Wheat & Tares welcomes guest poster Bill Reel: Host of “Mormon Discussion Podcast”. His Podcast serves to help those reconstructing their faith within Mormonism to do so “Leading with Faith” in the gospel rather than leaving the Church.
The Church as an abusive Father
Recently an acquaintance of mine explained that he didn’t understand me and saw my being vocal of problematic Church issues as being critical of the Church and hence being on the wrong side, and that if I felt this way I should consider leaving. He then explained that the Church to him was like a spouse whom he loved dearly and whose flaws and weaknesses he looked past and accepted in the name of the greater good. I get it. We simply accept, protect, defend our spouses tooth and nail. I could totally get his analogy and it helped me to see and understand his perspective. The Church for me though is different. Then it hit me. The Church, to me, is not comparable to a spouse but rather a parent. And not just any parent but rather an abusive father who was in need of help and encouragement to change.
I finally felt like I had something that felt like it worked and explained how I feel. Stay with me while I work through this.
I love my dad. He is a big part of who I am and how well I have turned out. I owe him a lot. While he has fallen short in many areas he also has been there at times when I needed him. Now these positive experiences do not excuse his bad behaviors but I feel I am at a point where I can, both appreciate the good he has been, while also not accept his harmful actions.
Early in my life My father could do no wrong. I had placed him on a pedestal and saw him as the greatest thing ever. Which kid doesn’t? Dad taught me to know right from wrong and he showed me how much fun it could be as I worked hard. I felt validated by him as I sought his affection. When I was doing well in Church I seemed to earn his approval and pats on the back. The problem was though, that I was unaware of his behaviors. I didn’t see them. And out of sight is out of mind. Now that I think about it, I actually did see some of those behaviors but I just brushed them off as not an indicator of his character or I ignored them completely or I excused them away as false anti-Mormon rhetoric. I blamed and shamed those who spoke evil of my father and those who claimed he did and said things that I knew were impossible. I defended him for years knowing the bad things people said couldn’t possibly be true.
As time went on I began to hear stories from some of his other children. That he had abused them in some way. Some was physical abuse that occurred when some of his children were not accepted by him and he approved of shock therapy at his work to try and alter their condition when now we all recognize that the condition is unalterable and the treatment was scarring. Sometimes the abuse was emotional when he would tell some of his children who were unaware of his behavior to not trust his children who knew full well what he had done. He would pit some of his children against others of his children by pointing out they were too intellectual, had a feminist agenda, or were gay. Some he sexually abused by talking about intimacy before and after marriage in way that his children struggled to see marriage intimacy in a healthy way. Some he physically abused by telling his children that it would be better they came home in a casket than having lost their virtue out on their mission and some of his children did great harm to themselves because of their deteriorating image of their self worth. These abuses seemed not to exist in my youth and then seemed negligible in my young adulthood and then finally were seen as a serious issue and could no longer be brushed aside by me and others of his children. Father has quietly moved past some of these behaviors but he has never stood in front of his Children to apologize for them. And, yes, there are still behaviors that persist even today that marginalize or hurt his children.
We simply could not turned a blind eye of his demeaning those of his children who had questions and doubts after discovering Dad’s behavior and history. These same kids who were once faithful had now discovered Dad’s life history and had discovered that the Story Dad gave for who he was and how he came to be was a very different story from reality. But Dad seemed to not be comfortable discussing his abusive behavior and so One by One by One by One by One he cut off those children who would not stop bringing up his mistakes and paradoxical past.
While I love my dad, I no longer trust him to be the end source for truth. He simply has disappointed me too many times. I still trust him to have wisdom at times. I still ask his advice. I still seek his encouragement but I no longer assume that his answer is the absolute right answer. Rather he is now one voice among many that I look to for advice and enlightenment.
I still want his company. Some of his children have distanced themselves from him for their own health and inner peace. Others choose to only visit him on the holidays. And while I try to see him every weekend, it is different. I no longer hold him as my hero or as the perfect example I once did. Some of his children have become entirely disillusioned by the giant let down once they discovered who Dad really was
I am troubled by some of his children who defend his behavior or who explain it away or who choose to remain ignorant of his abuses simply because they love him too much to let go of that perfect image they have of him. For them it is easier to shame me and my siblings who speak out against the abuse. It would be too disruptive to their life….. to their balance to allow room in their mind for Dad to turn out not to be exactly what he told them he was. I get it and while I struggle with it I too wish at times I could go back to seeing him the way I once did. Yet I can’t. There is no going back. The best I can hope for is to acknowledge Father’s positive along with the negative.
Some of us children have tried to talk with Dad. We try to help him see the hurt he has caused but he refuses to apologize. Says that doing so simply is not something he can or will do. He feels He doesn’t owe anyone an apology. Sometimes, once in a while a very small part of him will confide “There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.” But this incredible admirable part of him is a part we rarely get to see and is overshadowed by his reluctance to acknowledge that he has on many occasions misunderstood God’s mind and will in ways that really hurt others or assumed there were lines where there wasn’t.
