Oh for heaven's sake, charity. Every person who read my statement except you understood exactly what I meant. Your church leaders, whom you presume to be inspired of God, do not generally advise abused women to "get a grip", file charges and leave the abuser. Instead, following the lead of their leaders who list "abuse" as one of the problems in a marriage that can be fixed through repentance and forgiveness (I have my old Celestial Marriage manual at home that says exactly this if you doubt me, and when I go back home tomorrow will cite it for you), they normally advise trying to work things out.
As noted this is simply NOT the case anymore. I think it was when you were a member but no longer. Most Church leaders take a pretty hard stand and do not encourage simply working it out.
road to hana wrote:charity wrote: 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.
Right here.
the road to hana wrote: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.
When the women came to BishopRic, he was the representative of the Church at that time. So who exactly are the "they" who should have done something prior to the women coming to him? That means you think they were talking to others BEFORE they came to BishopRic.
road to hana wrote:charity wrote: 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.
Right here.
the road to hana wrote: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.
When the women came to BishopRic, he was the representative of the Church at that time. So who exactly are the "they" who should have done something prior to the women coming to him? That means you think they were talking to others BEFORE they came to BishopRic.
I'd suggest you go back and read BishopRic's opening post on this thread. He makes it quite clear that others, including the Stake President, knew of this abuse before the women came to him.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Jason, you cited the following from the current Church Handbook of Instructions:
Jason Bourne wrote:-Stake presidents and bishops should make every effort to counsel those who have been involved in abuse. Members may also need professional counseling.
This sounds like it is in direct conflict with what Charity is suggesting. "Every effort to counsel" are words that seem to substantiate that the women were following a church-sanctioned course of action by appealing to ecclesiastical authority for counsel.
- 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.
It also sounds like the leaders the women approached prior to BishopRic failed to do this.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
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.
It is, however, a worthiness issue for the spouse. Do you expect the perpetrator is going to go directly to his priesthood leader to confess such abuse? Are you suggesting that the victimized spouse is wrong for reporting it to ecclesiastical authority?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
I hope you are right, and the church's approach to abuse is different than it was when I was an active member. I went to every single bishop I had to get help. In my time period in the church, in my particular area, there tended to be mistrust towards the professional psychological community in the first place. Most members I knew, including me, first went to the bishop. When that obviously didn't help, we tried LDS social service counselor, which was another dismal failure. I really wonder if that individual had any decent training at all. He was completely, and I mean completely, clueless and easily manipulated by my lying husband. I only broke down and went to a *real* therapist when I couldn't stand the thought of my life continuing the way it was.
The bishops I had were utterly clueless in terms of abuse - even physical abuse, much less the harder to grasp verbal abuse, which really is just as damaging. Posters are asking what the women wanted the bishop to do, well I can tell you what I wanted the bishop to do. I wanted him to counsel my HUSBAND and make him STOP. I absolutely viewed this as a worthiness issue on his part, but obviously the bishops didn't. I remember two events in particular. One was at the very beginning of my marriage, when I really should have gotten OUT. Part of my husband's abuse and illness was to hyper-focus on my body. By his own words, he told me my body should feel "like a statue" under his hands. Not a single bump anywhere. I had a very good figure anyway, but he wanted absolute perfection - you know, the airbrushed kind that can't be achieved in REAL life where we're dealing with PEOPLE, not statues or pictures. So although I was already underweight, according to the charts, he wanted me to lose even more weight. I already exercised like a fanatic and watched what I ate, so I had to literally starve myself to lose more, so I went on OTC diet pills. When I look at pictures of myself during that time period, I am almost shocked. My arms were twigs already, and I was on DIET PILLS? Although I hid the worst of what was happening, my parents figured out enough to be concerned, and called my bishop and asked him to talk to me. I shared some of what was going on, in particular the body thing - and he literally - and I do mean literally - patted me on the hand and praised me for being such a good wife I was willing to go the extra mile. That was it. He and my husband became golfing buddies, and he called my husband to be his counselor after that incident.
The second I remember vividly happened years later, after I'd had three children. I was at my wit's end, and knew my husband's behavior was damaging them, too - yet I didn't feel justified divorcing him, due to the church's teachings on the horrors of divorce. So I, once again, went to the new bishop, thinking maybe this one would see that my children and I were living in hell, and would use his influence to persuade my husband to STOP. I shared some details of my husband's frightening, volatile rages, and his unpredictability, and cruel speech. This bishop told me this was "locker room" behavior and most men act this way, and we women are just not used to it and are too sensitive. He told me to talk to his wife for advice, which I did on a temple trip we were both on shortly thereafter. From our conversation, it became clear to me that the bishop was treating his wife almost as badly as my husband was treating me. I don't remember if she used the word "abuse", but she clearly implied it, by saying "the cycle has to stop here". But her approach was certainly not "stopping the cycle" - I know because I used to try it. She would forgive and try to forget, and just remove herself from him when he was ballistic. Of course, my husband would chase me when *I* tried to get away.
By that time, I realized I would never get any help from my church leaders.
