Fundie spirit crushing - when & how does it begin?

[Kristelle]

Of course, the abuse continues well into adulthood and takes different forms at different ages, but it starts at birth.

THANK YOU for calling it what it is-- Abuse. It's not "discipline" and it's not "training", it's abuse. My father would always discourage me from telling other people about being dragged around by my hair, hit, or kicked because "discipline" was a family matter. Only recently have I learned to call it abuse.

[holothuroidea]

THANK YOU for calling it what it is-- Abuse. It's not "discipline" and it's not "training", it's abuse. My father would always discourage me from telling other people about being dragged around by my hair, hit, or kicked because "discipline" was a family matter. Only recently have I learned to call it abuse.

I have so many hugs for you if you will accept them! *hugs*

Yes, it's abuse. I hate it when people dance around the "discipline" issue. No, it's not discipline, its abuse. It's using parental power for personal gain at the expense of another human being's rights and needs.

[bananacat]

It definitely starts at birth. Even the ridiculous flower headbands are an example. And infant girl, even a fragile preemie, must have her gender role emphasized from the very beginning. It doesn't matter how itchy or uncomfortable those headbands are; Josie had to wear them anyway. Comfort is less important than conforming to strict roles, even during a critical health issue. Josie was taught from the start to perform femininity above everything else.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I'd say it definitely starts from birth. However, not all fundies I've known are abusive to the degree of some of the fundies we snark on. In the church where I was raised, there was definite emphasis on gender roles, learning the Bible, etc.. Some parents were very strict and stern about it while others seemed quite loving. When I was small, it just seemed like a happy cocoon to me. I wasn't beaten or blanket trained as folks in some strains of fundie-dom have been. I had friends in church, social life centered on church but since most of the adults seemed to genuinely want us there and like having us around, it didn't feel uncomfortable. I was in a reformed fundie church (VF hadn't been founded yet, but some folks close to Dougie at various points in his life come from this church and others in close fellowship with it) and the ATI/Pearls craziness was not really something I grew up with. Childhood was actually very fun and involved lots of time spent with other kids, it's only as I look back on it that I see it was also very sheltered. I read a lot more Bible stories than most kids, but that was the main difference I remember between my life and those of non-church kids in my neighborhood. The only thing I remember not liking was that I was expected to play dolls with other girls and we weren't allowed to run around playing war or cowboys or some of the other louder games the boys got to play.

What I remember more clearly came in middle school/high school. At this point, the emphasis on modesty and purity got way ramped up as did the idea that as a woman, one must fit a certain mold or men won't marry you. And if men don't want to marry you, then there was a definite implication that something must be wrong. As long as we weren't too loud and disruptive, we had some flexibility to be ourselves and have fun as children, but as we hit middle school, boys had to be very masculine, good Christian leaders of the home and girls had to start preparing to be modest mothers and wives.

Mostly, there was an emphasis on being careful about how you dressed and being conscious of how this would affect guys. I remember one college student telling our high school group about how she was very conscious about wearing knit shirts because even if a turtleneck covered everything, the clinginess did not hide your figure at all and that could be almost unbearable temptation to a guy. I remember being about 14 and wearing a flirty above-the knee skirt that was very loose and flowy. I got a lecture from one of the elders about how I was being a tease by wearing a skirt that would cause the boys to look at my legs and be "overly distracted." I was totally mortified.

Courtship was in its infancy at this point (mid/late 90s), so parents weren't really arranging matches as we see now. I remember being taught not to casually date a guy and not to go out with someone unless we'd spent time hanging out in groups of friends and I thought he was someone I might possibly see as a mate. Pretty much every couple that got together when we were in young adult (college) fellowship ended up married soon after. And there is definitely a LOT of pressure to be the perfect Christian wife. IN high school and into college, the pressure to show off cooking, hostessing and other domestic skills in hopes of showing what a good Christian wife you'd be was really intense. I remember being happy that I did well in school, and being told by a deacon's wife that school is a good thing so that I could teach my children, but that once I graduated, being a wife was what really mattered.