For years my Dad demanded that I follow him and that I, never choose to follow a path contrary to what he required and taught…. and for years I did as he asked. But one day having come to grips with Dad’s flaws and mistakes and hurtful behavior I chose to no longer follow him blindly simply because he was Dad. I was now at a place where I would choose to follow him if my inner spirit said he was right on some occasions but also just as determined to dissent when what he required at other times was at odds with my soul. He seemed to try and soften his stance at times by telling me I could seek answers from God if I felt challenged by what he required but he stopped short of giving me permission to choose another path on issues where my answer from God was different than what he was requiring. He seemed to assume that God’s answer would always match his request. This need he had to be right and to compel his children to follow him at all times added to my skepticism of his advice as always coming from God. In fact As I have talked to others who knew Dad through his life they made me aware that he had taught ideas in the past as absolute certainties only to retract his words later and do a 180° on issues that only a few years before he had adamantly said the opposite and promised it was God’s will.
You may read this and think I don’t love my Dad. But I do. He still is a giant part of my life. You may think I wish ill on my Father. Not true. I pray every day for him. I want nothing more than for him to come to grips with the hurt he causes to some of his children and will apologize and move swiftly to repent and to correct his behavior. You may think I am exaggerating his negative traits. I would agree that minor flaws should be looked past and not held under a microscope, but unlike some of his children, I also see a line where One can no longer morally stand quietly aside while such behavior occurs. And while I can no longer be silent about it. I freely acknowledge the good he is and the good he does while also recognizing that parts of him are dysfunctional and in need of change. He is still my dad and in spite of his problems I still consider him family and hold him close to my heart. That will never change for me.
At the same time I can no longer ignore the hurt that some of his children have felt and the damage that has been done. It is Time for an Intervention. Many of us kids who feel abused or who wish to defend those who are don’t have to leave, regardless of what our siblings suggest. He is our dad too. And out of our Love for him, we instead choose to carry out this intervention. So Dad…. here it is….
“We love you Dad. We care deeply for you. We want you to move past these perspectives that bind you and hurt others. We want your honesty and forthrightness on your past. We want you to recognize the hurt you are causing at times to those who love you. Dad, You are at a fork in the road and rather than entrench and excuse your behavior, and double down….. Our hope is you will pick yourself up, face your truth, and move forward focused on the good that you are and immense amount of good you have yet left to do!”
Let me finish by telling you the Good that Father is and has been. He is actually my adoptive Father. He took me in when I was 17 and I was selling and using drugs and making lots of bad choices and yet he excitedly took me in warts and all. He helped me see my self worth as a Child of God and he helped me develop many of the skills and talents I have today. He helped me to discover what it meant to feel God’s presence. He helped me to develop a great love for learning and for truth seeking. He helped me develop communication skills. He was instrumental in my meeting my wife and he has helped me raise my kids as well. He has been instrumental in their turning out incredible. He helped me to see that these relationships were eternal. He also continues to give me a place to help and serve others and I still hold out hope that God is leading Dad along, just in a much different way than I had thought early on. My dad is still an anchor in my life and I can’t envision life without him. I need him.
Dad…….. I am hopeful your best days lie ahead.
===========================================
Bill Reel is the host of Mormon Discussion Podcast which seeks to help Latter-Day Saints work through a faith reconstruction with the end goal of remaining in the Church and remaining faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(It should be said that my actual father is an awesome human being and I am lucky to have him and this analogy should not be taken to reflect on my experience with my own Dad)
Wheat & Tares 
Yes! Can the ones we love deserve less than genuine honest? How can we love someone/thing and support them in their destructive errors?
I disagree entirely with the notion that the Church is like an abusive father, and that enlightened children need to change their erring and abusive father. Even so, using the family example, our God expects and commands children to honor their parents. Jesus decried the lack of filial piety and the thought of corban.
I love the Church, and will work with and within it. I hope to be patient and forgiving, and open to learning. I want to see leaders in the Church as good people doing what they can to magnify their callings. May our God continue to bless the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and may all of us choose to willingly and supportingly stay on board the good ship Zion.
D&C 112:20 and 84:36 teach me that I cannot pretend to receive the Savior unless I also receive those He has sent — or in other words, in rejecting them, I reject Him. I am happy to receive the servants of the Lord.
This is the approach that works for me.
The church that you are talking about is the Head office, sometimes supported by the local leaders.
In order to cope, I see the church as made up of the Gospel of Christ, programmes to help us live the Gospel, and leaders teaching their conservative culture as if it is the Gospel.
Nearly all the problems the church has, come from the leaders teaching their culture as if it is Gospel. Polygamy, Racism, opposition to birth control, opposition to Gay people and marriage equality, patriarchy, and the succession for the Prophet, and of course obedience is the first law of heaven, and the leaders can’t lead you astray.
