Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

High profile story of abuse between a Mormon couple

Recommended Posts

It is not just a part of LDS culture, but Mormon nice can definitely add to the problem.

Vulnerable girls and women and men and boys who are in ongoing abusive relationships are there in part because they do not have confidence...if they had it to begin with, the abuse wears it out of them, so to expect them to act assertively is ignoring the overall context.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not just a part of LDS culture, but Mormon nice can definitely add to the problem.

Vulnerable girls and women and men and boys who are in ongoing abusive relationships are there in part because they do not have confidence...if they had it to begin with, the abuse wears it out of them, so to expect them to act assertively is ignoring the overall context.

Good point. Porter's wives seemed like confident women. Maybe that is why they both were able to get out and realize who he really was. He seems like he was a real Jekyll and Hyde. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I had heard he resigned to spend more time with his father. What is wrong with people? I don't know whether he's LDS or not, but sounds like he is. I don't understand how someone can just throw out their families like this and treat members of their family in such a cruel way. Destroying the ties that bound them. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"After all, if she’s going to defy the Priesthood Leadership in her home, i.e. her husband, she had better seek the permission of the next Priesthood Leader in her life."

What the **** is he talking about?

"When a Priesthood Leader has told her she’s overreacting, the last thing she’s going to do is call the police."

Why not? I mean, is there really a Mormon culture out there who will not call the police because their priesthood leader told her she was overreacting?

 

All I learned from you is that you still don't believe women. It's getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I had heard he resigned to spend more time with his father. What is wrong with people? I don't know whether he's LDS or not, but sounds like he is. I don't understand how someone can just throw out their families like this and treat members of their family in such a cruel way. Destroying the ties that bound them. 

He is.  Served a mission in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Porter

1 hour ago, juliann said:

All I learned from you is that you still don't believe women. It's getting old.

Didn't you know? Patriarchy > *                            [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

When I talk with my daughter about this kind of thing I tell her that being assertive, reporting something to the police, saying "no" IS being nice or loving. She is a very compassionate woman so she needs to know she is not being "mean" when she stands up for herself. It is loving because it makes it clear for both parties and keeps everyone's eternal salvation in mind. You don't have to make a choice between being nice and assertive. You can do both, as long as you understand the definition of "nice" is not to roll over. 

Love this! I am going to use this with my girls!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I understand the feeling safe aspect of going to the bishop when you are abused. Is there anything more to this though? Do Catholics tend to go to their priests for abuse? Methodists?  

Last night my back window in my car was smashed in - we are good. It never occurred to me once to call my bishop. I called the police first thing, then my neighbor across the street. It wasn't till the police officer said there was another car in the area that got smashed that I went to my ward facebook page to see if that car was a ward member and if they had info. 

So is the feeling safe issue the only reason people go just to the bishop? If we found some other reason as well maybe we could more easily get someone to go to the police if that isue was resolved.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, juliann said:

All I learned from you is that you still don't believe women. It's getting old.

:huh::huh::huh:

I'm lost but if it's of any worth, it was very late last night when I made my posts and I work two jobs so I didn't make more posts I planned to make. I Don't know when I'll do so but definitely not right now as I need video access and I'm posting from my phone. I still "don't believe in [overdoing my data plan and paying extra] so I will limit what I do post. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not just a part of LDS culture, but Mormon nice can definitely add to the problem.

Vulnerable girls and women and men and boys who are in ongoing abusive relationships are there in part because they do not have confidence...if they had it to begin with, the abuse wears it out of them, so to expect them to act assertively is ignoring the overall context.

Oh, I understand lack of confidence very well. I have it and my wife has it and my oldest son have it.

So, what's "Mormon nice"? And where us this Mormon culture where a belief in Mormon women that they need priesthood authority to turn on their husbands as the priesthood in the home when the husband us abusive. To me that is a connected but relatively different issue than confidence. The article you linked and the portion you cited presented this malevolent element in the LDS culture as institutional in the Church. Or did I misread your post? 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Calm said:

."Why not? I mean, is there really a Mormon culture out there who will not call the police because their priesthood leader told her she was overreacting?

I must be isolated from Mormonism in general but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine any bishop I have ever had saying any such thing to blame the woman or make her self-doubt in an abusive situation."

First off, it is a woman writing it and not a man.

And are you refusing to believe the women's accounts that have been collected in this blog because it is outside your experience?

Kind of like the bishops having a hard time believing them?