Sorry this is long, but hopefully, it helps answer the question.

[delilahdog11]

she's still a baby, barely walking, I think, and like I said, has the SWEETEST little personality you'll ever find on a child. But she is still flesh and bone and her heart is black with sin until she gives it to Christ one day. I had to give a shout out to the mom for spanking her little legs. For a moment, it was a battle of wills between mom

I don't understand the biblical principle behind this line of thought. So newborns and toddlers the world wide over are crying, having tantrums,, throwing toys (because hey they have to make sure gravity is stilll working), accidentally hitting or kicking someone (because they don't always have the best motor skills), unable to sit still, etc. Not because all theses behaviors are completely normal in young kids and babies and they are behaving in ways due to the nature of their individual being or age. No, they are doing all those things because they are rebellious sinners with black hearts. A newborn doesn't cry due to hungry, tiredness, wanting comfort or because newborns can't talk, but because they want to manipulate their parents. Did I get that right? Because I don't understand what I just wrote.

I spent several years in a cult. I have shut those memories out, so my knowledge of the bible is a bit hazy, but I thought that the overriding teaching of Jesus was love and that the law of god's kingdom is love: towards god and towards other. Jesus saw children as vulnerable and in need of care and protection. God's justice would be mighty and swift if a person is cruel or hurts a child. So I don't understand what bibical principles are used to support that children aren't innocent and the bibical way of raising a child invovles corporal punishment.

There is a mom in my son's play group and she is always angry at her two year. Several months ago when her child was only 16 months old. He was in her room playing with the blinds. Acting like a normal toddler and she said that she spanked him six times to get him to stop. My chin was on the ground. It is normal for a young kid to do stuff like that.

Try saying no and moving him away from the blinds and giving him something else to play with to distract him. Or deal with the fact that taking him away from the blinds might cause him to throw a tantrum. He had no idea why he was being spanked. She told me she thought he was getting the age were spanking him or hitting on the hand would be good for him and a way to teach him what not to do. Her parents spanked her and so she is going to spank her child. I told her that they only reason I would ever spank my kid is if his life was in danger and it was the only way I could get their attention or get them to stop, and even then I wouldnt spank but try something else to get them out of danger. Shoot. I ever rarely tell my little one unless he is doing something dangerous. Instead, I encourage and reward all the times he is doing what he is suppose to be doing.

Kids can get really excited and zone out and sometimes a physical touch can help break them out of that. I was watching my friend's four year and he saw his mom across the street. We both said, don't crosss but he got so excited

. He ran across anyway. Within a second. I was out in the street, yanking him by the arm to get him out of the flow of incoming traffic. I didn't spank him afterwards. But I did use physical discipline on him.

Her son will also occasionally make a mess, spill water out of cups he shouldn't be using, accidentally kicks in the middle of a diaper change, break things, lose his sippy cup, etc. And she screams at him, why are you doing these things to me?

I want to point out. He isn't doing anything to you. He his own person. Trying to figure things out and like all small kids

has an immense amount of curiosity. Things like the above examples are bound to happen. I think that many fundies do not realize this about this children.

A child is not a pet. An accessory. A tool to be used to show how godly your family is. They have their own life trajectory, their own path to follow, they are experiencing life through their own prespective, and when they are very young they aren't thinking about being malicious towards their parents or other people. They are just being a kid.

Even when they get older. It may seem that they are purposely being mean or pushing buttons. They are still their own person with a need to express themselves and I hope that as a parent. I will be able to not crush my child's spirit, but will be able to help to him find more constructive forms of expression.

My personal motto is: take nothing personally. How people behave, their actions, their words do not reflect on me as a person, but rather they are a reflection of how that person preceives themselves and the world around him. If someone tells me they hate me or they love me. It means the same to me because i don't take it personally. I am not the one being commented on. The person saying the words is commenting on their own personal preceptions .

