Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't, either. That's why I asked. What would it actually look like, and what would bishop restrictions, decision flowcharts, etc. actually be like in real life?

 

 

That's what I thought. End one-on-one interviews (even with adults). Stop teaching that bishops are "the father of the ward." Stop teaching reverence for callings with priesthood keys. 

So, in this world, bishops would still allowed to counsel, but not one-on-one. And what value would their counsel actually have? And why even go to them at all, for anything, then?

You're thinking ahead of me.  As I said, the claim by the Church is it has zero tolerance for abuse.  If that were true it'd stop what it's doing at the point of proven abuse and do something different.  But it doesn't stop...it continues and the same abuses happen; the same mistakes made by leaders, and the Church claims again that it has zero tolerance for abuse.  of course that's not true.  You can go ahead and imagine that bishop's are under attack by this, but that is so far off what I'm saying.  I'm addressing the claim of zero tolerance.  That is proven to be an untrue claim...all around.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/9/2018 at 7:04 PM, cinepro said:

I know the Deseret News is eating crow over this article from last year (but the "update" by the original author is an honest attempt to deal with what must be an awkward situation):

 

Meet the Mormon helping run Donald Trump's White House

 

By all accounts, Porter really presented himself well and was able to impress many people in high places.  But he obviously had a dark side and temper that has been his undoing.  I just feel bad for the women he has beaten who didn't get the support they needed and watched his star rise.  It's possible Porter was excommunicated and we don't know about it, but if his Church leaders knew about the abuse and he wasn't disciplined, that would be a travesty for the Church.

For this very reason, I wish the Church would dial back the coverage and celebration of Mormon celebrities. It’s great that we have talented and accomplished members, but they are still human, and when they err this is what happens. If we own them when they’re on the high, what do we do when they fall? In Porter’s case, there’s no redemption, just condemnation as he’s thrown under the bus. Aren’t we all sinners? Don’t misinterpret that as vindication or excuse for his behavior. 

As far as Deseret News eating crow, did they know he was abusive when the article was published?

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

For this very reason, I wish the Church would dial back the coverage and celebration of Mormon celebrities. It’s great that we have talented and accomplished members, but they are still human, and when they err this is what happens. If we own them when they’re on the high, what do we do when they fall? In Porter’s case, there’s no redemption, just condemnation as he’s thrown under the bus. Aren’t we all sinners?Don’t misinterpret that as vindication or excuse for his behavior. 

As far as Deseret News eating crow, did they know he was abusive when the article was published?

 

From the link:

"Update: Feb. 8, 2018. The following is a note from Hal Boyd, who, at the time this piece was published in 2017, was opinion editor of the Deseret News.

The allegations of domestic violence against Rob Porter are deeply disturbing. Mr. Porter denies the allegations. He has since resigned his position as White House secretary. Domestic abuse in any form is reprehensible and must never be condoned. No public accomplishments, educational achievements, prestige or pedigree can compensate for the ill treatment of others, especially those within the intimacy of the home or the heart.

If I was even slightly aware of the allegations which have recently surfaced against Mr. Porter, I would not have written this column, and I certainly would not have deployed such effusive prose. The journalistic failings of this column are mine alone.

Abuse is no respecter of social standing. All victims of domestic violence deserve safety and healing. They also deserve to be heard and believed."

Edited February 15, 2018 by Calm

[Pete Ahlstrom]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

The abuse hotline is for all abuse, not just child abuse. Your call is first screened by a social worker, and then you are transferred to an attorney. Any bishop calling with questions or concerns about a spousal abuse situation would get the same counsel by calling the existing number. That wheel has already been invented.  

Well, I wonder how many utilize it then.  Or is it a lack of education?  Cultural problem?  Some of the women who came out about their discussions with bishops said that they were encouraged to work it out due to eternal consequences.  Was that advice given after utilizing the hotline?  Anyway, there are a lot of questions.  In any event, the actual abusers should be punished.  Women should be advised to contact the police immediately after any physical abuse happens.  Don't wait to contact the police as it is less likely action will be taken the longer one waits.  Making it public, instead of brushing it under the table seems to be the best advice. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

By the way, a further note here. Many of the support groups we attended as well as the course we took from NAMI in basic mental health issues were staged at local non LDS churches, often with the pastor or local church official attending and participating. Each of these churches had someone within their organizations who served as a resource person in case they encountered a person in need. These local church resource people were/are invaluable as sources of information for those seeking help in mental health. Many of them were/are active volunteers for NAMI also. There was/is no such person in our stake. 

