Boundaries

[AmyJ]

I had a conversation with a friend about good parameters to use when setting boundaries. Because the conversation was incomplete, and because most people who post here seem to have had to thoughtfully have set boundaries between themselves and the church, or themselves and other church members, I thought it would be a good group to ask this question of:

What parameters do you use to determine whether a boundary you are considering implementing is good? How do you know when a boundary that you set in place is working?

Here is what we came up with:

A good boundary achieves a specific outcome (mitigating pain), is in line with a person’s ethics/values/personal goals, and usually involves respectful assertiveness (though not always). A good boundary tends to encourage thoughtful allocation of resources and deliberate choices (for example, I cannot cook and do not volunteer at church for bringing meals to people – but I could run the Achievement Day program).

What would you add and/or revise? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Setting boundaries is like any skill, it takes a lot of practice. It will involve lots of mistakes along the way but experience will build over time.

First I’d say that a good boundary must be communicated. I’d go as far as saying that if it’s not communicated it’s not a boundary.

I have a few boundaries related to church. Some may have to be communicated to people at church, some can remain internal.

Hypothetical boundary: I decide I don’t want to participate in ward temple nights.

Someone from the ward invites me to ward temple night. I decline.

The next month someone from the ward invites me to ward temple night again. I decline.

The next month someone from the ward invites me to ward temple night again. I decline.

If someone asks again I might start to get upset, but in this scenario I haven’t communicated my boundary to anyone in the ward, it’s just an internal boundary that I maintain myself. I can’t fault anyone for inviting because no one else is aware of my personal boundaries.

In this example, if the invitations themselves start to cause issues it’s a good indicator that the boundary needs to be communicated to others… or maybe the boundary shifts from not participating in ward temple nights to, “Please don’t ask me to attend ward temple night.”

AmyJ wrote:

What parameters do you use to determine whether a boundary you are considering implementing is good?

If you feel like you need the boundary, it’s good. Boundaries don’t have to be permanent, you can shed boundaries that you no longer need.

AmyJ wrote:

How do you know when a boundary that you set in place is working?

Boundaries should be well defined, even if they’re all personal boundaries.

I’m not sure how this factors into church related issues, but good boundaries are usually agreed upon by all parties involved and there are predetermined consequences for violating boundaries. Going back to the hypothetical. If you established a boundary not to attend ward temple night, the boundary is working when someone invites you to ward temple night and you politely decline. If you established a boundary with ward members to not invite you to ward temple night it’s a little more complicated….

Did you establish the boundary with the specific person that’s inviting you to the temple or did you establish the boundary with someone else from the ward and assume the boundary was communicated to everyone?

If you didn’t communicate the boundary with that specific person the boundary is working when you communicate the boundary. That can get frustrating because LDS wards are revolving doors, people come and go, people are called and released. You just gotta sign up for near constant boundary communication.

If you have communicated the boundary with that specific person the boundary is working when you remind them of the boundary and implement whatever consequence you’ve communicated. Consequence is an intimidating word. It doesn’t have to be some big action, it could be as simple as not answering your phone when that person calls.

One important thing, if your boundary was to not get invited to the temple but people from the ward continue to invite you to the temple that is not necessarily an indication that the boundary isn’t working (the exception being the boundary isn’t communicated). Whether a boundary is working doesn’t have anything to do with what the other person does, it has everything to do with what you do. You’re not in it to change the other person’s behavior, you’re in it to change yours.

Another biggie (at least for me) is don’t cave out of guilt. Reflecting back, most of the times I’ve caved I could trace it back to feeling guilt.

[Anonymous]

I like your definition. Boundaries that I have set with the church aim for what I call sustainability. How much can I give theoretically on an ongoing basis and not get burned out, resentful, or feel taken advantage of? My boundaries seek to balance the perceived benefits that I receive to the perceived costs. If the benefits go down or up then I might want to revisit what I am prepared to tolerate as far as costs. My boundaries are also about preserving the relationship. I do not want lack of boundaries to create an imbalance to the point of souring the relationship.

My family has lots of boundaries that help in financial situations.

1) Neither of us will spend over $100 for a single non-recurring and non-necessary purchase without consulting the other.

