Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_the road to hana]

But even though we are beautiful, amazine, etc. all of us are misguided, unwise, and imprudent at times also. We make bad decisions and there are sometimes horrific consequences. And to the extent that our decisions are bad, we have some measure of responsibility.

It sounds to me like the only mistake these women made was following church/priesthood counsel. Should they be punished for that?

[_the road to hana]

Bishops and stake presidents should be called upon to handle ecclesiatic matters. Areas of personal worthininess. Physical needs of the members which are beyond the member's abilities to provide for themselves. They are not trained, nor should they be expected to handle criminal matters. Abuse and domestic violence are criminal matters. We con't expect a bishop to handle the situation when a person goes to them with an intense pain in the lower right quardrant of the abdomen. We expect the person to be smart enough to go to a surgeon! Anyone who is a victim of a crime should be smart enough to know to go to the police.

Since when is abuse not a worthiness issue?

And since when do LDS members bypass church/priesthood leaders for blessings and go straight to a physician?

Charity, I agree with you that these women were not being properly served by the church leaders they'd approached for help. If they'd gone into a bishop or stake president's office bleeding, one might expect that the BP or SP would call an ambulance. Why then would they not call police if abuse claims were alleged?

[_beastie]

Charity,

I absolutely agree that members with serious issues, like abuse, should NOT be going to the bishop for advice and counsel, but rather should be seeking professional help. Unfortunately, the members of your church seem to have the opposite impression, and that impression is often encouraged by the leaders themselves. Ask any bishop, and I'm positive they will report that members in their ward with serious issues come to them for help. Are members just stupid and silly that they keep doing this, or is there some teaching or attitude in the LDS church that encourages them to do this?

Aside from that, I'm still waiting for you to explain your understanding of the cycle of abuse and how "growing a spine" factors in to that cycle. Thanks so much.

I'm now also curious about this statement:

If they don't have the strength to confront their abuser, they need to get out of the situation!

Again, within your understanding of the cycle of abuse, please explain how "confronting their abuser" would be a practical solution and alternative to 'getting out of the situation."

[_charity]

charity wrote:
A woman who is in a abusive relationship does not need someone to pat her hand and say, "there, there, dear." She needs help to change the situation. If you knew anything about abusive relationships, you would know that the hardest thing to do is to get the woman to DECIDE to leave the abusive relationship. To press charges against her abuser. Get a grip.


Sounds to me like you're criticizing the priesthood leadership who failed to counsel and support these women accordingly. Obviously, if they'd done something concrete about the abuse, the women wouldn't have had to come to BishopRic at all.

This assumes that they knew about the abuse BEFORE the woman told them about it?

charity wrote:
But even though we are beautiful, amazine, etc. all of us are misguided, unwise, and imprudent at times also. We make bad decisions and there are sometimes horrific consequences. And to the extent that our decisions are bad, we have some measure of responsibility.


It sounds to me like the only mistake these women made was following church/priesthood counsel. Should they be punished for that?

It is their responsibility to seek for confirmation of their own that they are being given inspired advice. But we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves.

charity wrote:
Bishops and stake presidents should be called upon to handle ecclesiatic matters. Areas of personal worthininess. Physical needs of the members which are beyond the member's abilities to provide for themselves. They are not trained, nor should they be expected to handle criminal matters. Abuse and domestic violence are criminal matters. We con't expect a bishop to handle the situation when a person goes to them with an intense pain in the lower right quardrant of the abdomen. We expect the person to be smart enough to go to a surgeon! Anyone who is a victim of a crime should be smart enough to know to go to the police.


Since when is abuse not a worthiness issue?

It isn't a worthingess issue for the woman.

And since when do LDS members bypass church/priesthood leaders for blessings and go straight to a physician?

But we don't NOT go to the doctor just because we had a blessing.

Charity, I agree with you that these women were not being properly served by the church leaders they'd approached for help. If they'd gone into a bishop or stake president's office bleeding, one might expect that the BP or SP would call an ambulance. Why then would they not call police if abuse claims were alleged?

Because the bleeding person has made a big mistake going to the bishop for help with a problem which ought to be tended to by others.

Why is the woman going to the bishop? Does she want to stay with her husband and hopes the bishop will do something to change him? Is her concern only for herself? For her children? It is a complicated situation.

I have an idea that BishopRic's experience happened quite a while ago. I know that there is training now for bishops in how to handle different abuse issues.

[_the road to hana]

Charity,

I absolutely agree that members with serious issues, like abuse, should NOT be going to the bishop for advice and counsel, but rather should be seeking professional help. Unfortunately, the members of your church seem to have the opposite impression, and that impression is often encouraged by the leaders themselves. Ask any bishop, and I'm positive they will report that members in their ward with serious issues come to them for help. Are members just stupid and silly that they keep doing this, or is there some teaching or attitude in the LDS church that encourages them to do this?

The elephant in the room is being completely ignored here by Charity.

If church members come to their ecclesiastical leaders with allegations of spousal abuse, OF COURSE it is appropriate for the church leaders to give appropriate redirect to authorities. And why don't they?