Everyone is on different paths and just because they are on a path different than yours. Does not make them any less right or wrong. I guess in fundie circles- children aren't allowed to walk a path not planned out by their parents. If they do then they get hit, spanked, severely punished until they radiate the love they and their parents have for god. I guess that is why they are trained. So that others might see the joy that comes from being saved.

[delilahdog11]

From my limited understanding most ATI/Gothard/VF parents don't really acknowledge the ages of their children or take into account age appropriate activities and/or punishments. Hitting, hair pulling, food deprivation, etc are no acceptable at any age. Nor do they take into account age appropriate behaviors. These are the behaviors that must controlled and crushed out of the child. Teen girls aren't treated like teenagers, but as young ladies and they are denied many of the experiences that help one grow up into a mature adult. They are protected and sheltered in their father's house so they can learn how to take care of their future prince charming's house and children. They aren't exposed to struggles, hardship, heartaches that come from interacting with the world and thus are kept from developing their own ideas, thoughts, intelligence.

If a newborn has a black heart of sin then the spirit crushing must start right away and it can't ever stop. They don't see the ages of their children rather they just see a black hearted sinner who must be trained to act godly.

[GenerationCedarchip]

From my limited understanding most ATI/Gothard/VF parents don't really acknowledge the ages of their children or take into account age appropriate activities and/or punishments. Hitting, hair pulling, food deprivation, etc are no acceptable at any age. Nor do they take into account age appropriate behaviors. These are the behaviors that must controlled and crushed out of the child. Teen girls aren't treated like teenagers, but as young ladies and they are denied many of the experiences that help one grow up into a mature adult. They are protected and sheltered in their father's house so they can learn how to take care of their future prince charming's house and children. They aren't exposed to struggles, hardship, heartaches that come from interacting with the world and thus are kept from developing their own ideas, thoughts, intelligence.

If a newborn has a black heart of sin then the spirit crushing must start right away and it can't ever stop. They don't see the ages of their children rather they just see a black hearted sinner who must be trained to act godly.

That's the worldview right there. They don't see it as crushing anyone's spirit. The view is that we are all born sinful and must be taught to follow God and seek His will. These folks actually think they're saving their children and helping them be the best they can be (scary). I would separate the VF crowd from ATI/Gothard somewhat because the VF-ers are primarily from the reformed tradition and that bunch does actually try to tailor things more to a child's age. There's a major emphasis on discipling children in the hope that they will mature into self-discipline(a Fruit of the Spirit), but kids get to be kids a little more in most VF households that I know IRL than they seem to among the Gothardites. It's still a pretty narrow, wacky world, though.

[Bellatrix]

This whole topic has reminded me that my favourite Elvis song has a much more literal meaning to quite a few peeps out there.

5nex9do-kx4

Not that the fundies would know about Elvis or Lilo & Stitch. Oh no, no, no. So not appropriate. :naughty:

[Godlesspanther-2-]

If I were a judge presiding over a case in which a Pearl-raised kid did a Lizzie Borden, I would let let that kid go.

As for the original question -- we can see that the spirit-crushing begins at day one with born-ins, but what about adult converts?

Theoretically, anyone, no matter your background nor innate mindset is a possible convert into a cult given that the right people contact you in the right way under the right circumstances. I believe that. It would be impossible to test, but I see that point behind it.

Years ago the most notorious proselytizers were the Hare Krishnas, The Moonies, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons. Their primary target were college students. Why? Easy prey. Young folks away from home for the first time and not knowing anyone, meet a group of happy smiling insta-friends -- it's hard to turn that down.

One thing that cult leaders learned over the years is that easy converts don't make the best converts. There are many groups like Scientology, Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and the Moonies as they operate currently that have shifted their focus. They go for older, educated, proffesionals. More money, better resource, and people who can speak in a confident and educated manner for the cult are gold.

