A recent news story detailed the history of domestic abuse that a high-ranking political figure, Rob Porter, also a Mormon, had been accused of by his ex wives. When one of his exes shared that Rob was choking her when he was angry, her bishop expressed concern, but ultimately did nothing. Several political allies and friends, including Orrin Hatch, immediately defended Rob against what they called “false allegations” and a “smear campaign.”
Carolyn Homer wrote an excellent OP on By Common Consent about the need for Mormon clergy to take complaints of domestic abuse seriously. Her post is well worth a read and can be found here. Many of the comments were fantastic and on point.
Commenter “retired old woman” said:
Boys are taught that as priesthood leaders they are to preside in their homes once they marry, but are they ever taught about how to make their wives happy, how to parent, how to make a home? Homes are for husbands and dads too, not just wives and moms. Why are we not teaching boys in Young Men’s classes how to excel as husbands and fathers? When I was growing up, it seemed to me that all of the Young Women lessons I sat through were about eventually being a wife and mother. I sat through these lessons week after week while all the boys my age were playing basketball.
Another commenter “ItHappenedToMe” detailed her poor experience at the hands of her leaders:
Husband beat me on vacation – I had bruises all over my back for 3 weeks. I mistakenly turned to our Mormon Bishop for help instead of law enforcement. I was told by every male leader for 4 years that “You are a woman, you are not allowed to get a divorce” “It’s ‘unfortunate’ but men have the right to use physical violence to control their family members because they are the patriarch & in control of the family” “Your job as a woman is to support your husband in whatever they do, so go home & support your husband.”
As far as Mormon handbooks, printed & written statements about “zero tolerance for abuse” that is the biggest pile of BS ever. I was specifically told by our ignorant Stake President (who is a realtor & has no professional training to advise anyone about anything) that although that is official Mormon Church policy, he as a male leader has the privilege of “personal revelation” so even though the church says it doesn’t tolerate abuse, he prayed to God & got personal revelation that my husband is “a wonderful man” who “loves you very much” and so no discipline is going to happen. And…”you just don’t understand because you’re a woman and you don’t have the Priesthood.”
So thankfully I didn’t believe their lies & BS so I did go the police the next time he hit me & I did file for divorce. He is still an active & fully-loved member in our church congregation – he’s a white male who pays 10% of his doctor’s salary to the them & there’s no way the Mormon church would ever turn him away. I on the other hand have been completely shunned. And what did I do…oh that’s right, my husband hit me & I said “this is not okay, never again.”
When an abused person turns to a bishop for help, the results are sometimes directly harmful, and often not helpful. Because we have a lay clergy, bishops do not always immediately recognize the signs of abuse, and abuse victims often sound unreliable; it is a feature of the abuse. Their confidence is shattered, they may misremember details or otherwise sound shaky.
By constrast, abusers usually feel their actions are appropriate and vindicated; often they believe themselves to be the victims! “Why did you make me do that?” the abuser will ask the abused. They see themselves forebearing until they reach a breaking point. They may state that their partner is manipulative or difficult. The reality is that they are hyper-sensitive and have a hair trigger temper that they take to extremes, lashing out at the person they see as the source of their frustration. The person who is truly at risk is the abused one, which is why complaints of abuse must be taken seriously and investigated.
A 1999 video with Dallin Oaks talks about the responsibility bishops have to deal with abuse when they become aware of it:
Elder Oaks talks about the need for bishops to use “inspiration and discernment” to identify abuse. However, many abused women report that their abuse went unaddressed by bishops when they were in distress. “Inspiration and discernment” are vague and easily misunderstood when someone has limited experience identifying abuse. The video focuses a lot on using the atonement to help people deal with abuse: both victims and perpetrators. But what does this mean in a “boots on the ground” sense? A breakaway at the 3:22 mark shows Pres. Hinckley speaking about the importance of families as central to the Plan of Salvation. While it emphasizes the accountability of abusers and that they are breaking covenants, it also potentially implies that a premium must be placed on keeping families intact, despite abuse. Elder Oaks warns, “Bishop, never minimize the seriousness of abuse,” and I’m sure he’s in earnest. At the 16:41 mark, however, the steps bishops should take puts the perpetrator’s repentance needs alongside with victim protection, implying it’s an equal concern. There is also a lot of focus in the video on consulting with the church’s legal hotline. It can leave bishops with the impression that all actions are equally important: protecting the church and themselves from liability, protecting the abuser from damnation, and protecting the lives and well-being of victims of abuse. That lack of focus and urgency leads one commenter to state:
This video sheds light on why my bishop responded to abuse by not doing anything.
