Trying to understand how i felt controlled most of my life in some way without me realizing it till way later. Is this the method that is used on all mormons? I don't know if i fully understand it entirely. Is this the feeling that no matter which way you go, you lose? A paralyzed type of mindset?

Yes, for the most part, but it's also that the bound-up person may not be fully aware of the 2+ conflicting "commands."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind



"The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple contradictory situation, where the subject is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it's true that the core of the double bind is two conflicting demands, the difference lies in how they are imposed upon the subject, what the subject's understanding of the situation is, and who (or what) imposes these demands upon the subject. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the subject has difficulty in defining the exact nature of the paradoxical situation in which he or she is caught. The contradiction may be unexpressed in its immediate context and therefore invisible to external observers, only becoming evident when a prior communication is considered. Typically, a demand is imposed upon the subject by someone whom he or she respects (such as a parent, teacher, or doctor) but the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill because some broader context forbids it.

>>>>For example, this situation arises when a person in a position of authority imposes two contradictory conditions but there exists an unspoken rule that one must never question authority."<<<<

I think i understand, i think this was done a lot to me in the church without me even realizing it and i still struggle with conflicting ideas in my head that were put there. That is why i really want to understand this although it is a confusing thing but it is supposed to be confusing to the subject. I try to tell myself that there is no way that the church is this smart to think about all these controlling methods on purpose but maybe they are and i underestimated them.

Abusers aren't "smart." It's not "smart" to use and abuse people - it's selfish, cruel and short-sighted.

I don't think it's about underestimating abusers. I think it's about learning for the first time that it was abuse, and how difficult that can be.

The basic bind:

"We love you."
"Our love hurts you."
"Love is good, so can't hurt you."

binding: (to the victim's mind) -"If love hurts, it's because I am defective and not worthy of love."

Abusers know they inflict pain. They don't care, and/or are numb from abuse themselves. The indoctrination causes BICs not to question or buck authorities.

Think about it. They go so far as to make BICs do it to other BICs as children, such as an adult stranger man being alone with a child and asking the child about sex.

In any other world, that act is defined as a "child predator grooming a child for sexual abuse," so it is considered a very dangerous behavior, the red flag of a pedophile.

The BIC bishop may not want to talk to other people's kids about sex, so why does he do it? It's not normal or safe either for him or the kid, and only a pedophile would be "okay" with it.

The bind(s):

"The church finds me worthy to be a bishop."
"It is wrong to bring up sex with strangers' kids."
"The church says I must bring it up."
"It's damaging to the child."
(binding) "The church wants the child to be worthy, so I must abuse the child as a pedophile would."

I've never been a bishop, or talked about sex with strangers' kids, so I can't even imagine the level of creepiness any otherwise sexually healthy adult male might feel. But, I would think that his creep-o-meter would be red-lining, big time.

Does this make him "smart?" No, it makes him as trapped in the binds as any other victim. I imagine that they become as numb to the abuse as anyone else. We would like to think that "we" are superior, and would not "go there" with a kid. I'm not so convinced, given all of the things that we did do, and went along with. We were convinced to be abusive to ourselves, and to support/remain silent about the abuse to members of our own families.

Not everyone, of course. Some are able to break away. Some of those people broke out because the abuse crossed a mental or physical line. Now, there's a bind for you.

I found myself asking myself - "WTF do I mean that "they did me a favor (in getting me out) by hurting me!!??"

Talk about a head game.

I worked that puzzle to the point where I realized that they abused me to lazily, numbly and cruelly deal with their own issues and binds.

My own brains and strength and true love of myself saved me; it had nothing to do with their behavior. Were it up to them, I would still be being abused. Whatever they felt or didn't feel for me, it doesn't fit my definition of love.

Their definition of love was twisted by the abuse they suffered, and never escaped. Not all of those who were/are abused can or do escape the abuse.

No, badass, you didn't underestimate them.

They underestimated you.

I have always been underestimated. Always. Thanks for making me realize some things about the binds they put my mind in. It makes sense to me a lot more.

Thank you for that excellent post, jsub!