Either they (1) disbelieve the women who are making the allegations or (2) they are protecting the men in their own fraternity.

This is a cover- up operation, Charity. BishopRic should never have been in a position of having to hear these women's cries for help. Someone should have taken them seriously enough to have directed them to proper authorities prior to that.

It's exactly what Charity is suggesting should happen, but unfortunately didn't, and it's that fraternal cover-up that was the red flag.

[Guest]

A woman who is in a abusive relationship does not need someone to pat her hand and say, "there, there, dear." She needs help to change the situation. If you knew anything about abusive relationships, you would know that the hardest thing to do is to get the woman to DECIDE to leave the abusive relationship. To press charges against her abuser. Get a grip.

Sounds to me like you're criticizing the priesthood leadership who failed to counsel and support these women accordingly. Obviously, if they'd done something concrete about the abuse, the women wouldn't have had to come to BishopRic at all.

This assumes that they knew about the abuse BEFORE the woman told them about it?

No, of course not. Once they learned, what did they counsel the women to do? Apparently not to go to the authorities.

[_charity]

The elephant in the room is being completely ignored here by Charity.

If church members come to their ecclesiastical leaders with allegations of spousal abuse, OF COURSE it is appropriate for the church leaders to give appropriate redirect to authorities. And why don't they?

Either they (1) disbelieve the women who are making the allegations or (2) they are protecting the men in their own fraternity.

This is a cover- up operation, Charity. BishopRic should never have been in a position of having to hear these women's cries for help. Someone should have taken them seriously enough to have directed them to proper authorities prior to that.

It's exactly what Charity is suggesting should happen, but unfortunately didn't, and it's that fraternal cover-up that was the red flag.

First, there are some abuse issues which are required reporting. Child abuse. Second, many women still want to maintain their marriages. So, should the bishop, knowing that serious abuse will almost never be resolved in a way that preserves the marriage, tell her to buzz off while he calls the cops?

I have known many bishops over the years, and they are horrified and disgusted at men who abuse their wives. This is not the old boy frat you assume it is.

You suggest that the women involved have been going around telling people that they are being abused and finally they get to the bishop. You obviously don't know that most abused women go to great lengths to cover up the abuse themselves. They make all kinds of excuses for visible injuries so as to NOT let anyone in on their horrible secret.

I have not been party to all bishop interviews with women who are reporting abuse. But I do know of several after the fact situations. In each of these cases, the women wanted the bishop to to something to the hsuband which would preserve her marriage. She was not asking for help to leave him.

[_the road to hana]

You suggest that the women involved have been going around telling people that they are being abused and finally they get to the bishop.

If you could point out where exactly I suggested that I'd be very much obliged.

[_Jason Bourne]

AND your stance that a victim of abuse should immediately leave (which I agree with, by the way, except I understand the dynamics of abusive relationships enough to understand how victims get caught in a trap, unlike you, who, apparently, suffers from a dearth of imagination as well as background knowledge on the subject) contradicts the position that church leaders consistently provide to victims of abuse (with some exceptions). Unless their counsel has changed dramatically over the last decade, victims of abuse who sought help from a bishop usually were first advised to try to find ways to ameloriate the situation and to help the abuser repent and change. I still have in my possession a church manual on marriage which lists abuse as one of the problems in a marriage that can be overcome by repentance and forgiveness. As a victim of verbal abuse (a phenomenon I feel safe in guessing you also know very little about), this was the advice given to me by every single church leader I went to for help. This was the same advice given to other victims I'd known over years, including some who suffered physical as well as verbal abuse. Of course, these leaders did not have psychological training like you claim to have, so their ignorance is more understandable.

Yes, it is entirely believable that these victims of abuse in bishopRic's ward all went to him for help as soon as he was put in as a temp, so to speak. They probably had gone to every other bishop they had, as well, and were never able to obtain real help. Reality is that bishops aren't in a position to offer real help to victims of abuse or any other individual dealing with serious life issues, but the sad fantasy they are taught in the church tells them otherwise. It's just sad and pointless that they keep going to church leaders for help instead of seeking real help. But that's what they've been taught to do.

The guidance on abuse has changed substantially.

Excerpts from the most recent Handbook Page 186 under abuse state (note this covers a whole page in the book):

-The Church's position is abused cannot be tolerated.

-Those who abuse....violate the laws of God and man.

- Members who abuse are subject to Church discipline

-In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse.

-Stake presidents and bishops should make every effort to counsel those who have been involved in abuse. Members may also need professional counseling.

- The Church has established a help line to provide guidance to bishops and stake presidents in cases of abuse....He will be able to consult with socail services, legal specialists and other specialists who can help answer questions and formulate steps that should be taken.


Church leaders are in a much better position to provide help these days. By experience I can tell you the help number is very effective and those who provide help on that hotline know what they are doing.

[_Jason Bourne]

So which is better?

Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.

OR

Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.

You chose

The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is a case where at least women not having the priesthhood would prevent someone with such callousness from being a bishop. Wow.