Another commenter adds:
This video shows Mormons can no longer use the “well that Bishop was wrong but it doesn’t represent the whole church” excuse. Mormon leaders are trained from the very top to react this way. Only tell the authorities when required by law, pray to know if accusers are lying, protect the perpetrators as well. This kind of culture will cause things like what we saw with Rob Porter to happen again and again.
Why don’t bishops take every allegation of abuse seriously already? Presumably, they are good-hearted men who care about preventing abuse. Most of them would probably be sickened to think that a child or spouse was being hurt by a family member. There are probably as many reasons as there are people involved, but here are a few:
- Bishops are very seldom trained in how to identify abuse unless they happen to have a career that has given them such training.
- Bishops sincerely want to preserve marriages, not recommend divorce.
- Bishops may see both the abused and abuser as equally culpable, particularly when the abuser explains that the abused is (as they see it) crazy, manipulative, immature, making things up, etc.
- Advice to bishops to focus on the healing power of atonement may lead to them not involving appropriate authorities, thinking that the atonement will cover everything. This leaves the abused in the situation of having no supportive resources when their life may be in danger. Jesus loves the abused, sure, but he’s not going to help her pack her things and get a restraining order. He’s not going to help her find a domestic shelter for protection. Those are things that human beings have to do.
- Bishops may feel they need to serve the needs of both spouses equally, but in the case of abuse, that is a conflict of interest. The abuser is endangering the abused. You cannot “counsel” it away. The priority must be preserving the life and health of the abused one, not the reputation and possible future repentance of the abuser.
- Bishops, who are all male, may identify more with the male’s perspective. They may know him better or simply find men more credible. What they need to understand is that the abuser’s perspective is not accurate, and many abusers are charming and articulate. They wield power over their spouse who loses credibility as a result. One looks like a winner while the other looks like a loser. That’s a red flag. Marriages should look equal and have mutual respect.
- Some bishops as a rule talk to the husband whenever it comes to matters in the family, considering him the patriarch and therefore the more responsibility party. Letting men represent the family privileges the male’s perspective and renders the woman’s experience invisible or less important. It is a perfect scenario for abusers to go undetected. They get to define the truth unchallenged.
- Doing nothing is so much easier than dealing with an abuse allegation. There is a strong human tendency to want to downplay an allegation of abuse or assume it will get better on its own. Bishops have limited time and skills to deal with such things, and depending on what else is going on, they may wishfully hope that the allegation isn’t serious.
One commenter on Carolyn’s post mentioned the warning signs of abuse in something called the Wheel of Power & Control. Here are the symptoms of an abusive relationship that bishops can look for, some healthier alternatives, and why Mormons might have unique vulnerability in this area due to the gender roles outlined in the Proclamation and the patriarchal assumptions that exist in the culture of the church:
EMOTIONAL ABUSE: Putting her down. Making her feel bad about herself. Calling her names. Making her think she’s crazy. Playing mind games. Humiliating her. Making her feel guilty.
What it might look like: The abused one may act nervous, bite fingernails, not make eye contact, speak too softly, be unable to clearly articulate her feelings or fears. She may express feelings of inadequacy or guilt that are not matched by her spouse’s feelings of guilt or inadequacy. Her spouse may indicate that she bears the majority of blame in the relationship or in parenting failures or not correct her when she makes such statements.
Healthy Alternative: RESPECT. Listening to each other non-judgmentally. Being emotionally affirming and understanding. Valuing each others’ opinions.
Mormon call out: Some Mormons feel guilty about their shortcomings. Some are scrupulous. A healthy marriage is one in which neither spouse is trying to make the other feel guilty or embarrassed for shortcomings.
ISOLATION: Controlling what she does, whom she sees and talks to, what she reads, and where she goes. Limiting her outside involvement. Using jealousy to justify actions.
What it might look like: The abuser may be paranoid about interactions the spouse has outside the relationship or may portray his spouse as being flirtatious or unfaithful, too reliant on other confidantes, or lacking focus on him and the family and what he sees as her responsibilities in the home.
Healthy Alternative: TRUST AND SUPPORT. Supporting her goals in life. Respecting her right to her own feelings, friends, activities, and opinions.
Mormon call out: Even if a woman is a SAHM, that doesn’t mean her contact with the outside world should be controlled or limited by her spouse.
MINIMIZING, DENYING, AND BLAMING: Making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously. Saying the abuse didn’t happen. Shifting responsibility for abusive behavior. Saying she caused it.