You deconstructed and analyzed some of the thought processes behind abuse--especially abuse "in the name of Love." This applies to parental abuse, abuse from siblings, and spousal abuse. I endured all of that in my dysfunction TBM family. Always, my abuser said, "I love you" and "This is for your own good."

All this does impact your thought processes. Knowing the truth (and repeating the Truths over and over to myself, until they finally sink into my brainwashed brain) has cleared my thinking. It is so refreshing to look at reality, and see it as reality, and not the way some abuser has interpreted it for you. "Believe this, or else!"

One thing I was forced to believe, all my life, is: "This is NOT abuse."

Oh yes, it is abuse.
Yes, it's a cult.

I have always wondered what my father means when he says he loves me. Does he really hate me? And want to keep a control over me? It is very possible when i think about it now.

Thanks for the kind words, everyone.



No one but your father can say how he defines love.

What you can do, is know the difference between truth and a lie by observing behavior.

"Do his words match his actions?"

My father was a very passionate guy, no matter what he was doing, an all or nothing sort. I also suspect that he was deeply depressed most of his life. He was the unquestionable authority figure. Slept like a log.

My mother seemed to get upset at very little, except displeasing my father. She displayed no gushing emotion, but never stopped working unti she dropped from exhaustion, and even then, was a very light sleeper.

They were born during the great depression, and both lost a parent at young ages. My dad's dad died when my dad was 12, in the 1940s. My mom's mom died when my mom was 16, also in the 1940s.

Then, both of them grew up during WWII.

Their levels of numbness toward their children were huge. They mostly ignored us, except when being abusively punished by dad. I think they had no idea what they were doing when they started having kids in their early 20s, and always regretted it. It was what they were supposed to do, so they did it. I think they also had very little respect for each other, but stayed married, because they were supposed to.

They would occassionaly make general statements about loving their family, but I think it was out of obligation. It was a part of the package of being a parent, something they said because it was expected of them.

Also, coming from the times and circumstances that they did, expressing emotion was a back-burner, mamby-pamby "weakling" thing. Don't whine. Buck up. Do your job. No excuses. Work, work, work. And never, ever, ...ever, cry.

They were born into numbness, and the events and circumstances of their lives never, ever released its grip on them. They had no wherewithal on which to draw, no emotional base or freedom from which to "explore their feelings."

I was born in the very early 1960s. Flower power, Vietnam, civil rights and moon shots*. Then, bra burning and free love. Hippies and hard rock, all asking how, demanding, that we "know ourselves."

Different worlds. I was an alien thing to my parents.

Was it fair to demand that they express their love for me, on my terms?

Was abuse the only way they knew how to get what they wanted?

Did their hard work and ignorance of their children create my freedom to live and love more freely, than lack of freedom had given them?

The point of this is that they could only communicate from within their own binds. Whenever they spoke of love, it did not match my idea of it, nor their behavior. Maybe they loved me, in that capacity and from the binds which defined their lives, but it never felt like love to me. Their binds crippled their capacity to love, and that was my reality.

They would each say, "Of course we loved you!"

I would say, "You never showed it."

Each of us is "right," and each of us is "wrong.." There are no absolutes; statements of love are relative to the speaker, not the listener. Only the speaker can "know" what he or she means by "love." It is not for anyone else to define for the speaker; each speaker has the right and responsibility to define it for him or herself.

Does your dad love you, badass? Only he can say what he means by it, and it is up to you to accept or reject that (those) definition(s).

My parents were not the same people in the 90s that they had been in the 60s, nor was I. They had "softened," and I was beginning to "harden." Things can change, and so can people.

Like a liquid or gas, we fill the shapes of our containers, each of us, in our own skins.

That's plenty enough for me.




moon shots - I don't know if today, that's some type of alcoholic drink or slang for a sexual activity, but here, it refers to the space missle program of the 60s.

I think my father loves me in his cult mind. I don't think he knows what real love is. There was no real love in my upbringing. The cult came first and it still does to this day.

Speaking as a never-Mo...it seems to me that so many religions and denominations attempt to make members feel bad or guilty in some way, in order to be able to control them more effectively.

I thought that Catholic Guilt was the gold standard until I learned of Mormon Guilt.

So mormon guilt is king above other religious guilt. That is good to know.