I did let both my bishop and SP know that if they needed some help in advising people where to get help I would  be glad to fill such a position. Never heard back from them.

The Church has already provided this. We just need to use it. In addition to our work in ARP, Sister Gui and I are our stake LDSFS resource people. I have a direct line to our regional supervisor, as do all our bishops.

https://providentliving.lds.org/lds-family-services/leader-resources?lang=eng

https://providentliving.lds.org/lds-family-services?lang=eng

And, there’s this....

Quote

If a bishop or stake president becomes aware of or suspects the possibility of abuse, he should immediately call the Church's abuse help line at 1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-1911 (see Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], 17.3.2).

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Well, I wonder how many utilize it then. 

I don't think underuse is really an issue today for most. I know I've called it more times than I would have hoped, and most bishops want to be sure they and the Church are okay in this age of hyper-litigation and hyper-scrutiny. 

 Some of the women who came out about their discussions with bishops said that they were encouraged to work it out due to eternal consequences.  Was that advice given after utilizing the hotline?

We have no way of knowing, of course. How long ago did the actual abuse in question (Rob Porter) happen? I don't know how long he's been divorced from both ex-wives. Regardless, we know that we will never hear from those bishops as to what their version of events is. As I've said previously, I have counseled women to go to the police *and* to separate/divorce their husbands, and they have either stayed with them or left them and went back to them. It is entirely possible that they may feel that I didn't do enough (by forcefully insisting, calling the police myself, or whatever), but that wouldn't be fair or accurate. It is also possible that perceived cultural expectations of "stand by your man" and "keep the eternal family intact" are being transferred and projected onto what the bishops actually said to them. People do things like that, too ---- especially people doing interviews with the Daily Mail and CNN. 

Anyway, there are a lot of questions.  In any event, the actual abusers should be punished.  Women should be advised to contact the police immediately after any physical abuse happens.  Don't wait to contact the police as it is less likely action will be taken the longer one waits.  Making it public, instead of brushing it under the table seems to be the best advice.

I think everyone agrees on this. We'll also never know this, either, but it would be interesting to know if discipline proceedings are pending for Porter. I'm not sure he's even active or what unit his records are at (i.e., if his actual bishop due to location has his church records).

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is also possible that perceived cultural expectations of "stand by your man" and "keep the eternal family intact" are being transferred and projected onto what the bishops actually said to them. People do things like that, too 

This is a really important point that needs repeating. I know of at least two instances where in spite of all that was said to them, the women stayed in their obviously broken relationships because of the desire on their part to have the eternal family. I am sure it was not just that simple, that other factors such as finical, children and companionship were also involved but we have to see this as part of our culturally unique hyper focus on a specific idea of what constitutes a family and what kind of problems such an integral belief has when relationships just are not working.  

I don't have any good suggestions on how the church could better expand its teaching of families so that those who fall outside the church ideal  view of a family being a father, mother and children, but the downside to such a focus is the increasing number of members who do not have access to that ideal and how it affects them. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This is a really important point that needs repeating. I know of at least two instances where in spite of all that was said to them, the women stayed in their obviously broken relationships because of the desire on their part to have the eternal family. I am sure it was not just that simple, that other factors such as finical, children and companionship were also involved but we have to see this as part of our culturally unique hyper focus on a specific idea of what constitutes a family and what kind of problems such an integral belief has when relationships just are not working.  

You reminded me of my wife's family. She is one of eight children, all born after her mother was 30 (plus a lost baby). Her father is ten years younger than her mother. They did not have a happy marriage, and he was emotionally abusive to her. When they were newlyweds, he hit her, and she told him if that ever happened again, she would be gone. He never again laid a hand on her (which was very good, of course), but she was not happy in her marriage and lived for her children. Despite her unhappiness, I believe that it was indeed best for the children to not get divorced, and even for her as well. Very few divorces* I have seen result in happiness and the total absolution of all problems, so it is something people should definitely "count the cost" and have both eyes wide open about. My wife is grateful that her mother stuck it out until dying of breast cancer, even though she was just waiting and living to die to be free from an unhappy life. If my in-laws were famous people in the public eye, they and their bishops would have been swept up in this #MeToo maelstrom, but I think it would be unfair (to them and to their bishops) and not a true assessment of the complexity of the full situation. Divorcing to "be truly happy" would have had a devastating effect on my wife and her seven siblings. 