What it might look like: He believes he is the victim or the aggrieved party, that she is manipulative, difficult, doesn’t “respect his authority” or is inferior in some way.
Healthy Alternative: HONESTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Accepting responsibility for self. Acknowledging past use of violence. Admitting being wrong. Communicating openly and truthfully.
Mormon call out: “Honoring his priesthood” is something the husband should be admonished to do, not the wife.
USING CHILDREN: Making her feel guilty about the children. Using the children to relay messages. Using visitation to harass her. Threatening to take the children away.
What it might look like: He talks about the children as if they are a weapon he can use to control her or portrays her as a bad mother.
Healthy Alternative: RESPONSIBLE PARENTING. Sharing parental responsibilities. Being a positive, nonviolent role model for the children.
Mormon call out: BOTH parents bear the responsibility for the care of and rearing of the children. When a husband expects his wife to bear sole or the majority responsibility for the care of the children and then he attempts to control how she does things or criticize her methods without participating, he’s on the Wheel of Power & Control.
ECONOMIC ABUSE: Preventing her from getting or keeping a job. Making her ask for money. Giving her an allowance. Taking her money. Not letting her know about or have access to family income.
What it might look like: She does not know how much money they have or she mentions having to ask him for money. He belittles her financial responsibility or justifies why he “has to” control her access to money.
Healthy Alternative: ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP. Making money decisions together. Making sure both partners benefit from financial arrangements.
Mormon call out: Money should be shared fairly and equally within a marriage, not hidden or withheld, even if the wife is not earning in the workplace. A wife should never be prohibited from deciding to earn money.
MALE PRIVILEGE: Treating her like a servant: making all the big decisions, acting like the “master of the castle,” being the one to define men’s and women’s roles.
What it might look like: He talks over her and has strong opinions about what she should be doing and how she should do it. He is critical of her contributions to the family, her domestic or parenting skills, or what he sees as her wifely duties. He makes it clear that he is the sole decision maker in the family.
Healthy Alternative: SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. Mutually agreeing on a fair distribution of work. Making family decisions together.
Mormon call out: Gender roles should not be used as a weapon against one’s spouse or a way to limit the other person or to get out of unpleasant tasks. The person who does the majority of a specific task should have the majority say in how it is done. Work division should be mutually beneficial and agreed upon, not dictated by either spouse. Both spouses should be involved in decision making in the marriage.
COERCION AND THREATS: Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her. Threatening to leave her, commit suicide, or report her to welfare. Making her drop charges. Making her do illegal things.
What it might look like: She mentions that he has hurt her or threatened to hurt her. She is afraid he may harm himself or the children. She talks about being coerced to do things that are wrong. He talks about things she has done that are wrong as a way to blackmail her into doing what he wants.
Healthy Alternative: NEGOTIATION AND FAIRNESS. Seeking mutually satisfying resolutions to conflict. Accepting changes. Being willing to compromise.
Mormon call out: There is no veto power in a marriage. There is no “presiding” in an equal marriage. Marriage is two people discussing and deciding together. Nobody overrules the other one. Neither spouse should encourage the other in wrongdoing or use past mistakes as a way to coerce the other.
INTIMIDATION: Making her afraid by using looks, actions, and gestures. Smashing things. Destroying her property. Abusing pets. Displaying weapons.
What it might look like: She won’t make eye contact. She winces when he talks. He seems confident and self-assured, but she looks afraid or lacking in confidence. Weapons or damage to property are mentioned.
Healthy Alternative: NON-THREATENING BEHAVIOR. Talking and acting so that she feels safe and comfortable expressing herself and doing things.
Mormon call out: Women are full people, just like men, with brains, ideas, and opinions, not just feelings. If you think otherwise, you have no business being married to one. The second amendment is never the right to threaten your wife or family with a gun. Breaking things or threatening violence to others or self is a precursor to committing violent acts.
There are far too many examples of women whose bishops have dismissed their claims of abuse due to ignorance or unwillingness to believe that the man they think so highly of is capable of hurting his spouse or children. Hopefully, this latest scandal will result in improvements in bishop training and how we as a church handle abuse allegations.
- What training do you think bishops should receive to identify abuse?
- What role do you see a bishop’s discernment and intuition playing in identifying abuse?
- Are these guidelines helpful? What are other gaps?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
This is awesome.
I would love to protect my children not only now, but in the future. What should they know about domestic abuse to protect themselves from it when they’re adults? How do they keep from being the perpetrators of it?
In my part of the wicked world the experts are saying the best way to prevent abuse is for both parties to have equal power. No one presiding!