How do smart educated people end up believing that J Z Knight really channels the spirit of Ramtha? Right time, right place, right circumstances.

[MamaJunebug]

I don't understand the biblical principle behind this line of thought

That's because there is no such thing.

The Bible speaks of disciplining one's children, as in the disciplines of medicine or law - training to know the parameters and values and methods of a certain way of life.

Even "the rod" is not a rod used to strike or switch a subject, but to guide. Like you see a sheep herder use a long stick to guide the flock where it's desired (safest) for them to go.

Even sheepdogs don't punish the sheep. They run around the sides of the flock to control the movement. Their nips are just that - nips to correct an individual sheep. Has nothing to do with biting, fleece-pulling, wounding.

A child is not a pet. An accessory. A tool to be used to show how godly your family is. ....

Ah, but for the quiverfullers, they are just that: proof that because one family's quiver is fuller than another's they have done something more right. The parents are godly and upright. In wealthier circles, the symbols are the Escalade and the trips to Gstaad.

My personal motto is: take nothing personally. How people behave, their actions, their words do not reflect on me as a person, but rather they are a reflection of how that person preceives themselves and the world around him. If someone tells me they hate me or they love me. It means the same to me because i don't take it personally. I am not the one being commented on. The person saying the words is commenting on their own personal preceptions .

Oof baboof, you are one wise canine! :)

Raised in a sensible, non-abusive Lutheran Christian home, I learned to believe that indeed, we are sinful from birth. That never, never, never meant that we were to be struck, tormented or swatted around. IN fact, my mother's parents - desperately poor, isolated, without any form of safety net or relief - raised their kids that way. My mother was far from perfect, but she determined early in life that she would never strike her own children, and she never did. She had a 10th grade education but she studied Scripture and knew that there's no where in the Bible that tells parents to follow the line of thought that delilahdog asks about.

