Skip to main content

High-Intensity Faith

Many people (usually Mormons) have asked me why I focus on Mormonism so much, in my criticism of religion.  The best and most comprehensive answer is that most of the people that I love are Mormon.  If most of my friends and family were Baptists, I would probably criticize Baptists the most.  If they were Scientologists, I would criticize them the most.  I want to encourage people to think critically about their own beliefs, to examine which of their beliefs are true and which are false, to discard the false ones and to retain the true ones.  And now I thank heartily a good friend of my fiancé's for the work she has done.  Her dissertation has helped me personally understand my own feelings much better, and I believe it will be of much help to me in the future.

I have been criticized for not being scientific enough on this blog.  I will make the disclosure that this blog has never been meant to be a scientific approach to anything.  It is nothing more or less than my own thoughts and feelings.  I present facts as often as I feel the need to, and I do my best to keep what I say either in the realm of my own opinion (in cases where fact cannot dictate) or to known fact.  However, I am also very willing to oblige the requests of any of my readers--or at least to give serious consideration to those requests--and this post is one in which I will attempt to be more scientific than I usually am.

Cyndi Matthews has been studying psychology, behavior, and counseling since the 1980s.  She has received four different degrees in those areas, most recently a PhD in Counselor Education in August of this year.  Her dissertation for this degree was entitled "Second Generation Adult Former Cult Group Members' Recovery Experiences: Implications for Counseling" (this link is to the full PDF version of the dissertation, and is shared with permission).  She has told me that in the near future, this dissertation will be available through Proquest.  As part of the research for this dissertation, she interviewed people who were formerly members of cults, who had been born into the cult and were raised in it through their childhood.  She has also told me that she welcomed comments or questions that anyone might have, so feel free to contact her directly (her email is listed on her CV linked above).

Near the beginning of the paper, in the definitions section, she says that the terms "cult" and "high intensity faith group" will be used interchangeably, both meaning "an ideological
organization held together by charismatic relationships and demanding a high level of commitment".  I actually found this to be a very good thing because I know that many of my Mormon friends will be affronted at the use of the word "cult" to describe their religion.  However, most Mormons that I know would not be offended if one were to tell them that their faith is of high intensity.  And yet it conveys (to me, anyway) the same meaning.  I think it's quite appropriate to call the LDS church a "high intensity faith group".  In her dissertation, Cyndi is careful to avoid calling any particular organization a "cult", since that word is generally associated with a negative connotation.  The use of the word "cult" in the paper is merely because that is the word most commonly used and most familiar to people researching the topic.

In the "Statement of the Problem" section of the dissertation, she states
Those individuals born and raised in cultic groups may experience significantly higher levels of physical and psychological abuse than those not raised in cults (Kendall, 2006). Children born and raised in cults may be more susceptible to abuse and neglect from malevolent leaders and emotionally volatile parents and may end up lacking appropriate attachment to significant caregivers (Furnari, 2005; Goldberg, 2006; Rochford, 1999; Schwartz & Kaslow, 2001).

Individuals raised in high intensity faith groups develop and form their personalities while in these groups. Because they do not have a former personality to draw upon once leaving the group, second generation former members may experience different forms of anxiety, stress, and problematic behavior once they have left their group than first generation members. In light of the differences between first generation and second generation former cult group members, it stands to reason that different and distinct issues may arise for second generation former members as they leave the group and subsequently enter counseling.
The reason why I was so excited to read this dissertation is that it helped me understand myself better.  From the second paragraph,  "Because they do not have a former personality to draw upon once leaving the group, second generation former members may experience different forms of anxiety, stress, and problematic behavior...".  I never really noticed this until I read it in this paper.  But, when I look back at what I was going through last year, I see that it is indeed the case.  In fact, I wrote about things along those lines in this post and this one--likely others as well, but my memory's not perfect.  I really did feel like once my Mormonism was shed, there was nothing left.  I had no definition, no identity, outside of being a Mormon.  Fortunately, I've always known that I love math and it has given me an identity and an anchor to hold on to, and I have found that I am happier when I am hard at work with my math research.

Another indication that I really felt like I had no identity outside of Mormonism actually happened about a year before I left the Mormon church.  One time, I was in an interview with my bishop.  He knew that I was looking at pornography and masturbating (he didn't know I was gay at the time).  We had been working together for some time.  In fact, I had talked to every bishop I had since I was 13 years old.  Different bishops had different approaches.  Some were more lenient than others.  This particular bishop was rather strict.  In this one particular interview, he suggested that I might need to be excommunicated because I was unable to live according to the standards of the church.  I was devastated.  I was shocked.  I didn't know what to do, what to think, how to react.  For the first time since my teenage years, I actually contemplated suicide.  I couldn't imagine life as a non-member of the church.  It seemed utterly hopeless and abysmal to me.  On my way driving home from this interview, I actually thought about colliding with another vehicle on the interstate on purpose.  And this was just at the prospect of being excommunicated.  I hadn't been.  I was merely anticipating.  Fortunately (or not, depending on how you look at it), I never was excommunicated.  And a few months after this occasion was when I delivered my letter of resignation to my bishop.