If a spouse needs protection from abuse, he or she needs to contact the local police constabulary. A church officer cannot offer protection from abuse.
I keep thinking about these issues so comments yesterday may be different than today. Yesterday I spent my time thinking about how the bishop and the church are so unhelpful that we should bypass altogether. To,day and by the OP’s questions I’m thinking about what should a bishop do when confronted, and trying to do the right thing. Here’s a handful plus one of heuristics, for starters [insert opinion, no professional qualifications, heuristic not rule, and etc.]:
1. The person asserting abuse is probably being abused and probably underplaying it. Start with the assumption that the situation is probably worse than she says.
2. When there are two stories intuition and inspiration are likely so confused (so subject to bias, preconceptions, intentional deceptions) as to be useless. Disciplined critical listening and thinking is 99% of what you’ve got.
3. One help (not perfect but a starting point) to untangling he said-she said situations is to listen for disproportion. Not just cause and effect (there’s usually a story) but cause and disproportionate effect.
4. Divorce is likely to be harder and the long term costs higher than anybody expects. It may well be the right or only alternative, but it is not the “easy” way out.
5. Priorities are first to protect the weaker party (usually but not always the women and children, in typical Western socioeconomics). Including using the law and the police. Second the long term physical, emotional and spiritual health and welfare of the parties. A trailing third (maybe) the interests of the close community—extended family, the ward, the neighbors. And so far out of the picture as to be an afterthought if at all the institutional church and church discipline.
6. [And that last reminds me to add] church discipline is virtually useless and irrelevant. It might be an aid for someone who is already genuinely trying to change, but it doesn’t work to effect change by itself and it doesn’t work as punishment. In fact all concepts of punishment, retribution, proportion or disproportion, should be discarded. And the whole subject be the last thing on anybody’s mind.
There absolutely needs to be teaching on healthy ways to manage conflict and disagreement. I raised my eyebrow a bit at the “Economic Abuse” section, since a very loose interpretation of it could describe the financial arrangements in my own marriage from someone not looking too closely. But that close look would reveal that where we are now is the product of discussion and compromise. (For the record, that compromise is “Please call me if you are planning to spend more than $X on something so that I can ensure we can cover it, because even though you have the password to our shared bank account you have repeatedly refused to check the balance or keep up with our financial situation. So I’m not going to take away any of your cards or treat you like a child, but as a gesture of responsibility I need you to keep me in the loop and understand that I might ask you to reconsider a purchase for budgetary reasons, not because I am a jerk.”) The very fact that we don’t discuss this kind of issue in church (let alone things like sexual consent, coercion, etc.) means that there’s no “healthy model” presented for people to learn from.
I was fortunate enough to hear an emeritus university professor of psychology, speaker at education week, and I could go on and on……state in our Relief Society Meeting many years ago –if you are in an abusive relationship–GET OUT–GET OUT NOW–it will not change! Well done!
Any effort to coerce or control are unacceptable. We need to take personal responsibility for self- monitoring in these areas, I think that applies to kids too after, say, the age of 12.
Any breaking of law should be reported to relevant authorities, first of all taking into account the safety of vulnerable parties.
Any threat of physical violence is a red light and requires action to keep the vulnerable safe.
Our culture of not naming abusive and controlling behaviour needs to be challenged.
Our ward RS supports the local women’s shelter. That helps with education of the church community.
When a woman is suffering abuse at the hands of her husband, she needs to contact the police. I watched my sister try, repeatedly, to handle abuse through their bishop, with disastrous results. As Mormons, we are too focused on the concept of two or three witnesses to establish truth, and in most abuse cases, it is a “he said, she said” situation without additional witnesses. Law enforcement knows how to use physical evidence (bruises, broken bones, etc) to establish truth. They also know how to interview child witnesses. The best thing a bishop can do if refer to the police.
This is a fantastic post, as was Carolyn’s, and it really does feel that we’re years behind on this. I think a reason for somewhat tepid response from church leaders is the idea when the abused wife does come to them, that perhaps the problem isn’t well-developed and that it can be headed off. It would obviously be better if the problem were caught early for the abuser to repent and divorce were avoided. Unfortunately, I’ll bet that in 95% of cases, by the time the wife indicates abuse, it’s gone on for a LONG time. The slow-motion catastrophe has already occurred. I also think that in the case of many bishops, the way they think is so foreign to the way an abuser thinks, that their attempts to emphasize cause them to completely miss what’s really happening. Poor marriage relations (something most bishops can probably relate to) and abuse (something many of them probably can’t relate to) are not the same thing. Yeah, I’m not really adding anything to the post, as this has been covered.