Yes, there were examples in the Old Testament where patriarchs of old stoned their children. Jesus never endorsed those.

~~~~~~

I've told this story before: Years ago, I participated in a mothering board overrun by Pearl types. One young mom was uncertain about "switching" her 15-month-old repeatedly when the kid threw stuff as he sat in the grocery cart's toddler seat. I encouraged her to stop switching, to deny him any throwable objects, and to turn a deaf ear to his protests, but to reward him with pats and hugs when he behaved. Oh, how the wrath of the rest of the board rained down upon my advice! AFAIK the mom continued the switching. The volume of the Pearlites' advice persuaded her. I gave up but will never forget the event.

[GiGi_41]

One young mom was uncertain about "switching" her 15-month-old repeatedly when the kid threw stuff as he sat in the grocery cart's toddler seat. I encouraged her to stop switching, to deny him any throwable objects, and to turn a deaf ear to his protests, but to reward him with pats and hugs when he behaved

As a foster mom to 2 toddlers, I have had to rethink how I handle Toddler-like behaviors. I have become a master of redirection. I have also had to learn how to give words to their "feelings". And I am always trying to think ahead about the situations I put the toddlers in, so they cannot get into trouble. Our grocery store has babysitting while you shop so I take advantage of that thus keeping the toddlers from throwing things out of the cart.

It amazes me that these people don't see the illogical thinking of "spanking" a child and then tell them not to hit.

G

[kittypie]

We went to a fundie church (Plymouth Brethren) but we weren't really all that fundie at home. Except for belt whippings. I was the oldest of four girls. I was not an unruly child so I didn't get the belt as often as the next two sisters (afaik my youngest sister was never whipped or spanked). My spirit started to feel crushed at fundie Bible school (unaccredited college...I only went there because the boy I had a crush on went there), then further when I panicked at a Blll Gothard seminar, back when it was in its infancy ('70s). There was no frickin way I was going to heaven if all that Bill Gothard crap was right...so, I did not return to Bible school and spent the next 15 years sowing my wild oats. My parents were having marriage problems, I think they were glad to get rid of me.

[formergothardite]

Kristi from Thimble Thoughts just posted today regarding child rearing and seems the crushing the spirit mentality is thrust on the kids early in life:

WTF! She hit a baby! How exactly is the baby hitting in anger! That poor child, apparently she has been "trained" from the moment she was first held by her parents. Children are a blessing, my ass.

Oh, and Kristi was the one I've been trying to remember who does really bad photography. I had forgotten her blog name.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

That's the worldview right there. They don't see it as crushing anyone's spirit. The view is that we are all born sinful and must be taught to follow God and seek His will.

From what I've read around the net (thank goodness that's the only experience I have) that seems dead on, yeah.

Plus the whole "you must follow God" thing, they think that it's the parent's role to show them what submission looks like (submit to Daddy so you can learn to submit to God), so there's all the fetishizing of obeying rules purely for the sake of obeying rules. Bring on the blanket training, etc, but also be sure to never feed on demand, and NEVER have any sort of "well, I don't honestly CARE when the kid does X or Y, so I'll just let him do it when he wants" or anything like that, because the kid must always be submitting (even for NO reason - that's the whole point, the kids don't have to be actively disobeying or anything), they must learn that they have no control or will AT ALL. "Pick your battles" is pretty much anathema.

Only a few days ago I was reading a thread (possibly here?) mentioning about how important it is to start early and that means telling a little squirmy baby that he can't squirm around whenever he wants, he has to remain still when Mom says so, even if they're at home and no one is around and there's no logical reason to require the baby to be still, at all. From the moment they can think it has to be all about limits limits limits, and not having a self.

Depressing.

[Mind UR own uteress]

I had a nightmare last night that i was a teenage daughter in a quiverful family and my mother kept handing me her children to look after while she made more. The spirit crushing probably starts well before they get "buddies" but in my dream at least, i felt it... as well as a boatload of resentment, followed by relief when i realized it was just a bad dream and not real. It made me want to boycott 19 KAC in protest.

[NurseNell]

It definitely starts at birth. Even the ridiculous flower headbands are an example. And infant girl, even a fragile preemie, must have her gender role emphasized from the very beginning. It doesn't matter how itchy or uncomfortable those headbands are; Josie had to wear them anyway. Comfort is less important than conforming to strict roles, even during a critical health issue. Josie was taught from the start to perform femininity above everything else.

I see those headbands on babies all the time. It isn't just fun dies putting them on their baby girls. I personally hate them, and they look like they must give the poor kids headaches.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Yeah those bows and giant flowers are horrid. People worry that observers can't automatically tell their kid is a girl because it has no hair yet, or whatever - so what??

Still if gendering is that important ,well, if they want to dress the kid in pink dresses that's one thing, but personally I think that if you don't have HAIR, you shouldn't be mimicking hair ties with giant rubber bands. Use a sunhat or baseball cap if you must decorate the head. I just can't help thinking those headband things have GOT to itch. Particularly the ones with the little gathered material like garter belts for the forehead. No.

[Swamptribe]

