

Another absolute.  There is some tolerance.

Some of the other statements suffer from the same problems when applies to Mormonism.  I'd say.  But I will add each and every item listed broaches topics I think the church has problems with. 

I agree that these statements may not always be applicable to Mormonism in an absolute sense, but it seems that each one describes elements of Mormonism to a degree that should make us uncomfortable when looking in the mirror. 

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

Each and every one of these applies to the LDS Church, in my opinion.

If anybody disagrees, state which one you feel does not apply to the LDS Church and make your best case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

 

The list made me chuckle a bit because it describes so very many big company employers not to mention politicians/political parties..

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree that these statements may not always be applicable to Mormonism in an absolute sense, but it seems that each one describes elements of Mormonism to a degree that should make us uncomfortable when looking in the mirror. 

 

So the question then becomes about us. Is there a difference in allowing this in our lives if we are paid a salary?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Did you make these up?

Maybe. But it seems more like many of the laundry list of Ad Hominem arguments proclaimed by critics of the Church.

[Tacenda]

https://croydongate.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/is-your-church-guilty-of-spiritual-abuse-check-the-top-10-signs/ I highlighted the ones where we might be close. And I see that it is just religion, and a lot of folks like the structure it gives them!

Is Your Church Guilty of Spiritual Abuse? Check the Top Ten Signs

Don’t underestimate the danger of spiritual abuse. It devastates one’s psyche, causes depression and post traumatic stress disorder, and leaves victims spiritually barren.

Spiritual abuse: When those in spiritual authority manipulate, intimidate, and control others out of lust for power or fear of sin or insignificance. One or more of these signs doesn’t necessarily mean abuse is present, but the more signs, the more likely it is taking place.

Spiritual abuse is a stain on the body of Christ (I experienced it and write about it in my book). Today, many American churches and denominations are susceptible to it, particularly “reformed” Calvinistic churches or those with a highly disciplined authority structure. I cite examples from my experience including Sovereign Grace Ministries and Calvary Chapel. But spiritual abuse is also subtle and not easily recognizable unless one knows the signs. Learn these top ten signs so you can detect, expose, and help prevent abuse in your Christian community.

1 – Your pastor has an authoritative style of leadership. Churches that abuse typically have one controlling leader whose personality and ideas dominate church sermons, teaching, and decisions. He gathers elders and other pastors around him who submit unquestioningly to his authority. Members and other leaders are not encouraged to think and develop independent of his influence. Signs: (1) Lead pastor’s Sunday sermon is streamed via video to satellite churches. (2) The polity of the church is such that the lead pastor or pastors are shielded from real accountability. (3) There’s a strong focus on members submitting to their leaders and lower leaders submitting to higher leaders. Jesus never organized a hierarchy but told people to be servants. Paul’s form of biblical eldership was based on equality not submission. We have a thread about a bishop right now, who is authoritative. Also, the lower leaders submitting to higher leaders, but I guess that's a good check and balance system.

2 – You are expected to commit to rigid rules for church membership and submit to church leaders’ authority. Despite no biblical mandate for formal church commitment or ecclesiastical authority in Scripture, spiritually abusive churches push a rigid form of membership and submission to church leaders as obedience to God. A hierarchy develops of members submitting to group leaders to elders to pastors to an executive board, which is controlled by the founder or lead pastor. Signs: (1) Members are required to sign a contract or agreement with strict rules for doctrinal beliefs and behavior. (2) A church discipline process is spelled out in detail that members must agree to.  The only thing close to signing a contract or agreement, is a temple recommend and obeying what is asked in the temple interviews. And you could say this church has a hierarchy that was controlled by a founder and on down the line.

3 – The church has a very wide view of what’s considered non-negotiable doctrines and behaviors and a very narrow view of what’s considered negotiable. Rather than making Christ’s one law of love for God and neighbor as the most important characteristic of a believer, belief in the right doctrines and certain religious behaviors becomes the main measuring stick for Christian maturity. Signs: There’s a lot of church documentation and teaching on correct doctrine. The LDS church definitely has these non-negotiable doctrines.  And church documentation. But I guess it's kind of nice for the church to not be so free with teachings that all hell breaks loose.

4 – Any expression of concern about church decisions, teachings, or behavior of leaders is interpreted as disloyalty or sin. When a member or leader questions or challenges the status quo, they become suspect of being disloyal, told to submit, and even manipulated to do so. If they don’t, they are forced out. Signs: The history of the church or denomination includes leaders and members being fired or leaving under less-than-peaceful circumstances. Oh, yeah.  Kate Kelly's, September Six...to name a few.

5 – The church deflects tough questions about their faith and doctrine. Only safe questions are allowed. There’s a veneer of openness but the bottom line is people are told not to be divisive about church doctrine. Pushed too far, sincere, reasonable questions are shut down in the name of unity. But biblical unity is not about creating uniformity. It’s about loving one another. Signs: Members are not encouraged to accept and explore their doubts but rather submit to what the church says is “orthodox” teaching. This is getting better, although we did hear a "doubt your doubts" sermon once.