I completely disagree with christiankimball that church discipline is completely irrelevant. I think it’s extremely relevant. Whether or not it results in any repentance on the abuser’s part, it can be very validating and empowering to the victim to know that she truly wasn’t crazy, wasn’t in the wrong, and that the authorities in the community she most values are there for her. Unfortunately, almost any abuse that would make it to a church court would probably also have made it to a civil court, and the church steps back during legal proceedings. Since those are almost always interminable, by the time a church court could happen, the results would probably be moot for the victim.
”The best thing a bishop can do if refer to the police.”
I would say the best thing a bishop can do is remind the abused spouse that he or she may contact the police. It is unfair for an adult church member to lay a burden on the bishop and expect him to call the police. If an abused spouse needs protection, he or she should call the police.
So let’s summarize: Generally, bishops are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem (of denying, minimizing, or simply ignoring reported abuse). And the Church is part of the problem (for doing almost nothing to educate or train bishops while, at the same time, encouraging members to think a bishop can offer helpful or inspired counsel on almost any problem).
Does anyone in the leadership recognize that bishops and the Church are part of the LDS domestic violence problem, and feel any responsibility to FIX THE PROBLEM? They probably have a small army of accountants, lawyers, and investment gurus giving them advice on where to invest the billions of dollars of excess tithing they collect, with dozens of meetings and reports to track performance. Do you think they have even one social worker or therapist on their staff looking into this problem? Do you think they get reports and have meetings to address this problem? They need to get their priorities straight.
On occasion, I’ve seen a pattern of spousal abuse in the LDS church, in which a husband makes unreasonable reproductive demands of his wife that outstrip her physical and/or emotional well-being. One particular couple I knew a few years ago had too many kids too young because the husband had very specific revelatory ideas about how big their family should be (he grew up in a large family, natch) without much thought to his wife’s health. Still in her early 20s, her life was unraveling, physically and emotionally. She went days without leaving her house, and her husband monopolized their one car. By having more kids than she could reasonably take care of, she also was prevented from ever completing the college degree that she quit to marry her “prince” and would forever be financially dependent on him (he also had sole control of the family finances, sometimes investing in risky ventures without her knowledge or consent, while making her beg for diaper money). She had numerous breakdowns and panic attacks, and spent some time in a psychiatric facility; while the mental health care was beneficial, it also served to enable further abuse, as it discredited her as being mentally ill, and she was convinced that her emotional instability was purely chemical, though it was obvious to many of us that her exploitative marriage was a significant factor. My wife and I did what little we could to support and help her by watching her kids from time to time, bringing her meals, groceries, etc. There was no physical violence going on, and technically nothing illegal was happening, so the law was powerless to help her. They eventually moved away, and I don’t think the situation has improved. This is just one couple’s experience, but I’ve seen several similar stories across the church, too many to dismiss this pattern as an anomaly. I’ll wager that each of us probably has at least one family like this in our respective ward or branch.
Abuse like this could totally fly under a bishop’s radar. LDS culture even enables it. By outward appearance, the man is faithful provider who’s wife is a SAHM raising their many beautiful kids. For better or worse, bishops aren’t allowed to give counsel about family planning, and the church hasn’t repudiated past teachings that encouraged young married couples to procreate prodigiously. Our culture and our explicit teachings also encourage lopsided domestic power differentials, in which men “preside” and women “nurture”. Even if a bishop was aware of the severity of a situation like this, he probably would not have much power to do anything about it, though it can be every bit as damaging as physical abuse, if not more.
I don’t see our church leaders addressing this or other kinds of domestic abuse with the urgency it deserves, perhaps because in the process of raising their own families as young fathers in a different era, they themselves engaged in behaviors that by today’s standards could be considered abusive.
Aside from the label of “Male Privilege”, this was a checklist straight from my first marriage. (The attitudes and manipulation used in the “Male Privilege” section were used quite well by my wife.). Makes it easy to see why they’re called “triggers”; the memories don’t have to be dredged but will pop right up tot he top in all their horrifying detail with just the mention.
Ok. Deep, cleansing breaths.
To me, this is far, fer bigger than a Mormon problem, though the Patriarchal nature of the Church reinforcing the Patriarchal nature of society certainly isn’t helping anything. This kind of training should be spread out far more than just to Bishops. it needs to be to everybody. We all need to be able to see, speak up, and aid those who are suffering in abuse. We can’t limit ourselves to “yeah, but men are the worst perpetrators so we need to take extra care there”, but see that this is a deep problem for everyone which everyone needs to learn how to deal with. This is not a call to be suspicious of everyone, but to learn how to see what we “should have” seen.