Whether the church is open to change or doubles down depends on who is the next Prophet, and that depends on whether the next Prophet is chosen by tradition, as the last lot have been or by the Lord, and we have a Prophet who is young, and vibrant, and open enough ( not bound down by conservative culture, and tradition) to take us back to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I realise the obedient members will not understand or accept the blog or my comment. I agree with the blog, and this is my way of dealing with the situation.
I think that the change in metaphors (from flawed spouse to abusive parent) is worthwhile (although…I hope people aren’t too triggered by it), especially because of the power differentials between members and the church.
But, that being said, I don’t know if I agree with the conclusion. This seems like an excellent piece to make the case for leaving the church. Like…when you have confirmed that someone is abusive…you have accepted that…then isn’t it a real option to distance oneself from that person? Interventions and attempts to change sound nice, but isn’t it rather unlikely (and also, rather risky) to try to change an abuser?
The analogy is mis applied. The church is the group of individuals that have made covenants with the lord to be his people. Everyone joins for a different reason. I dont understand why the heavenly organization gets blamed for the failings of earthly individuals. Thank heavens the lord permits us to take the sacrament weekly.
As a recomendation for your growth, If you can look past peoples faults your faults will be looked past. You will be judged as hard as you judge. Remember the lord is our advocate not our accuser. Seeking to be like christ then the same applies to us. We must be each others advocates.
Only satan accuses God of being patient to a fault.
I agree with Ron that this is very much misapplied. Extending the analogy, we should not trust the God of the New Testament and our other scriptures because of His actions as documented in the Old Testament.
And frankly, I am equally baffled by this statement:
“As time went on I began to hear stories from some of his other children.”
Are these not siblings? Why describe them in a third person sort of way? Were you not there, not aware, etc? turned a blind eye?
So, the intervention that is needed is to make the church progressive?
Many TBMs behave as if their leaders are/were infallible often including GA and/or church worship then when fallibility is painfully and undeniably uncovered they blame it on “the failings of earthly individuals” sort of a Catch 22 in reverse. Of course it’s the failings of earthly individuals, today the church is overwhelmed by fallible earthly leaders in the form of administrators and committees and it is overwhelmed by it’s partnership with Mammon, what’s missing has been for a very long time is God’s leadership at the top in the form of a Prophet.
“Many TBMs behave as if their leaders are/were infallible often including GA and/or church worship then when fallibility is painfully and undeniably uncovered they blame it on “the failings of earthly individuals” sort of a Catch 22 in reverse.”
Many outsiders need to claim this so they can cope with their own personal narrative regardless of whether it is true or not. And since they have no real knowledge of what “many” believe (or how many “many” is), it does not hold up.
Trust does not have to equal infallible.
Insider, outsider. Nice ad hominem Jeff!
I have heard the church described as part of an abusive relationship – the most clear example to me is of LGBT harmed by our rhetoric, truly many are suicidal, and they should leave ASAP. Other than that I can see where you are coming from, but the analogy does make me uncomfortable. And maybe it falls apart by as George says, if that’s analogous then you should leave. I think it might be missing the difference between the church and the gospel. I don’t know…I’ll have to think about it more…
Very insightful. This captures well the feelings of many of us.
Kristine, Andrew said it, not George. (George hasn’t commented at all on this thread.)
“I dont understand why the heavenly organization gets blamed for the failings of earthly individuals.”
Ron, I don’t see Bill blaming the heavenly organization–he is blaming the failings of earthly individuals, and it is these earthly individuals that need the intervention.
it’s ok; people can use whichever name they’d like! i mean, I do have both names on facebook lol
Of course, there’s the opposite analogy of parents who were loving and tried to do their best, only to have some of their children accuse them of horrific acts and inflate their parents’ flaws.
I’ve known families with rebellious teenagers who were gently but firmly corrected by their parents, only to have those teenagers call Child Protective Services and falsely claim their parents were abusing them, emotionally, physically, or even sexually.
I think the model of the rebellious teenager who exaggerates his parents’ weaknesses and ignores their positive virtues is a much more apt description of what’s going on with Bill Reel.
And that saddens me a great deal.
Agh, being friend on social media mixes me up. Sorry Andrew.
Also, mike – it saddens me that we discount the fact that youth HAVE committed suicide when our culture/rhetoric gave them no hope. Gratefully we are improving.
Let’s just say I opt out of this metaphor bc I dislike mikes version as equally as bills.
I actually relate to everything Bill Reel has said. Everything (except being a convert) describes my experience very well.