2) With salesmen we have a rule that no purchase decisions are to be made in the moment. (We must sleep on it) [Incidentally, this works great on surprise callings from the Bishop as well (we must pray on it)]

3) For people needing financial assistance we prefer to give goods and services to money. We will only “loan” only up to a point that we are comfortable not getting back (about $100).

4) For family members, we would be even more hesitant to loan money for the potential disastrous affects on the long term relationship.

5) We have a budget and review expense line items that go over unexpectedly.

6) We do not carry credit card debt and pay any outstanding balance off at the end of each month.

Many of these are applicable in principle to non-financial situations.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

Here is what we came up with:

A good boundary achieves a specific outcome (mitigating pain), is in line with a person’s ethics/values/personal goals, and usually involves respectful assertiveness (though not always). A good boundary tends to encourage thoughtful allocation of resources and deliberate choices (for example, I cannot cook and do not volunteer at church for bringing meals to people – but I could run the Achievement Day program).

What would you add and/or revise? Thanks!

I would add a statement that the process of boundary-setting is given in a way that is as unoffensive as possible to the person who is subject to the boundary.

I am getting this from my daughter. I had a fabulous relationship with her until she became a teenager. She started seeing a counselor due to bullying experienced at church. She came out of the experience setting boundaries with me. I found the way she did it offensive – by openly TELLING ME she was setting a boundary that I should not cross. She did it quite a few times, and often on issues that I felt were not boundary-worthy. One was when I would occasionally call her to vent about something that happened in my work. I have always felt that families should listen to and comfort each other. She was upset that I didn’t always take her advice, which upset her and required her therefore set a boundary on that kind of conversation.

And she did it in writing right after such a conversation via email. I got the “boundary email” while I was still really hurting from something that had happened in my work.

In my view, her need for a boundary was borne out of a lack of maturity on her part. As you get older, you realize that people often seek advice but don’t follow your advice. And we aren’t always absolute in our “rightness” as an advice-giver anyway. You give your opinion and then let people make their own decisions. You don’t get upset if they decide to go in a different direction. And therefore, set a boundary in a harsh or abrasive way meaning that no issues on which advice can be given are allowed in conversation.

Her boundary-setting had me seriously thinking of reducing our interactions substantially and sequestering her into a little corner of my life, her boundary-setting upset me so much.

I eventually got over it. A marriage counselor I was seeing weighed in on the subject and said that “children in their early twenties NEED their parents”. This had a big impact on me and I slowly returned to normal. I basically talk to her about superfluous things now, things that are important to her, but things that are deeply important to me are not a subject of conversation any more — out of respect for the “boundary”.

So, that is my long opinion on boundaries – they are given in ways that are polite. Where possible, they strengthen relationships and don’t weaken them. And they are born out of legitimate needs, not lack of competence.

As this can relate to the church — i will never talk about my “boundaries” with the church to church leaders. I will assert myself, but I have a well-crafted story about the limits on what I can do in the church that is meant to limit the offence leaders will take with my boundary-setting.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

So, that is my long opinion on boundaries – they are given in ways that are polite. Where possible, they strengthen relationships and don’t weaken them. And they are born out of legitimate needs, not lack of competence.

As this can relate to the church — i will never talk about my “boundaries” with the church to church leaders. I will assert myself, but I have a well-crafted story about the limits on what I can do in the church that is meant to limit the offence leaders will take with my boundary-setting.

I agree SD. For example, clearly it is appropriate to establish boundaries with parents in-law. Yet tact, civility, and politeness are still very important. how an individual sets boundaries can be almost as important sometimes as the boundaries that person sets.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

So, that is my long opinion on boundaries – they are given in ways that are polite. Where possible, they strengthen relationships and don’t weaken them. And they are born out of legitimate needs, not lack of competence.

As this can relate to the church — i will never talk about my “boundaries” with the church to church leaders. I will assert myself, but I have a well-crafted story about the limits on what I can do in the church that is meant to limit the offence leaders will take with my boundary-setting.

I agree SD. For example, clearly it is appropriate to establish boundaries with parents in-law. Yet tact, civility, and politeness are still very important. how an individual sets boundaries can be almost as important sometimes as the boundaries that person sets.

You said it better than I did. In other words, you don’t want to win the battle over the boundary while losing the relationship with the person entirely due to boundary-setting abrasiveness. It takes tact and maturity to set a boundary.

[Author]

Posts