Calming breath. Thanks for the post. I wasn’t able to get through the other as it became just too much collected together like that.
I have a family member whose situation matches 100% with what Jack said above. The worst of it was that because the wife ended up with symptoms of mental illness, the husband became the sane, righteous, believable one. While behind closed doors he was abusing her emotionally, financially and sexually. Several Bishops, a stake president and LDS Social Services couldn’t see it.
I offer for your consideration the following ~20 page article in Sunstone magazine in Nov 2001 by Scott Kenny.
Click to access 120-20-43.pdf
This article described the stormy younger years of Joseph F. Smith who became the 6th president of the CofJCof LDS. The main points I take away is that; first he was subject to incredible hardship and trials as a youth, that he had a violent temper and he acted on it at times, that he was immature making a few poor choices.
What is of most interest to me in connection with this discussion are 3 incidents:
p.30- describes him tying up his mentally unstable first wife and briefly beating her.
p.34- describes him yelling at his first wife, calling her a whore after catching her reading a book by candlelight alone with another man. This was not long after he married his second wife.
p. 35- describes him beating his irritating neighbor with a cane causing permanent and painful injury and resulting in him confessing to law enforcement and later suffering public ridicule which led to minimizing the episode as a small part of a talk in general conference, all this as a younger apostle.
For those too busy to read the article: He eventually divorced his first wife. Some of their correspondence is included and it could be seen as ranging from neglect, insensitive and controlling at best, maybe emotionally abusive at worst. His first wife was no angel herself. I would be interested in what modern LDS women think of their communications.
He describes several times he was so angry he nearly killed other people. He was prone to self-justification and excuse-making. He got along well enough with his next 5 wives (at least) and raised families and became a model of success as a gentle and compassionate father. He guided the LDS Church, with much help from many other church leaders away from the excesses of the 19th century (while possibly indulging in post-manifesto polygamy himself) and into what may turn out to be the golden age of Mormonism in the 20th century.
I suspect this problem we are seeing with bishops and our attitudes toward abuse has its roots deep in our history, at least as far back as the days of polygamy, violence and frontier justice.
I wouldn’t agree that the Church is part of the problem. When someone needs something, he or she should go where the need can be best met. Do you want counseling on patience and hope and forgiveness? Go to a bishop. Do you need protection from a criminal? Go to a policeman. Do you want relief from an oppressive spouse? Go to a divorce lawyer, or send the spouse to a therapist. And so forth.
I used to work at a battered women’s shelter in Utah. The number of women being told by their bishop’s that they needed to forgive, needed to stay married, would be covenant breakers if they divorced was high, like 90%. It was so bad that I was ashamed to be Mormon. Very few women were supported by their bishops, more common was the bishop clearly siding with the abuser, giving him callings, giving him a place to stay in violation of protective orders, stuff that clearly said he saw no problem with the man’s behavior. The number of men given any kind of church disapline was zero. The number of women having their temple recommend pulled or disfellowshipped was about 30%.
With situations where the wife was abusive, it was near 100% got help and emotional support from their bishop.
When there is this kind of pattern, it says that the church is part of the problem. The church either needs to train bishops or stop telling people to go to their bishop with problems.
Church disapline is important because it tells the victim that it is the abuser’s fault and that the bishop believes her. That support is enough to get her believing she is not causing the abuse, not exaggerating it, and not imagining it. It can make the difference in her taking steps to protect herself and her children, or staying until he kills her.
A couple of reminders:
1. Being able to access and benefit from police protection and the court system varies. So much advice about dealing with domestic violence on this and the BCC discussion is based on privileges not afforded to all equally. Imagine the people in the relationship are undocumented. Access social services, making police reports, attending court hearings – all could put one or both in jeopardy of deportation with possibly disastrous repercussions for the victims of the abuse.
2. Children who witness domestic violence are themselves victims of abuse even if they are not otherwise abused directly. Especially in the Mormon Church where couples often begin having children early in their marriages, treating domestic violence as a simple matter between adults is doing harm to children. We may be able to argue that it is “unfair” for an adult victim of abuse to “lay the burden” on their bishop (I disagree), but I can’t imagine suggesting that it is unfair to demand any adult aware of child abuse should act to protect children.