For those of you who may have seen this copypasta at Reddit, apologies for the sloppy seconds, but this post struck a chord and as a fan of this here blog – which I’ve always held in higher esteem than most of what’s generally on offer in the so-called ‘bloggernacle’ – here’s my take:
I wouldn’t have the good relationship I’ve enjoyed with my real-world dad these past twenty years if I hadn’t thrown down in my early twenties and made it clear that I was going to live life on my own terms. Sure, the few years of getting cut off from contact while Dad figured out that his oldest son wanted pretty normal stuff (a good partner in life, a good mom to our kids, a rewarding job, a relationship with all our family)… were rough, but the pay-off is mutual respect.
He doesn’t cross boundaries or disrespect me and he’s a damn good grandpa and works his ass off even in retirement to help his kids. In return, we gladly respect his beliefs and rules when we’re on his turf. It works and I think it’s healthy. Our kids know what we believe (or don’t believe) but they also get to see what self-respect and mutual respect looks like. They’d have a hard time believing Grandpa was ever the hard-ass authoritarian I grew up with. And that’s great. Because my dad’s moved well beyond that. Good on him. As a father myself now, I say good on me for not caving when it mattered. Life’s been better for it.
Oh, and here’s an entirely original P.S. just for W&T. One of your commenters writes:
“I think the model of the rebellious teenager who exaggerates his parents’ weaknesses and ignores their positive virtues is a much more apt description of what’s going on with Bill Reel.”
As far as I know, Bill’s a grown man. Does this commenter feel any compunction basically calling OP a child? Apparently not. What a culture. So brave.
I would note that my post for today is late, though it surprised me to have this come up in its place it didn’t step on my toes.
Nibley quoted Payne in The World and the Prophets.
“There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant.”
(E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 194, note 2.)
One of the most obvious and irreducible defining characteristics of the church is that is a community, rather than an individual. So any metaphor that reduces that community to an individual has the effect of reducing community diversity and responsibility into a single monolithic figure. One actor, one morality, one voice, one figure to blame. In contrast, even the Day of Atonement ritual has both the lamb and the goat, in recognition of the reality that a single symbol does not work to teach all that must be understood. And the Perry Scheme has 9 Positions, Myers-Briggs, has 16 types, and Fowler has 6 stages of faith. How do they mesh or conflict here?
The abusive father metaphor is powerful, but so is a sledge hammer. It is apt for the job? That depends on the job. Do you want to do eye surgery, say, removing a beam out of an eye, or knock down a wall. Enlarge a soul, or create an exit? Slice a watermelon, or test the strength of ankle bones?
Does adoption of the metaphor in contemplating the church lead to an enlarged soul (an effect of pure knowledge), or a contracted one? In this case, is the image supposed to enlarge my soul relative to the community of the saints, or to contract it into a vision of innocent victims and and their victimizer? To be inclusive or divisive? To pass judgment or to increase understanding? To open a negotiation or declare war?
All metaphors are unitary, extensible, and provide both positive and negative comparisons. All metaphors function like lenses, directing attention in some respects, and obscuring vision in others.
This particular metaphor seems to me of the sort that, while not helpful for healing anyone, could serve drive the plot of a tragic revenge drama, as we watch what happens to the social ties in a diverse community when it is poured into one ear after another.
But what about the innocent victims and their voices? On that, it pays to read some Rene Girard.
I have very real abuse in my extended family, and I don’t think I like how the analogy is used bc of it. But maybe I feel uncomfortable speaking about how this would feel to actual victims of abuse because I am not one of them.
Howard,
“Insider, outsider. Nice ad hominem Jeff!”
How is it an attack, it is true, right?
Jeff,
Are you really that dense? Insider vs outsider detracts from the merit or content of the discussion by changing the subject in an attempt to discredit the poster. You are not addressing my comment or the OP, rather you are attempting to undermine my character to discredit my comment. Stick to the subject matter.
Bill,
Comparing the church to an abusive father causes me to think of the words of Isaiah directed at posts like this one:
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter”
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I can’t speak for every victim of abuse, but I find the analogy apt. Comparing church authorities to an abusive parent brings to my mind the words of Jesus.
…the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Matt. 23:2-3.
The Isaiah quote works well in context too. It’s part of an explicit list of sins following an extended analogy comparing Israel to a vineyard; the same analogy Christ uses repeatedly to indict the church authorities of His time.
Howard,
“Are you really that dense? Insider vs outsider detracts from the merit or content of the discussion by changing the subject in an attempt to discredit the poster.”
Touche, I guess. It was you who decided to focus on the word “outsider” rather than address the comment itself. You have chosen to make “outsider” the issue.
But, again, isn’t it true that you are no longer a member of the Church? If so, that makes you an outsider compared to the TBMs you critize.
Like Kristine, I have relatives who were abused by their parents, so this analogy makes me uncomfortable.
I also agree with Kevin, it’s difficult to really boil the institutional church down to one individual. There’s been too many personalities, too many agendas. If I were to try to work with the analogy in the OP, I’d probably modify it to an ill-trained group of caretakers. The actual father is God, and he’s allowed caretakers to come in who are being trained on the job and have behaviors that are clearly negative in hindsight. They take their responsibility seriously, and I do believe mean well, but each individual will eventually be held accountable for inappropriate actions that has caused damage to those who are in their care.