Another interesting fact is that I formally resigned from the church in April of 2011, but I attended church all the way up until near the end of July.  I felt like I still belonged there.  I felt like part of me would forever be there, and I still feel that way.  I felt like a child still connected via umbilical cord to its mother.  But, I also noticed that once I shed my Mormon beliefs, I was bare.  I didn't know what to think.  I didn't know what to believe.  I didn't know whom I could trust.  I felt like I had to start all over.

It is an extremely in-depth study (over 300 pages of discussion about the results).  She covers 12 themes:

  1. Patriarchy and Gender Roles
  2. Decision Making
  3. Obedience to Authority
  4. Group Support and Relationships
  5. Relationship with Parents
  6. Religiosity and Spirituality
  7. Abuse
  8. Outside Influences: School, Job, and Therapy
  9. Sense of Identity
  10. Emotional Consequences of Life in the Cult
  11. Fear and Courage
  12. Long Process of change
As I said, it is a long dissertation, so I have not read all of it, but I have read through much of it, and I was astonished by what I read.  First, I must say that based on some of the things that I read in this paper, I must admit that there are groups out there that are far worse than the LDS church.  In fact, I would say that the LDS church is probably one of the most mild of them.  What surprised me was how similar these people's experiences were to each other and to me.  Many of the statements she quoted in the paper were things that I could actually picture myself saying.  
Participants reported that in the cult, children were expected to obey their parents unconditionally. In the cult parents were the authority figures, with the father being the leader and the mother being the helpmeet to the father. The mother was also the caretaker of and caregiver for the children. Participants reported that children were punished if they did not obey the rules of the cult or the rules of the family. (p 108)
I was astonished by this finding simply because I thought that the gender roles of father=authority figure, mother=caregiver were specific to Mormonism, but it is common among many groups.  It is a recurring theme.  Next is a quote from one of the participants, talking about her interactions with her parents and what pushed her to leave her cult.
I think that breaking point came when I was on the phone with my dad . . . my father had rifled through my purse and found birth control . . . my mother had found cigarettes . . . I asked him, “Are you saying that you would like me . . . if I quit smoking, if I quit watching ‘R’ rated movies, if I quit taking birth control, never touched another drop of alcohol, and dressed in modest clothing.” And he was like, “Yeah, absolutely.” . . . I hung up the phone . . . There is no way this man is ever going to love me. He doesn’t love me.  (p 111)
I am lucky in that my parents still "like" me.  They still talk to me.  I am welcome in their home, even with Conrad.  They are good to me.  But, when I hear something like this participant said about her parents, I can't help but think about what Elder Oaks said about how Mormon parents should treat their gay children because it exhibits this kind of conditional love of "You're only welcome in our life if you do what we want you to do."
Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”
Fortunately, my parents have not taken this approach, nor have Conrad's.  They have been good to us.  But I know that there are many other Mormon families that are like the one described in the quote above.  I don't know that that particular participant was a former Mormon, but she very well could have been, considering that list of things her parents didn't want her to be doing.

Anyway, I do recommend that you look through this dissertation--whether you're a former church or cult member or whether you're currently in a religion or cult.  I think it would be insightful for you to see how your experience compares with those of people who have gone through the transition out of a cult.  You may be astonished by some of the similarities.  You may be grateful for some of the differences.  

Comments

  1. "Because they do not have a former personality to draw upon once leaving the group, second generation former members may experience different forms of anxiety, stress, and problematic behavior..."

    This is an interesting observation and I can see that this can easily happen being raised Mormon. It's true we should not want people to have a dependency on the Church.

    Also, I think this cuts both ways though because for many, especially those who stay active, they feel a real attachment to a community which they enjoy and *many* humans long to feel this way. Longing to be part of a community that they enjoy is a common longing.

    So I am curious if there is a way that one can build a strong community (which many humans long for) where those in the community don't get too attached. I'd be interesting to know how this can better be done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do believe that healthy attachment is a basic human need (Bowlby, 1969). It is when unhealthy attachments are formed that psychological problems occur (such as ambivalent, avoidant, disorganized attachments which result in many different psychological problems). It is only through secure, healthy attachments that psychologically healthy individuals and hence, healthy communities emerge. (Bowlby has defined 4 basic criteria that need to occur in order for a secure attachment to form - won't bore you - sure you can google it). Cult environments do not promote, encourage, or build healthy attachments. Attachment itself in a community is not unhealthy - it is the manner of "attaching" that the cult leaders inspire in the cult community that makes the cult attachments unhealthy. (Unhealthy dependency being one of those unhealthy results)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Anyone is allowed to comment on this blog. As you can tell from reading my blog, I am very opinionated and I'm not afraid to share my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me as mildly or vehemently as you like, but be aware that I will reply with my own opinions, very strongly. If you don't want that kind of open discussion, or you think it will hurt your feelings, then please avoid posting. I do try to be respectful, but my verbology often comes across as brusque.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Co-efficiently Co-related

 I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that