I read only what you posted; not the link. I figured it was a woman but used the general "he". It was very late and I had no desire to read the article at that time but I should have at least looked into it a bit used she.

What I oppose is to believe a woman simply because she said so. With very few exception, I do and will trust what anyone says and base what I do accordingly. I made two posts last night related directly to the open post. Besides my explicit statement that I do not agree with believing women when they confess, which I just addressed above, what evidence do you have that I don’t believe women? I fully believe Niki's friend and how she was abused growing up. I fully believe my wife. In fact, that's probably the single most important thing I do to help her with her depression. Speaking of which, I'm going to go ahead and text her to see from her experience if she's been disbelieved more from women or her bishops as she speaks openly about her depression and I know there have been many women in the Relief Society (these are not the leaders, they've been amazing, but by her fellow sisters of Zion) who have brushed her off saying it's in her head, get over it, deal with it, etc. I'll post what she says. But right now I just got an Uber call. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

Your post has some typos so I can't really tell what you are asking me specifically, so I am just reacting to your intent to post your wife's comment.

How does your wife's experience in any way change these other women's experiences?

Should I dismiss your wife's experience because she describes different reactions than other women?  

Why not just assume people and leaders come in all shapes and sizes and not everyone experiences the same thing?  And that we should work on removing the causes of negative experiences where able rather than just assuming the positive are numerous enough it renders the negative unimportant.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

He is.  Served a mission in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Porter

Didn't you know? Patriarchy > *                            [/sarcasm]

I mean't this other guy...https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/british-newspaper-says-rep-jon-stanard-resigned-after-meeting-call-girl-twice-for-sex/

Share this post


Link to post

Why is a British newspaper concerned with a state rep in Utah? 

Share this post


Link to post

Kutv (shocker) includes this below.  So far they are the only ones bringing up he is "Mormon".  Pretty predictable for them, imo.

"As a Mormon, Stanard could face severe punishment including ex-communication. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a stringent stance against adultery, likening it next to murder."

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why is a British newspaper concerned with a state rep in Utah? 

The stories the daily mail covers make no sense sometimes. But, I go to their site because it is not all politics all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

oh snap!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Your post has some typos so I can't really tell what you are asking me specifically, so I am just reacting to your intent to post your wife's comment.

How does your wife's experience in any way change these other women's experiences?

Should I dismiss your wife's experience because she describes different reactions than other women?  

Why not just assume people and leaders come in all shapes and sizes and not everyone experiences the same thing?  And that we should work on removing the causes of negative experiences where able rather than just assuming the positive are numerous enough it renders the negative unimportant.

Again I am a bit bewildered as to how you think, based on any of my posts that I am trying to “render the negative unimportant”. In fact, if you could, take a look / another look at my two posts which I shared first hand experiences with females accusing others of abusing them. Then please share with me how I could have done better to help the females in question. Did I not believe them enough? Did I not support them enough? Am I ignorant that there are bad bishops? I am at a loss.

As for Niki, while responding to you I had a sudden recollection of how very helpful her bishops have been. Same with Relief Society leaders and that most of her grief from others have been from other sisters in the church. That they told her things like she’s overreacting, she should pray more, think more positively, etc. They tell her these things with the intent that she improves her situation. Likewise, you cited an article criticizing bishops for telling women confessing maritial abuse that they are overreacting, that if they just made more time for their husbands, gave them more sex, etc., they would improve their marriage. Yes, these are very poor responses from the bishops but your making it seem institutional is what bothers me the most. I think that my brain made the connection between Niki’s experience snd my concern from your post to demonstrate that it’s not a guy or priesthood thing to give poor responses to others in need. 

In addition, your citations on you linked article does celebrate bishops as a whole and thst collectively they do great good for women confessing their abusive relationships to them. Likewise, the vast majority of prople who do help Niki are females. 

Editec to add: I corrected the typos in the post. Hope it helps. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/7/2018 at 10:53 PM, Darren10 said:

Excellent job brother. Did he come to your vampire cove? :)

Edited to ad: Or is it coven? It's been a while since I watched Twilight. (Dumb movies overall except the last two but I'm a sucker for superpowered "humans")

At that time, we all weren't that hip on what to do in abusive situations. He was not a member of the Church, and I performed their marriage. Within a week, it all hit the fan. Come to think of it, hardly any of the marriages I performed turned out well.