The caretaker analogy feels more appropriate, as I’ve had experience with leaders and teachers in the church who individually have the same tendencies – they mean well, but are really, really damaging in the way they do things. On the other hand, I’ve had leaders and teachers who’ve done really well. It is difficult to condemn members in the entire group for the ill actions of some, just as it is difficult to condone all actions by the group because of the good actions of others. What complicates things further is that each individual will have both successes and mistakes to consider, but humans tend to boil historical figures down to all good or all bad.
We learn so much more from history when we can see both the good and the bad. Histories that ignore negative details allow negative ideas to perpetuate. When we are allowed to discuss and recognize mistakes and successes of the past, we are in a much better position to learn from each and use the information to improve our actions in the future.
So, once again you turn the conversation to in groups vs out groups in other words you want to discredit me based on tribal bias rather than address the content on my comment! That is ad hominem Jeff. That’s what apologists often use when their arguments are weak. Btw, what is your argument Jeff? Do you have one?
Your question is largely with out logical application here, if you read my comment, can you imagine continuing to be a member much longer after posting it? So I assume you are playing to the audience here rather than asking a question in order to get better acquainted with me.
In group vs out group? It’s relative isn’t it, to the vast majority of non-Mormons given my experience with the church I’d likely be considered an insider but given the content of my comment TBM’s would consider me an outsider wouldn’t they.
So what is the relevance of your question to the topic at hand or my comment IF it isn’t to discredit *me* in an attempt to turn attention away from my comment? Aren’t you attempting to use guilt by (lack of) association?
Howard,
In your original comment, you analyze TBMs. Jeff’s comment just does the same analysis, but for outsiders. The structure is parallel to your comment, so it could not have happened without your comment.
You yourself presumably want to distance yourself from TBMs, so the insider/outsider dichotomy (and its attendant connotations) is already implied.
Andrew,
My comment described “TBM” behavior that can commonly be found in the bloggernacle. Can’t it? Is Jeff describing my behavior? No! Instead he’s labeling me. I have not labeled anyone, rather for shorthand (to save time) I referenced a stereotype. There is no parallel here.
re 31,
your comment described “TBM” behavior that can commonly be found on the bloggernacle that you would like to distance yourself from. So your mentioning of “TBM” is a label and signal, just as much as “outsider” is.
You insist that your label is true (can commonly be found on the bloggernacle.) Jeff insists that his label is true (that you are, in fact, an outsider.)
No, my #8 comment isn’t about whether or not the the “TBM” behavior is true or not, so drawing a parallel to this is just rationalizing Jeff’s ad hominem.
My comment points out that the abuses outlined in the OP are the result of failings of earthly individuals because the church lacks a Prophet.
I think the metaphor would be improved by making the church Mother, and God Father, and that they are in a give-and-take relationship like all married couples, the Father supporting the Mother Church and standing by her even when she might be wrong. (or if it offends your feminist sensibilities, make the church the Father and God the Mother.)
In any case, I think it should be recognised that any “abuse” inflicted by the church was probably done with good intentions, and based on reasonable interpretations of scripture and modern revelation. God doesn’t spell things out for us. The leaders do their best. If it is abusive, God is to blame as much as the church, because God allows it to happen when He could easily fix the problem by sending angels with drawn swords, as He did back in Joseph Smith’s day.
I think the term ” abusive father” may be the wrong term. And I don’t think that all the fault can fall on the people in the church. I think that if you read the scripture you find things that might be a little hard to swallow. Heavenly Father did somethings to his children that were harsh. I understand that killing Laban, made it possible for the true gospel to be restored and that sacrificing one life saved many. But what I had trouble understanding was why in 3 Nephi, many cities where destroyed and many left dead. What I don’t understand is being given the right to choose, but being killed for not choosing right? Why give us the right to choose then? My image of my Heavenly Father was shattered, and I couldn’t finish the Scripture. I’m scared of what else I will find, and I don’t know how to rebuild the relationship that I once had. How can I stand up for everything He stands for now? I still love him and respect most of his decisions, but am afraid to learn more. I’m afraid if I continue to find references where I think He made mistakes, then I will view Him as simply a man. And then what?
Personally I don’t love this analogy because I have not been abused. It feels a bit like it trivializes at worst or co-opts at best the experience of abuse survivors. It’s not my place to opine on abuse.
To add to this discussion though, I think it’s really important to distinguish between abuse and natural stresses in relationships as well as organizational power dynamics. Like Chino says, establishing boundaries is healthy for both parties in an ongoing relationship. Sometimes it’s the only way forward. I also know many people who had to entirely cut ties with abusive parents. I am in no position to advise people in an abusive relationship what they need to do to survive or become healthy. I find the picture on this post inflammatory.