What I don't get is, if their religion is so great, why do they have to use some extreme measures to keep their children among the faithful. These people use torture and brain washing techniques on their children. If you need to do that to promote your religion, you're religion has some serious problems.

[valsa]

I just can't help thinking those headband things have GOT to itch. Particularly the ones with the little gathered material like garter belts for the forehead. No.

I wonder what fundies do if their child refuses to wear one. When I was little I had hair but anything my mom put in it (hair ties, barrettes, headbands, etc) got ripped out within minutes... usually with a chuck or two of hair.

Little did my mother know, when she just stopped putting things in my hair, she was nurturing my cold, black, sinful heart. She obviously should have been beating me into submission instead.

[NurseNell]

I wonder what fundies do if their child refuses to wear one. When I was little I had hair but anything my mom put in it (hair ties, barrettes, headbands, etc) got ripped out within minutes... usually with a chuck or two of hair.

Little did my mother know, when she just stopped putting things in my hair, she was nurturing my cold, black, sinful heart. She obviously should have been beating me into submission instead.

Headbands, I don't care how loose they are, give me headaches. Thankfully I grew up in the 50's and only had to put up with barrettes, which were OK.

[samithemage]

Headbands, I don't care how loose they are, give me headaches. Thankfully I grew up in the 50's and only had to put up with barrettes, which were OK.

I've never been able to wear headbands for any length of time. I can't even pull my hair up in a ponytail without getting a headache after about an hour. I can't imagine being one of those poor girl babies with one of those idiotic flower headbands stuck around my head. I'm sure if they try to remove them their little hands get hit until they learn to stop.

[QAF_Rocks]

That's because there is no such thing.

The Bible speaks of disciplining one's children, as in the disciplines of medicine or law - training to know the parameters and values and methods of a certain way of life.

Even "the rod" is not a rod used to strike or switch a subject, but to guide. Like you see a sheep herder use a long stick to guide the flock where it's desired (safest) for them to go.

Even sheepdogs don't punish the sheep. They run around the sides of the flock to control the movement. Their nips are just that - nips to correct an individual sheep. Has nothing to do with biting, fleece-pulling, wounding.

Sorry, but this argument strikes me as the same kind people use when they try to say that the Bible doesn't actually condone sexism, or homophobia, or slavery, or genocide. There are verses that explicitly mention beating children.

Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."

Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."

Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Now of course, one could argue whether to take these literally, but fundies believe that the Bible is inerrant, and that they should follow these instructions when parenting their children.

[abba12]

Sorry, but this argument strikes me as the same kind people use when they try to say that the Bible doesn't actually condone sexism, or homophobia, or slavery, or genocide. There are verses that explicitly mention beating children.

Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."

Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."

Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Now of course, one could argue whether to take these literally, but fundies believe that the Bible is inerrant, and that they should follow these instructions when parenting their children.

Actually there is some evidence for this. The word translated to 'rod' in these verses is the same word, in the hebrew, as the word used for scepter, as in the scepter held out towards Esther, one of protection. The word is also used when refering to a shepherding staff, which is used for guidance, shepherding, not beating. The argument can be made that the rod reffered to above is meant to be correction through dicipline, guidance, not nececarily physical force.

[formergothardite]

I hadn't read Kristy from Thimble Thougthts in a long time because I had forgotten her blog name and in my mind she was always less fundie and not quite as bad as the rest of the bloggers. She always seemed to like her kids and let them joke around, date, and go to college. But this post about hitting a baby and her gay marriage posts, shows I was very, very wrong about her, she is just as bad as the rest.

[bicyclecat]

From what I've read around the net (thank goodness that's the only experience I have) that seems dead on, yeah.

Plus the whole "you must follow God" thing, they think that it's the parent's role to show them what submission looks like (submit to Daddy so you can learn to submit to God), so there's all the fetishizing of obeying rules purely for the sake of obeying rules. Bring on the blanket training, etc, but also be sure to never feed on demand, and NEVER have any sort of "well, I don't honestly CARE when the kid does X or Y, so I'll just let him do it when he wants" or anything like that, because the kid must always be submitting (even for NO reason - that's the whole point, the kids don't have to be actively disobeying or anything), they must learn that they have no control or will AT ALL. "Pick your battles" is pretty much anathema.

Only a few days ago I was reading a thread (possibly here?) mentioning about how important it is to start early and that means telling a little squirmy baby that he can't squirm around whenever he wants, he has to remain still when Mom says so, even if they're at home and no one is around and there's no logical reason to require the baby to be still, at all. From the moment they can think it has to be all about limits limits limits, and not having a self.

Depressing.

Strangely enough, this could have been written about how my now ex husband treated me and our pets. I don't really want to go into details, but... this is not discipline. It's abuse, plain and simple.