What I'm saying is that sometimes staying in an "abusive" relationship is good counsel, depending solely on the situation (quotation marks to reflect that there is a wide range of things contained in the word "abusive." Not all abuse is created equal). I'm sure that the "zero tolerance" crowd will have a coronary over that, but things are not always cut-and-dried or black-and-white.

*Obviously, sometimes divorce is appropriate or even the only option. That goes without saying. But parents and children in divorce usually don't have an ideal outcome. Sometimes we have to settle for "good or better" instead of best.  

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

What I'm saying is that sometimes staying in an "abusive" relationship is good counsel, depending solely on the situation (quotation marks to reflect that there is a wide range of things contained in the word "abusive." Not all abuse is created equal). I'm sure that the "zero tolerance" crowd will have a coronary over that, but things are not always cut-and-dried or black-and-white.

 

Just to be clear, the Church is the one claiming zero tolerance.  When you reference the zero tolerance crowd, you are only referencing the Church, and apparently are opposed to what the Church claims.  

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

You reminded me of my wife's family. She is one of eight children, all born after her mother was 30 (plus a lost baby). Her father is ten years younger than her mother. They did not have a happy marriage, and he was emotionally abusive to her. When they were newlyweds, he hit her, and she told him if that ever happened again, she would be gone. He never again laid a hand on her (which was very good, of course), but she was not happy in her marriage and lived for her children. Despite her unhappiness, I believe that it was indeed best for the children to not get divorced, and even for her as well. Very few divorces* I have seen result in happiness and the total absolution of all problems, so it is something people should definitely "count the cost" and have both eyes wide open about. My wife is grateful that her mother stuck it out until dying of breast cancer, even though she was just waiting and living to die to be free from an unhappy life. If my in-laws were famous people in the public eye, they and their bishops would have been swept up in this #MeToo maelstrom, but I think it would be unfair (to them and to their bishops) and not a true assessment of the complexity of the full situation. Divorcing to "be truly happy" would have had a devastating effect on my wife and her seven siblings. 

You have no idea if the children and mother would have been better had they divorced.  It may seem like a good guess because you know them all and see the good that they have.  but if life had all gone differently, it could be that they were better off.  You simply don't know that.  Not a bad thing to not know what is best for someone's life.   We all guess a bit.  But again, this is really just an explanation for tolerating abuse and trying to justify room for it.  If this is true, then zero tolerance is not true.  Of course, I can't tell if you're arguing against the Church or not, though.  

 

[Duncan]

In my sister's stake there was this family that the parents fought constantly. My sister said they had this idea of well they were married in the Temple so they were good for eternity. Which we know is hardly the case. Their 18 yr old son moved out and into his girlfriend's place. When that relationship broke up he killed himself because he didn't want to move back into his folks home and witness that scene all over again. The rest of the brothers and sisters got together and basically had an intervention and the parents got divorced, which sounded like a good thing for all involved.

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I'm saying is that sometimes staying in an "abusive" relationship is good counsel, depending solely on the situation (quotation marks to reflect that there is a wide range of things contained in the word "abusive." Not all abuse is created equal). I'm sure that the "zero tolerance" crowd will have a coronary over that, but things are not always cut-and-dried or black-and-white.

*Obviously, sometimes divorce is appropriate or even the only option. That goes without saying. But parents and children in divorce usually don't have an ideal outcome. Sometimes we have to settle for "good or better" instead of best.  

I don't think we ever know if staying was good counsel or not because we do not know how things may have turned out if they left. I have almost the exact same story as you regarding my MIL, but she did leave an abusive situation early on and  took her kids and raised them  herself with similar positive results. Additionally I think you have to factor in the damage that is done when kids are witness to an abusive relationship. That also can be really bad long term for the children, who may then be abuser themselves. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just to be clear, the Church is the one claiming zero tolerance.  When you reference the zero tolerance crowd, you are only referencing the Church, and apparently are opposed to what the Church claims.  