Bill shared his honest feelings about his relationship with the church. I don’t understand how anyone can say “shame on him” for honestly sharing his feelings, especially when he is clearly trying to find a way to maintain a relationship with the church, in the best way he can. I find his effort to keep the faith admirable in light of all the things the church has done that give him pause, to put it lightly.
I also don’t understand the criticism for saying “some of his other children” instead of saying his siblings. Either way, he’d be saying the same thing. And when you have 15 million brothers and sisters in the church and 7 billion brothers and sisters on earth, how in the world is Bill turning a blind eye?
Obviously, many don’t agree with the analogy, but Bill isn’t trying to convince others to view the church this way, he’s just sharing how he deals with the imperfections of the church and its leaders. But his end goal is emphatically stated: to stay in the church and help others stay in the church. It seems to me that this should be more applauded by members of the church, instead of criticized.
On an intellectual level I like the substance of to OP, but I don’t like the metaphor because it is to easy to get involved in the emotional implications of being in an abusive family. It may, however, accueately describe the experience of many people in the church.
Take LGBT people for example. Someone above suggested that LGBT may need to leave the church to escape out of an abusive situation. I agree. But… As a straight father, with young children, I worry about them as well. If any of my children turn out to be gay, I could be unwittingly exposing them to an environment I believe to be toxic for them. In the moral calculus that follows that observation, it might be prudent for me to take my family out of the church before it is too late.
Dexter,
“…I also don’t understand the criticism…”
Because abuse is so vile. It is, in my opinion up there with rape and murder. And to compare the church to an abuser is unwarranted to a church that has done a lot of good. It offers humanitarian aide and welfare to millions; offers a stable enviroment for families and real opportunity for its members to serve others.
The comparison is unwarranted; and, it marginalizes those who have suffered abuse.
Ken, when I said, “I also don’t understand the criticism…” I was talking about a commenter who criticized Bill for saying “some of his other children…” But you took that quote and applied it to something else. If you are going to quote me, and then disagree with me, don’t attribute my quote to something I didn’t say. Good grief.
But, I do think Bill can compare it to an abusive father if he wants to. Abuse certainly is vile. And the church certainly has committed its share, as well as provided a lot of positives, as you mentioned.
“Extending the analogy, we should not trust the God of the New Testament and our other scriptures because of His actions as documented in the Old Testament.”
Is there any other way to see it? For the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would describe jesus as a kind, loving, benevolent being who only wants good things for his spiritual children. He’s equally the hateful, capricious, vindictive, sadistic god of the old testament who is waiting to slaughter his children, both physically and spiritually, at the slightest mistake. At the very least, he’s equal parts both, but it makes no logical sense to pretend like the OT jehovah is metaphorical or irrelevant while the NT jesus is literal or somehow more accurate.
I remember when my dad told me he’d rather I come home from my mission in a pine box than come home dishonorably. That’s a great testimony of the atonement and the power of repentance. Eyeroll.
#15 – Mike Parker, are you familiar with the analogy of the spouse of the abusive parent who refuses to listen to the claims of the child, defends the abusive spouse at all costs, blaming the victim and taking the side of the abuser against the abused, who also happens to be her child? If not, you should look into it.
Ken, it’s hard to take your concern for abuse victims seriously when literally one comment ago you said “shame on you” to someone who just finished detailing the abuse that took place at the hands of his father.
Secondly, your claims about the good the church has done is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the comparison of it to an abusive father is appropriate. In fact, Bill said on numerous occasions in his post that his father did much good. Since when are doing good in the world and committing abuses mutually exclusive? If you think the church has never committed any abuses, or that that is an offensive analogy, fine. But don’t attempt to cloud the issue of its potential bad acts by claiming it’s done so much good. That’s simple misdirection.
Dexter,
Come on! Let me remind you of how YOU ended YOUR comment:
“to stay in the church and help others stay in the church. It seems to me that this should be more applauded by members of the church, instead of criticized.”
You were taking about my comment and questioning my critism.Criticizing his analogy is totally justified, in my opinion.
Sigh. Apparently I misread the post and didn’t catch Bill’s disclaimer at the bottom. I though he was discussing his actual experiences as a child. My mistake, Ken. Carry on.
brjones, his “dad” is the church.
Ken,
I know how I ended my comment. But you quoted me from an unrelated paragraph. Just don’t quote me, Ken. You never keep anything straight.
I certainly was criticizing your comment. Bill shared his feelings. If you don’t like them, fine. But to say to Bill, “you should be ashamed of yourself” is uncalled for, in my opinion.
If your “father” is the Church, you have missed the point. Your “father” is the Father. The church is merely a tool.
And because of that, the analogy is not accurate. A child cannot escape from an abusive parent. The church does not…cannot truly control the lives of adults in this world. It’s when people use the teachings to control or manipulate that it becomes abuse…from the person, not the doctrine. The teachings alone are not abusive.