And really, bishops are not trained to COUNSEL people, even though every LDS I've ever knew thought that was part of their job, and they were inspired to do so. But the church ought never have to encourage members to think otherwise.
by the way, charity, I'm still waiting for your description of the cycle of abuse, and where "growing a spine", and finding the "strength to confront" her abuser fit into that cycle, and how "confronting her abuser" is a feasible, practical solution to abuse.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:by the way, charity, I'm still waiting for your description of the cycle of abuse, and where "growing a spine", and finding the "strength to confront" her abuser fit into that cycle, and how "confronting her abuser" is a feasible, practical solution to abuse.
Often, confronting an abuser is a good way to end up dead.
Often, confronting an abuser is a good way to end up dead.
Absolutely, and even when it doesn't result in fatality, it usually escalates the violence. This is one of Charity's comments that have led me to wonder about her understanding of the cycle of abuse. I'll wait patiently, but so far it appears that her statements that women caught in abuse need to "grow a spine" and "confront their abuser" sound pretty uninformed, ignorant, and belittling.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I hope you are right, and the church's approach to abuse is different than it was when I was an active member. I went to every single bishop I had to get help. In my time period in the church, in my particular area, there tended to be mistrust towards the professional psychological community in the first place. Most members I knew, including me, first went to the bishop. When that obviously didn't help, we tried LDS social service counselor, which was another dismal failure. I really wonder if that individual had any decent training at all. He was completely, and I mean completely, clueless and easily manipulated by my lying husband. I only broke down and went to a *real* therapist when I couldn't stand the thought of my life continuing the way it was.
The bishops I had were utterly clueless in terms of abuse - even physical abuse, much less the harder to grasp verbal abuse, which really is just as damaging. Posters are asking what the women wanted the bishop to do, well I can tell you what I wanted the bishop to do. I wanted him to counsel my HUSBAND and make him STOP. I absolutely viewed this as a worthiness issue on his part, but obviously the bishops didn't. I remember two events in particular. One was at the very beginning of my marriage, when I really should have gotten OUT. Part of my husband's abuse and illness was to hyper-focus on my body. By his own words, he told me my body should feel "like a statue" under his hands. Not a single bump anywhere. I had a very good figure anyway, but he wanted absolute perfection - you know, the airbrushed kind that can't be achieved in REAL life where we're dealing with PEOPLE, not statues or pictures. So although I was already underweight, according to the charts, he wanted me to lose even more weight. I already exercised like a fanatic and watched what I ate, so I had to literally starve myself to lose more, so I went on OTC diet pills. When I look at pictures of myself during that time period, I am almost shocked. My arms were twigs already, and I was on DIET PILLS? Although I hid the worst of what was happening, my parents figured out enough to be concerned, and called my bishop and asked him to talk to me. I shared some of what was going on, in particular the body thing - and he literally - and I do mean literally - patted me on the hand and praised me for being such a good wife I was willing to go the extra mile. That was it. He and my husband became golfing buddies, and he called my husband to be his counselor after that incident.
The second I remember vividly happened years later, after I'd had three children. I was at my wit's end, and knew my husband's behavior was damaging them, too - yet I didn't feel justified divorcing him, due to the church's teachings on the horrors of divorce. So I, once again, went to the new bishop, thinking maybe this one would see that my children and I were living in hell, and would use his influence to persuade my husband to STOP. I shared some details of my husband's frightening, volatile rages, and his unpredictability, and cruel speech. This bishop told me this was "locker room" behavior and most men act this way, and we women are just not used to it and are too sensitive. He told me to talk to his wife for advice, which I did on a temple trip we were both on shortly thereafter. From our conversation, it became clear to me that the bishop was treating his wife almost as badly as my husband was treating me. I don't remember if she used the word "abuse", but she clearly implied it, by saying "the cycle has to stop here". But her approach was certainly not "stopping the cycle" - I know because I used to try it. She would forgive and try to forget, and just remove herself from him when he was ballistic. Of course, my husband would chase me when *I* tried to get away.
By that time, I realized I would never get any help from my church leaders.
And really, bishops are not trained to COUNSEL people, even though every LDS I've ever knew thought that was part of their job, and they were inspired to do so. But the church ought never have to encourage members to think otherwise.
by the way, charity, I'm still waiting for your description of the cycle of abuse, and where "growing a spine", and finding the "strength to confront" her abuser fit into that cycle, and how "confronting her abuser" is a feasible, practical solution to abuse.
Thanks for the story, Beastie. I hope things are better for you now!
This is hilarious. Ms. "Charity" is so bent on justifying every action of every Mormon in power that she'll even refuse to have an ounce of empathy for victims of domestic abuse and their situation.
Is it right for someone to go to the man who she thinks is inspired to give spiritual and personal advice for his stewardship? The man who can also evaluate financial needs and offer financial support or food from his storehouse? Of course the abused spouse has every right to believe the bishop can help. It's a horribly complex situation, too bad God can only give revelations on stupid things like the appropriate number of earrings to wear.
Good luck, bitch, is basically what you're saying to the spouse when you suggest calling the police. What good are they going to do? Lock the guy up, he'll probably lose his job and then won't be able to support her or the kids. He'll have a terrible time getting another job even if he's just paroled. It's going to be in the interest of the wife for her husband take advantage of the wonderful atoning blood of Jesus and help him repent. Calling the cops is the last resort, once nothing else works, and only if the damage is severe enough. It's not a black and white situation, unfortunately.