From today’s Buzzfeed article on this topic: “As a prosecutor I have seen bishops many times come in and speak on behalf on defendants,” [Kelly, a female prosecutor in Utah] said. “I have never seen one talk in support of victims. Never in 26 years.”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/in-the-wake-of-rob-porter-allegations-mormon-women-say?utm_term=.afD062Rpl#.ltjKdZ2Na
– Angela C, that buzzfeed article is heartbreaking.
– JI, remember thatabused persons are victims, they are hurt and broken. As described above, they are being psychologically manipulated and/or physically threatened or abused. The law differs from state to state and country to country, but certain groups (pastors, teachers, healthcare providers) are required to report for good reason. We are our brothers/sisters keepers.
– I’ve seen several abusive (coercive, intimidating, physically abusive) wives and mothers in the church. Children need to be protected, but often their emotional/verbal abuse doesn’t cross legal lines. The nation’s opioid epidemic contributes to this problem, yet our bias is to sing praises to all mothers.
– While we accurately point fingers at bishops for their missed or contributory part in recognizing and responding to abuse, we as family members are on the front line and shoulder a great deal of responsibility as well. I’ve seen families (lds and not) refuse to “see” abuse of daughters, sons, and children because doing so before the abused person is ready to admit it or leave means risking alienation from the abused. In some cases, looking down at your mashed potatoes while a hubby verbally berates your sister or daughter at a family gathering, or cringing, but not saying anything as a child is abusively disciplined in ear-shot is a way of staying connected afterward. Remember that abused spouses will fiercely defend their abusers if threatened by outside forces when they are in denial and aren’t ready to change. Denial to outsiders may be a survival syrategy and way of managing a situation. It might also be a real psychological state. Someone who threatens that attempt at safety or sanity can become a quick target. For example, police who respond to DV calls will sometimes need to subdue an attacker, but as they take him/her away, they are attacked by the victim. Similarly, family members trying to intervene on befall if abused children or spouses will sometimes find themselves in the crossfire. This applies to our ward “families” (bishops, rs Presidents, YM YW leaders, etc.) as well.
“the perpetrator’s repentance needs alongside with victim protection, implying it’s an equal concern.”
It should be and their repentance starts with facing the legal/temporal consequences of their abuse.
I feel like so many of the responses to dv within Mormonism reflect a lack of understanding on DV itself as a criminal offense. If someone robs a bank, putting a gun to the head of a teller, and making off with thousands of dollars, would we really worry about the repentance process of the bank robber?
ReTx – shouldn’t that be the goal of the justice system, not only for justice for the victim but a change in the perpetrator? Granted, the two shouldn’t be done in close proximity to each other, and there is certainly a priority of one over the other, but -someone- should be worried about the sinner.
I think the jist of what you’re saying does have to do with Mormonism, but also with Christianity in general. For all the times we talk about being saved from our sinful states, it’s a natural progression to want to be part of “saving” others. It crops up in all sorts of places, not just in those who have sinned criminally. It’s easier to try to be a “savior on mount zion”, as it rarely involves any real personal cost.
Helping those who have been hurt is painful, messy, and so much more important. It’s unfortunate that humanity has only started to try in the last few decades. We’ve been pointed, repeatedly, to the better way, and it’s only in our comfort that we’ve taken the time to work on it seriously.
I try not to think about my abusers. It’s not my job to try and save them nor does it really matter to me if they are. In my best times, however, I hope that they have changed and gotten help. I’m glad there has been help for me to change from who I was when I hurt others.
But to reiterate, no matter how comparatively easy it is to work on saving an abuser than in helping someone who was abused, there is a definite priority involved. Getting the abused help (and out if possible) is #1. Once that is well attended to (an abuser should be disfellowshipped at the -very- least), then attention can be given to reforming the abuser, but certainly not at the same time, in the same place, or even by the same people. I don’t remember whose talk it was, but it’s something to the effect of that killing the rattlesnake is a far lower priority than getting immediate treatment for the snakebite victim.
One story I have heard is that a bishop was counseling a sister who came to him whose husband was beating her. He said, “I cannot counsel divorce, which is what I will continue to say tomorrow when he leaves for work and I meet you in the driveway with a moving truck to help you load your things and get away from him.”
ji is right. The best way out of this problem is to go round the Church, not through it. As an LDS lawyer, I have never understood why ecclesiastical leadership insists on being in the know when members interact with the state. It isn’t their business, unless the member’s repentance requires it to be their business.
And this doesn’t have to be a battle in the culture wars. It’s more worthy than that. You can be “for” a solution and “against” dangerous misstatement. So please, check your excesses: “The person who does the majority of a specific task should have the majority say in how it is done.” The falsehood of that statement is self evident. That is all.