I get that some feel abused because they conflate feeling betrayed with abuse. But abusive parents don’t teach their children to find out for themselves if the parent is good and true. Abusive parents don’t warn their children that they are imperfect, nor that their actions are likely to be an exercise of unrighteous dominion.
Abusers do all they can to convince their victims that they have no autonomy, no agency, no value. The doctrine invites us to believe we are infinitely valuable, that we possess inherent power to choose good for ourselves. The church isn’t perfect, but it certainly isn’t abusive.
I experienced emotional, psychological and occasionally physical abuse as a child. The OP rings true with me, especially because I grew up in the church, and church life was intertwined in those negative experiences.
Silver Rain, I would disagree that the actual doctrine alone cannot be abusive. The “doctrine” that blacks are inferior and can never participate in the full blessings of the gospel, can, I think, be accurately described as an abusive doctrine. The doctrine of blood atonement, polygamy (as practiced by early church leaders) and other doctrines all left serious trauma in their wake. The fact that the church may have disclaimed those doctrines at this point does not change the fact that the pain caused by those doctrines was the result of the doctrines themselves.
SilverRain,
I disagree. And the church does not encourage its members to find out for themselves in the open minded way you seem to suggest. The church says find out that it’s true, but the church tells you the method you should use to find out, and if you think it isn’t true, well, you need to try again until you get the correct answer. That is not exactly an encouragement for an open minded determination of whether the church is true or not.
That is akin to a parent saying if you want to know if I am a good parent or not, do this and that and this and only ask these people, and if you don’t think I’m a good parent, go back and do it again until you think I’m a good parent. That sounds like a potentially abusive (or at least manipulative) parent to me.
I felt the need to comment on this post, as a 30+ years convert, 15 year inactive member and now reactivated LDS member. I remember when I first became a member and wanted to learn all I could to catch up to those who had always been LDS and how overwhelmed I became after 14 years which led to my inactivity. I read Sonia Johnson’s book and felt so much anger at how she and others like her had been treated. I hated hearing the Catholic church, the church of my ancestors referred to as the great, abominable whore upon the earth, and I hated feeling like I needed to hide my great grandmother’s crucifix whenever members would do an impromptu visit. But over the years I realized that it was me who had the problem, why did I feel I had to hide my heritage? Why did I feel I had to hide my feelings? Did Christ ask that of me? Were not the church leaders just as fallible as I was, as any of us are? And then it hit me like a bolt out of the blue…..yes they are, and until Christ returns to lead this organization it will remain “imperfect”. Yes, words will be spoken that wound and cause good people to wander away and the hearts of dear sweet people feel crushed but hear is the good news as I see it….if those of us that feel this way walk away how will change ever be effected? We need to first cast off our fear of being judged by leaders and found lacking, of being shunned by other members for having different opinions and look only to Christ and pray each day that he touches the hearts of the General Authorities, to steer all of us towards being a kinder, more loving version of what being LDS means. Whenever a brother or sister does not feel included in the love and promises of the Lord there is a serious problem.
By the way I decided recently to wear my great grandmother’s rosary around my neck and although it took courage I am choosing not to hide it under my my clothing anymore! Thanks Bill for the “thought provoker”! Love to all!
I think the analogy of an abusive parent is an interesting way to look at the relationship between the LDS Church and its members, as imperfect of an analogy as it may be. I think Armand Mauss’s research and writing about the Church as an institution is helpful here. He talks about how the Church as an institution is going to behave in certain ways that are, at times, harmful to individuals. Sometimes what is good for the institution, or what is good for the majority of members, will harm individuals. It is inevitable of all institutions. There are also things specific to this institution that exacerbate the harm at times, and prevent it from making restitution. In many ways, the leaders are beholden to the institution, and so they will struggle to prevent or correct individual harm and abuse.
My analogy for the Church is that it is like an iTunes account where the Church provides a very limited selection of media for you to enjoy, and they have a terms and conditions agreement that you have to sign. It is take it or leave it. No single individual has any power to negotiate changes to the terms and conditions, or change the media selection. However, every individual can choose how much, if any, media to consume, and what terms and conditions to follow. Enforcement will be sporadic and inconsistent, but the power of enforcement is with the Church, not the individual. So ultimately the individual’s leverage is in choosing whether to participate or not. As long as people benefit from the media provided, it is probably worth it for them to abide by the terms and conditions. When the cost of abiding by those terms and conditions exceeds the benefits of the media provided, it’s time to walk away.
“I think the model of the rebellious teenager who exaggerates his parents’ weaknesses and ignores their positive virtues is a much more apt description of what’s going on with Bill Reel.
And that saddens me a great deal.”
Mike Parker, way to make it personal attack on Bill. Very classy.
Bill, nice job on the analagy. No analagy is perfect but I appreciate your attempt to help people see things from another perspective. Don’t be disheartened by those who are unable or unwilling to try to understand. Some people are just schmucks.