Has the Church used the phrase "zero tolerance?" Not to my knowledge. If so, it is ill-advised in my view, as are all "zero-tolerance" initiatives (bullying, drugs possession, etc.). There is a difference between "not tolerating" and "zero tolerance," in that "zero tolerance" smacks of the Greek tyrant Draco (from whom we get the word "draconian"), who had such stringent "zero tolerance" laws that everything got the death penalty ---- including stealing a head of cabbage. 

Not all situations are the same, and not all abuse (or bullying, or drug, or whatever) situations are the same. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You have no idea if the children and mother would have been better had they divorced.  It may seem like a good guess because you know them all and see the good that they have.  but if life had all gone differently, it could be that they were better off.  You simply don't know that. 

No, we don't have any idea, for sure. But, my wife's strong views on this should count for something, shouldn't they? At least as far as her family situation and her perception and experience are concerned. She is very grateful that her parents didn't divorce. 

But again, this is really just an explanation for tolerating abuse and trying to justify room for it.  If this is true, then zero tolerance is not true. 

See, that's the thing. I don't think wrestling with these complex situational issues denotes tolerating abuse. It is not cut-and-dried simple to treat this like everything will fit into a business flowchart and everyone will live happily ever after. For some people and situations, bucking conventional wisdom may be what actually is best. I am not a fan of zero tolerance anything, in case you hadn't noticed . . .  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Has the Church used the phrase "zero tolerance?" Not to my knowledge. If so, it is ill-advised in my view, as are all "zero-tolerance" initiatives (bullying, drugs possession, etc.). There is a difference between "not tolerating" and "zero tolerance," in that "zero tolerance" smacks of the Greek tyrant Draco (from whom we get the word "draconian"), who had such stringent "zero tolerance" laws that everything got the death penalty ---- including stealing a head of cabbage. 

Each time I've seen it reported the Church spokesman has repeated the zero tolerance claim:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/white-house-officials-ex-wives-say-their-mormon-bishops-were-no-help-when-they-were-abused/

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=40107650&nid=148

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kifi-top-story/lawsuit-church-leaders-knew-pedophiles-led-idaho-bsa-troops/57803269

It is a particular talking point, obviously, that the Church feels it has to repeat.  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/how-mormons-approach-abuse

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not all situations are the same, and not all abuse (or bullying, or drug, or whatever) situations are the same. 

Ok.  So you disagree with the Church as per zero tolerance?  

 

 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Additionally I think you have to factor in the damage that is done when kids are witness to an abusive relationship. That also can be really bad long term for the children, who may then be abuser themselves. 

Absolutely! That may be the biggest factor of all in some cases, outweighing all others. 

I don't think bishops end up being the biggest arbiters of these things. Even when they give counsel, and even when this counsel weight heavily in the calculus, it is after all ultimately the family's decision.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Each time I've seen it reported the Church spokesman has repeated the zero tolerance claim:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/08/white-house-officials-ex-wives-say-their-mormon-bishops-were-no-help-when-they-were-abused/

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=40107650&nid=148

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kifi-top-story/lawsuit-church-leaders-knew-pedophiles-led-idaho-bsa-troops/57803269

It is a particular talking point, obviously, that the Church feels it has to repeat.  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/how-mormons-approach-abuse

Thanks for those, stem! Great --- so the Church has jumped on the buzzword bandwagon. The Church hasn't actually said in concrete terms what it means by "zero tolerance," since there are not rigid flowcharts leaders are compelled to use when making decisions. I'm speaking about issues concerning allegations of domestic emotional or physical abuse, not child molestation. I think we're all on the same page when it comes to that (the "no more youth interviews!" crowd's heads just exploded), and I don't think anyone "tolerates" situations where children are and remain in abuse. 

Ok.  So you disagree with the Church as per zero tolerance?