I've been to Forks several times, but I didn't see any coves or covens. I think I saw Sasquatch, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Mormon nice" is this taken as The First Principle:

"ne11jan15_poster.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think a lot of us grow up in a culture where we think and say that you should go to the bishop with any serious problem. I hope that  greater awareness of the deficiencies of doing that help members of the church to take these matters to the police. Most bishops are absolutely well-meaning, but have no relevant training on handling this stuff. Most of the training they do get is around church policies and managing tithing and things like that.

For whatever reason, the first inclination of a lot of people when hearing stories of abuse is to cover it up, hush it up. It's tough to deal with it. I encountered a case of child abuse on my mission. We ended up reporting it to the police, but it was VERY hard (emotionally) to do it, and I don't fully understand why. I guess it's easier to live in denial?

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There is shame for the victim still in our culture as well as awareness that actual emotional pain and suffering and screwed up thinking is a real burden for them, that they are now seen as "damaged" and therefore if their history becomes known many may see them as less desirable as romantic companions.  People are probably aware there often is also fear for someone who knows of the abuse, that they may say the wrong thing and add to the pain or selfishly fear they may become a target for the anger so not saying anything means the victim or others won't have to experience such awkward situations.

This may contribute to a belief that since the abuse has already happened and the past can't be changed, then the best thing is to avoid conflicts for the abused (or selfishly oneself) in the here and now as that only makes difficult thing more complicated and more difficult to deal with.  There may be a belief or wishful self deception or unverbalized gut feeling that now the abuser knows others know, they will back off and not dare to do it again so that means the victim is safe from them.  It may seem like the gossip and potential ostracism for the victim is  higher risk than future abuse because we are so horrified by the idea of abuse we may isolate it in our minds from the rest of our experience so it feels less real or only something in the past, less dangerous than the more familiar pain of being different or having negative attention...something most of us find it easy to relate too.

It may be 'comforting' enough to protect a victim from social danger that we convince ourselves we are doing enough to protect them, we are doing our social duty already, we don't need to risk getting involved in a potentially dangerous, always messy confrontation with a potential abuser.

There is also definite fear of making the situation worse for the victim by making the abuser angry while lacking the ability to keep the victim safe since we rarely have any legal standing. 

It needs to be publicized that victims can heal IF the abuse is recognized and they get help, hiding it doesn't protect them from pain in the long run.  It needs to be publicized that victims are not strange warped souls, but our friends and neighbours who fit right in.  TV doesn't help by mostly portraying victims as drug addicts, abusers or murderers themselves, rarely showing the much more common healthy in most ways, maybe all ways normal functional people.

There are plenty of reasons out there that pushes us to drag our feet, think it is better to not say anything.  The only way these inclinations will change is through painful, but necessary public airings so being a victim becomes okay in the sense condemnation or negative social baggage doesn't get attached, so we don't waste time by secondguessing whether being a witness hurts or helps the victims.

I think we also assume RS presidents, bishops, other leaders by their positions have chances to be more exposed to such cases and therefore have experience where we do not, so they feel both safe as familiar faces and feel like enough of authorities to deal with it.  And if neighbours, we probably think they will have heard of more reports so will be able to better judge if behaviour crosses the line.  I told the RS Pres. back when I was a BYU married student when I noticed one night a toddler locked outside their apartment begging to be let in as apparently time out option by the mom.  I only saw it the once and it was warm enough and I could see through the front window the mom could hear and therefore would know if the child decided to wander off, so I was unsure what to call it.  I figured if it was an ongoing problem others would tell the RS Pres, so I told her rather than just kept it to myself.  I also kept a close eye on the family where I could...they were very different, but nothing else triggered doubt.  I think today I would call campus security.  Hopefully police if not on campus now I have personal experience with parents who use short term abandonment as a stick to manipulate/break the 'rebellion' in their kids.  The parents may not have looked on it as any worse than sending a kid to their room and resorted to it because their other kids were in the child's room.  The kid would have looked on it very differently though, I am guessing.

Plus there is predictability of local leaders' reaction to you where there is none with total strangers.  Police as a whole may feel trustworthy, but when you go to a station and ask for help, is the person you encounter trustworthy?  Media stories of police droppingthe ball, statistics of how few assaults are actually prosecuted and abusers held accountable...those are discouraging and make it harder to trust good will happen rather than more harm without a payoff of justice or protection at the end.  At least with going to the bishop, one is relatively secure if nothing good comes of it, nothing 'bad' will happen either due to confidentiality.  

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...