Andrew,
Thanks for defending my comments. Howard simply refused to “get it.” Because it upsets his view to consider how he comes across. It is always easier to attack than to be thoughtful.
Nice spin Jeff!
“My analogy for the Church is that it is like an iTunes account where the Church provides a very limited selection of media for you to enjoy, and they have a terms and conditions agreement that you have to sign. It is take it or leave it. No single individual has any power to negotiate changes to the terms and conditions, or change the media selection. However, every individual can choose how much, if any, media to consume, and what terms and conditions to follow. Enforcement will be sporadic and inconsistent, but the power of enforcement is with the Church, not the individual. So ultimately the individual’s leverage is in choosing whether to participate or not. As long as people benefit from the media provided, it is probably worth it for them to abide by the terms and conditions. When the cost of abiding by those terms and conditions exceeds the benefits of the media provided, it’s time to walk away.”
I like this analogy, but I would add that the selection of media is actually wider than most people think it is (including some leaders – thus the line can be squirrely sometimes), and it is possible to have more than one kind of iTunes account.
The iTunes analogy does not describe it explain the issues dealt with in the original post.
For the iTunes analogy to describe the more general experience you have to add some details.
For example, the itunes terms and conditions state that when you get married only other people who have agreed to the terms and conditions may be in attendance. And 20% of the songs have lyrics like, “if you’re gay, stay away.” LGBT people have to agree to be celibate before downloading songs. ITunes also charges 10% of your income and gives assignments that require the bulk of your free time.
No, I don’t think the iTunes analogy comes even close unless you add a lot more detail.
A post where the church is an abusive father and Chino Blanco chiming in to agree. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell this site apart from exmormon.com. Maybe that was always the goal.
Joel, thanks for bringing up Armand Mauss. His work has really helped define my relationship with the church organization. He gets it.
Bill’s piece rang true for me because, when I was young I used to idolize my real life father. This distorted my entire view of reality and caused me to make some poor decisions. I fear many members idolize/worship the church and its leaders in the same way. The danger is this may lead them away from the True God, and also cause some to condemn those who they disagree with. Jesus said we would be judged with the same judgement by which we judge.
Jesus said we would be judged with the same judgement by which we judge.
Amen! Let’s all be patient and forgiving and kind and long-suffering and supporting and so forth, especially within the body of Saints.
Hey jimbob, if you’re gonna play the ‘guilt by association’ game, you might wanna pick an exmo site that actually – you know – exists.
Here’s my fave: http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon
Please, go take a look. Pretty sure you’ll agree it’s nothing like W&T. But maybe it is. Won’t know until you’ve taken a gander.
And please, carry on speculating on people’s motives. I find your behavior very affirming of my life choices.
BTW, if you wanted to conduct an intervention, here is how http://www.adrr.com/living/ss_5.htm
Rather than just saying: embrace progressive political and social positions.
I’m a middle-aged life-long Anglican (Episcopalian) with a recent interest in Mormonism. Most of what I’ve learned about Mormonism has saddened me, I’m afraid; but I admire Mormons for their sincere commitment. The parable of the wheat and the tares explains a lot, to me, so I like this blog’s title.
Just by way of offering a different viewpoint, I can say that it would never have occurred to me to describe my own church as a parent of any kind. I’ve been praying and studying Scriptures and thinking about God since early childhood, and though I’m afraid I have no claim to holiness, my faith has always been a big part of my life. The God in whom I’ve always believed is the creator of reality, however. No church has ever been more than one of the many instruments God uses, to me. So if I had to make a personal metaphor for the role of churches in my life, I’d say they were more like respected family friends who lived down the street than like parents.
For better or for worse, the LDS church as an institution seems to play a much bigger role in Mormons’ lives than other churches play in the lives of mainstream Christians. I think it may be closer to the role their religious order plays in the lives of monks or nuns; maybe even more dominant than that, in fact, since religious orders are consciously only parts of a larger faith that exists beyond them.
So even apart from whether the church is a good or bad father, I feel like asking, from my own perspective: should the church really be a father at all? Isn’t that just too much?
^I find that to be very interesting, because having grown up Mormon, I always thought of “religious orders” as being a very foreign, unfamiliar concept. I would never have thought that the churches themselves hold different intensities/levels of roles in the adherents’ lives.
Chino,
I’ve read exmormon.org (as one of a number of sites on mormonism I visit) for years and had seen you post there for some time. This is a post I not only *could* read on exmormon.org, but actually *have* read on exmormon.org, or at least the same analogy. So I guess I’m a little unclear what you’re finding unfair.
“I’ve read exmormon.org … for years…”
I believe you, jimbob. Because I haven’t posted there in years. But kudos on the dedication to your chosen task. Personally, I find the vibe at r/exmormon tends to be a bit more fun-loving and the crowd a bit more savvy. But that’s just me.