Options; for the victim of domestic abuse.
1. Bishop. If you want spiritual advice, which is not always a sure shot.Bishops are primarily lower middle managers not gurus and sages, so if you want to sack your free-thinking SS teacher, have a July 24 party, get rid of the plastic fig tree in the foyer, etc., maybe the bishop can get that to happen, usually by delegation. I would never take a marital or abuse problem to him.
2. Police. They need a crime that they can prosecute (includes you as a witness) as they see it in their minds, not yours. This is the best solution for the obvious serious problems, but not always for the less severe or borderline situations. For example a neighbor’s large dog chased me and knocked me down. But I kicked it hard enough that I escaped. The police would do nothing since no injury could be documented and my neighbor said I was irritating the dog and the dog is gentle, even with children.
3. Therapist or mental/relationship professional. I think they might be the best option. They most likely have a really good idea about how severe it is, a good perspective since they see all facets of it everyday, not just the worst. They probably know when it needs to involve police along with helping you notify them and when it doesn’t or won’t likely work. If there are solutions short of nuking the relationship they will be the path to them. You rarely hear about a mental health professional in the news ignoring serious problems. It happens but not as common as with religious leaders or police.
******
I am sort of the snoopy, curious type. I vote at this large church within walking distance from my house and I wonder what all this church does. They have the usual obvious things; a sanctuary, a preschool and grade school, a few old buses, administrative area, a youth sports building, etc. But I also noticed these little rows of like, cabins or a rustic motel hidden out in the woods way behind the church with a 12 foot fence around it.. I wondered what in the heck is going on there? They are very well hidden with no directions to them, only a gravel road with a fence across it and not a hint about their use. I first thought it might have something to do with the mafia!
Eventually I found out that it is woman’s domestic violence shelter operated by an independent professional organization in conjunction with the local police. The church provides the land and the sturdy building from back when it was a summer youth camp in the woods as a service to the community. If you start messing around near the fence the police do show up in about 1 or 2 minutes. I imagine that if a woman found herself there, it might seem like they are deep in the woods in a peaceful relaxing place when they are actually quite close to any help. It does seem like a near-perfect place to be while first dealing with the problems they face.
What really hacks me off is why is the LDS church not actually doing something similar about this abuse? All they can even claim to do is preach against it and apologize when the bishops and others screw up. Do something substantial! Maybe since they are about to get out of scouting, some of their scout camps could be put to use.
I can think of two women I visit taught over the years who confided in me that they were being abused by their husbands, and eventually the police were involved. But in both cases the women later dropped charges and stayed in the marriages. I’ve since moved so I don’t know the long term repercussions, but now I wonder if they stayed at the advise of their bishops…
HG – thanks for the article. Well written and presented as usual.
Mike – as a police officer of nearly 20 years, your advice is wrong and I’ll informed. In our jurisdiction, and many others, the burden of proof for a protection order is far less than a criminal prosecution.
My advice to those suffering domestic abuse. Call the police and explore your options. Call domestic violence hotlines and get advice. Do not go to your Bishop, unless you have no other option.
LDS-Aussie:
Thank you for your service to your community as a police officer. You risked your life many times for the greater good. I was taught to never argue with a police officer since they are usually well armed among other reasons. I am not disagreeing that in severe cases the police should be involved. It might save the abused person’s life.
What I was trying to convey (inadequately ) is that there is severe abuse that should be a matter of a police investigation. But there are also less severe cases where the police might not be able to do very much if anything, Just like they can’t do anything about my neighbor’s gentle dog. But that doesn’t mean that great harm is not being done. In many cases the abused person may not be able to tell the difference. (Obviously I don’t know the differences between severity of canine-on-human abuse and husband-on-wife abuse) as you point out. In those cases the therapists will know to direct them to the police. So we end up in the same place.
Calling the police on a spouse especially the first time is a huge step for a person who has been mentally beaten down and they often lack the courage to do it. Talking to a therapist is easier to do. A therapist might be able to convince them since if it is serious enough they are probably going to have to report it anyway.
My experience with abuse is limited..At church, I have known of marital feuds that included only to verbal abuse and then later inflated dramatically. When cooler heads prevail, the truth comes out that although not ideal, it did not rise anywhere near to the level of a crime. I am aware of cases of false accusations, later confessed. It is a quagmire.
I think we can both agree that an abused person should reach out to someone, either a therapist or the police. And that a bishop is not a good source unless he directs the victim in this direction.