6 – Church discipline is overdone and over taught in the church. Leaders will deny this by pointing to the percentage of discipline cases. But you need to measure the threat of discipline as well and how it’s done. Spiritual abuse happens when the interpretation of Matthew 18 and other Scriptures is very narrow and goes beyond what is stated or what can be reasonably applied to a contemporary situation. Signs: (1) There’s a long document about church discipline policy. (2) There is no appeals process for someone accused. (3) Members suspected of needing church discipline, or who are subject to it, must sit through lots of long meetings with leaders. (4) Shunning the accused is common when someone is deemed unrepentant or chooses to leave the church. Identifying “sin” and real “repentance” can become highly subjective and the church ends up shunning people for minor offenses (disagreeing with leadership or doctrine or what constitutes moral behavior) and rejecting people who have repented but haven’t jumped through sufficient hoops (e.g. signing a “discipline contract”).  Our church conducts church discipline courts. We have policies or church handbooks. And there is shunning, of course that is on the part of the members not mandated by any leader.

7 – Your church and/or denomination has ex-member websites with stories of spiritual abuse. It’s one thing if a few disgruntled ex-members complain, but when a large number of people come out with stories about spiritual abuse, and are willing to post their stories, it’s a huge red flag. Especially when the stories reflect a pattern of misuse of authority, manipulation, and doing damage control to protect the reputation of the church. (See sample list of ex-member websites below). There are plenty of these ex member or even "member's in hiding" websites.

8 – The church has a very strict definition of gossip. When members have concerns about the church or strains with relationships, they are expected to keep their thoughts to themselves. Signs: Any sharing of negative experiences in relationships, even if it’s healthy venting to a close friend, is perceived as sinful gossip.  We're told to keep our doubt to ourselves and not go public with them.

9 – The church interprets Bible verses on women in submission to the nth degree. Women are expected to submit to their husbands. Paul’s teachings on women are rigidly and unevenly interpreted—e.g. wives are reprimanded for being unsubmissive but husbands are rarely reprimanded for not loving their wives like Christ and never for not submitting to their wives (Ephesians 5:21 tells believers to “Submit to one another”!! ). Signs: (1) Some churches teach husbands to monitor their wives communications, e.g. email. (2) The debate about women’s roles in the church is not up for discussion despite many alternative biblical interpretations, even in conservative churches, e.g. Four Square, Vineyard, and Evangelical Covenant churches allow women in leadership. Women are expected to submit to their husband as long as the husband is righteous. But never to monitor their wives like is said in this list. Of course we've had conference talks that warn men to not use their PH to rule over their wives, so maybe it happens but the church doesn't condone it.

10 – A church deals with cases of sexual abuse in ways that serve the interest of the church not the interest of the victims and their families. When a member of the church is sexually abused by another member, rather than following the law and best practices (reporting it to local police and social services), a church will keep the abuse quiet under the guise of handling it “biblically.” Victims are forced to “forgive” their abusers and remain in their social sphere with no protection from post-traumatic stress and future abuse. Abusers are protected from local authorities and social stigma while victims and families are forced to remain silent about their pain, even to close friends, in the name of squelching “gossip.” Signs: People are familiar with this happening in the Catholic Church but it’s also common in Protestant churches. E.g., in 2012, a lawsuit was filed against several Sovereign Grace Ministries churches, the co-founders, and other leaders claiming cover up of child sexual abuse. There is some controversy over the past Indian placement program, going now. And there have been other instances.

What should you do if you think spiritual abuse is taking place at your church? There is no set answer to this question, as it depends on the situation in the church. People should leave highly abusive churches and don’t look back or feel guilty. If spiritual abuse is not entrenched and it’s only in isolated cases, you should consider approaching a trusted leader in the church with your concern. How they respond will to tell you to what extent it is prevalent or if they desire to stop it from spreading. If they don’t acknowledge a problem and use abusive techniques like 2, 4, 5, & 8 above, it’s probably a highly abusive church and you should leave and consider warning others.

Article by Michael Camp – http://deepthoughtpub.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/is-your-church-guilty-of-spiritual.html

I’ve bolded the last sentence in his paragraph on “What you should do if you think spiritual abuse is taking place at your church, because I’ve had a lot of questions on the blog as to why I had to leave Potters House – why couldn’t I just stay and ‘sort it out with the leaders’ etc.

“If they don’t acknowledge a problem and use abusive techniques like 2,4,5, & 8 (i’ll paraphrase those points – 2. Shut up and submit 4. Punishment for disloyalty, or being forced out 5. Scripture & truth is always trumped by unity/maintaining unity 8. Discussing what the pastor has said/preached is seen is gossip.