Jsub : totally agree with you except on abusers not smart.
Think they are very smart and intelligent to do what they do BUT it is not good.
Smart or intelligent does not mean good or bad.
Think they are very capable, because they put all the blame and conflict on the victim...at least for a while.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2017 06:00PM by itzbeen20.

Yes this is kind of what i think, i think they are very aware of what they are doing to control and then blame on you.

Nice to see you highlighting the double bind concept. For the last six years I have been thinking about it daily. Understanding the theory of the Double Bind is the key to freedom. Marion Strickers book was a game changer for me.

I have thought that it might be the key to real freedom as well. This is why i have been continously searching for some kind of answer to the riddle of why my mind is the way it is.

Back in the rehab clinic, we just labeled it 'Mind Fucking' someone.

I lived in fear of talking to a bishop about sex, so I made sure I never had something I had to confess. I had never even french kissed someone. I had kissed 2 nonmormons. So when I found out my boyfriend/ex is gay, the bishop said the way we were going to save him was to experiment to see if he could be turned on and we could do anything up to intercourse, but not intercourse (but I tend to believe that he still would have given us TRs).

So first thing he did was assign my boyfriend/ex to french kiss me, take me out on a date and then take me back to his apartment and french kiss me BUT he wasn't supposed to tell me. He knew what I was like and so he told me rather than just doing it the bishop's way. Right now I realized just how abusive this was TO ME and him, but TO ME who had done everything possible to stay "morally clean" and then my first french kiss was from someone who didn't even want me, desire me. Anyway, my boyfriend said it didn't knock his socks off like it did with men. How nice. Why did you tell me that? So the bishop thought we should do more things, but I could never really go along with it. We didn't french kiss again until we were engaged--I think once. I'm telling too much of the story.

BUT I kept telling the bishop that 2 wrongs don't make a right and I can still see him shaking his head back and forth slowly telling me that this is what we have to do if we are going to save my boyfriend. We finally got married and one reason was to get the voyeurs out of our lives. They were destroying me. I just realized that in the last 6 months or so--that I married him to survive. The mind fuck was just too much for me.

I did send a letter to that bishop just recently. I finally found his address. I fired off a 5 page single-spaced letter and sent it immediately so I wouldn't change my mind. It gave me a lot of satisfaction. I have never regretted sending it. I saved a copy so my dear daughter can find it after I die.

So many times in my mormon life things felt wrong, too wrong.

I love your stories cl2 haha in a good way. The thing that comes to my mind when i read was the double bind i was when i was almost mission age. The girl i wanted said she would only marry an RM so that coersion was always used against us males that did not want to go. Either you go and be bound to the church and get married to the girl you want or any girl in the church, or being treated like a reject the rest of your life, which is exactly what happened. Not sure if that is a double bind but it produced two miserable roads in my head for sure.

Cl2: what a horrible experience. Very sad.

Boss: Do such and such.
Me: The board hasn't authorized you to make that decision.
Boss: That's my risk not your's.
Board: Why the hell did you do that?
Boss: He did it.

Jesus: Take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
Thomas: Unless they have gay parents.
Bishop 1: Fuck Tommy.
Stake President: I'm going to have to release you.
Bishop 2: Bishop 1 got demoted for acting like Jesus, so fuck your kids.

Ok now i get it. The church is full of these instances in my own experience. Like the BoM was against secret combinations, this book is the centerpiece of our religion, secret handshakes learned in temple, the temple is the lord's house and holiest building do not question it, the BoM was against secret combinations. Haha jesus f#ck and this is only one example of two contridictions going against each other.

Think an example
is when the death oath is taken in the m temple, slit your throat, theirs too— to more correctly serve the j.

Then every prayer, every gasp is “itnojc.a.”

Like god is a big boy, he either can or not do his own shit.
W#f?? Which is it?
The the poor slob has to carry and get eaten away by all the inner conflict they dump on you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2017 07:25PM by itzbeen20.

I always wondered what it would be like to be in the church after the throat slitting. It has to be a totally different feel. I did notice people were very weird around me though.

Brought up a good point.
Always wondered if throat slitting would dc you for mission?