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

So the question then becomes about us. Is there a difference in allowing this in our lives if we are paid a salary?

I think in some sense it always comes down to us, Juliann.

But it isn't like Mormons make this stuff up out of thin air.

Let's take this issue from the list for example:

Quote

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

This example as much as any other describes the way I perceive Mormonism after being a member for 38-years.

The point I am trying to make is that it isn't the members who just came up with this way of perceiving the role of their leaders.

It is the leaders who have promoted that role for themselves.

In other words, many Mormons believe this about their leaders because this is what their leaders teach them to believe.

I think the reason I am trying to be really clear about this is because this is one of the beefs I have with the new crop of "apologists," such as the Givens and Patrick Mason.

Although they are certainly a breath of fresh air when it comes to dealing with LDS issues, more than once I have heard them lay the blame at the feet of the members for the way they think about their leaders.

They sometimes speak as if the leaders had nothing to do with promoting this perception, and that the members just somehow came up with it on their own.

 

[Teancum]

On June 23, 2016 at 11:43 AM, JLHPROF said:

This list as a whole may correctly apply to some charismatic preachers and cults.
This list as a whole when applied to God cannot be viewed as being unhealthy.

For example:
1. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
If a man is making you feel not good enough that could be a problem.  If you recognize that you are not good enough and need a Savior, that is no problem.

2. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
It is not wrong to walk away from wicked men.
It is ALWAYS wrong, negative, and evil to walk away from God and his gospel.

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
Men have faults and recognizing that they make mistakes is no sin.
God and men correctly executing God's direct will do not make mistakes.

Bottom line - God and his kingdom can never be an unsafe group/leader.

I would submit that your posts are illustrating the concerns the lists and that your belief system falls well within them. 

[Teancum]

On June 23, 2016 at 11:45 AM, stemelbow said:

He's not asking as applied to God, but asking as applied to the Church or religion or however you want to see it.  God is not the Church. 

A God who does these things is not a good healthy God to follow.  And organization that claims to be God's true path or religion that does these things is not a healthy organization to to follow and it may also be an indication that such an organization is not really of God. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

True Libertarian, not just in the political sense.

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A God who does these things is not a good healthy God to follow.  And organization that claims to be God's true path or religion that does these things is not a healthy organization to to follow and it may also be an indication that such an organization is not really of God. 

 

It sure may be.  And it may be that such an organization has made many a mistake but is still good and healthy to follow, particularly if you are aware of the shortcomings.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A God who does these things is not a good healthy God to follow.  And organization that claims to be God's true path or religion that does these things is not a healthy organization to to follow and it may also be an indication that such an organization is not really of God. 

God is as he is.  We cannot make him in our own image.

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God is as he is.  We cannot make him in our own image.

Every religion makes God in a certain image.  Adherents of a particular religion also make that religion's God in their own image.  

You do it.  I probably do as well. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Maybe. But it seems more like many of the laundry list of Ad Hominem arguments proclaimed by critics of the Church.

Yeah, I noted there was no link to a source so it seems likely the list was made up wholesale as it reads like a tired anti's playbook. Yet it was presented as if it was an authoritative list.....hmmmm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Every religion makes God in a certain image.  Adherents of a particular religion also make that religion's God in their own image.  

You do it.  I probably do as well. 

So people who think God is terrible are terrible people? That explains a lot.  

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So people who think God is terrible are terrible people? That explains a lot.  

 

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So people who think God is terrible are terrible people? That explains a lot.  

Yea likely....

 

so what's your point ?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Yea likely....

 

so what's your point ?

There was no subtlety in my post. Not sure if there is a point beyond what I said.

[DBMormon]

On 6/23/2016 at 10:53 AM, Daniel2 said:

While I actually agree with the OP, this response of yours in request for a source for your lists made me chuckle, DBMormon, mostly because of the irony when contrasting your refusal to share your source with the first two bullet points (1 and 2) of your list...

• Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
• No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

There are rules on this board.  I made the decision that delving into the sites that discuss these points would risk the entire thread being closed.  I would prefer we each gauge the points on their merit and not on gauging whether the author is kind enough towards us or groupings we fall into..

Edited June 26, 2016 by DBMormon

[Calm]

The guidelines state not to provide links to sites with vulgarity or temple content.  I am not aware of mods disciplining anyone for referencing them without a link, though you may want to provide a warning.

[Kenngo1969]

Rick Ross thinks we're a cult?  I'm shocked ... shocked, I tell you!  

[Nemesis]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

There are rules on this board.  I made the decision that delving into the sites that discuss these points would risk the entire thread being closed.  I would prefer we each gauge the points on their merit and not on gauging whether the author is kind enough towards us or groupings we fall into..

You can give sources without linking. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On June 23, 2016 at 9:27 AM, DBMormon said:

to bring in the multiple sources would risk this thread going way off track

Refusal to cite sources is a red flag.