I don't think so. Not how the Church is using it. The Church is more simply reiterating that we don't tolerate abuse by using the expression "zero tolerance." I would disagree with the Church if the Church eliminated one-on-one interviews, or installed flowcharts that dictated counsel that could be given in a wide range of situations, but it's clear that that isn't what is meant. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks for those, stem! Great --- so the Church has jumped on the buzzword bandwagon. The Church hasn't actually said in concrete terms what it means by "zero tolerance," since there are not rigid flowcharts leaders are compelled to use when making decisions. I'm speaking about issues concerning allegations of domestic emotional or physical abuse, not child molestation. I think we're all on the same page when it comes to that (the "no more youth interviews!" crowd's heads just exploded), and I don't think anyone "tolerates" situations where children are and remain in abuse. 

You will note that in the recent Rob Porter, or whatever his name is, incident the Church also says zero tolerance for abuse.  This is not just a child molestation thing.  It's for all abuse.  

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

I don't think so. Not how the Church is using it. The Church is more simply reiterating that we don't tolerate abuse by using the expression "zero tolerance." I would disagree with the Church if the Church eliminated one-on-one interviews, or installed flowcharts that dictated counsel that could be given in a wide range of situations, but it's clear that that isn't what is meant. 

If abuse happens and the parameters that led to the abuse remain allowing more abuse, then there is tolerating it.  You seem to want, and perhaps the Church does too, a special meaning for zero tolerance.  Something along the lines of.  We are trying to not allow it, even if it occurs sometimes within the system we have set up.  Of course they tolerate it, lest not tolerating it actually has them have to address the very system they have set up.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You will note that in the recent Rob Porter, or whatever his name is, incident the Church also says zero tolerance for abuse.  This is not just a child molestation thing.  It's for all abuse.  

Yeah. Buzzwording. What does it really mean, though?

If abuse happens and the parameters that led to the abuse remain allowing more abuse, then there is tolerating it.  You seem to want, and perhaps the Church does too, a special meaning for zero tolerance.  Something along the lines of.  We are trying to not allow it, even if it occurs sometimes within the system we have set up.  Of course they tolerate it, lest not tolerating it actually has them have to address the very system they have set up. 

Okay, so what would an ideal "zero tolerance" Church landscape look like, then? We've already got "end all one-on-one interviews" as an argument. Anything else? 

Should the next argument be to require priesthood leaders to simply call the police whenever anyone says anything? Even "My mom and I aren't getting along, and we argue sometimes?" Because, you never know. There could be abuse there, and the kids' just covering for the parents. Not for us to say. Let's turn them in and let the police and CPS sort out whether or not there is (or isn't) anything there. Better safe than sorry! Oh --- and counseling. Let's get them both lots of counseling. 

Seriously, "zero tolerance" is a phrase that sounds good in a buzzword way, but it isn't really practical in the real world when you look at real and hypothetical situations. At least some of them. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

Yeah. Buzzwording. What does it really mean, though?

 

 

Okay, so what would an ideal "zero tolerance" Church landscape look like, then? We've already got "end all one-on-one interviews" as an argument. Anything else? 

I didn't say end all one on one interviews.  I srggested if it were re evaluated about what is the problem, and one on ones remain an option with perhaps some adjustment, have at 'em, though.  

Just now, rongo said:

Should the next argument be to require priesthood leaders to simply call the police whenever anyone says anything? Even "My mom and I aren't getting along, and we argue sometimes?" Because, you never know. There could be abuse there, and the kids' just covering for the parents. Not for us to say. Let's turn them in and let the police and CPS sort out whether or not there is (or isn't) anything there. Better safe than sorry! Oh --- and counseling. Let's get them both lots of counseling. 

I wouldn't argue that, no.  

Just now, rongo said:

Seriously, "zero tolerance" is a phrase that sounds good in a buzzword way, but it isn't really practical in the real world when you look at real and hypothetical situations. At least some of them. 

So, then, it appears you disagree with the Church.  I think if the Church were serious about zero tolerance things would have to change drastically.  I'm not saying I know what changes in particular ought to be made.  One on one interviews with youth as it pertains to sexual talk might be a start, but many already see that as problematic.  

If the Church is just using zero tolerance as a buzzword to make people feel better in a PR way and don't believe it and think counseling some people in some abuse situations to tough it out or whatever it was you were arguing above when you referenced your in-laws, ok.  But there is dishonesty in that (The Church being dishonest not you, to be clear).  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So, then, it appears you disagree with the Church. 

On buzzword wording, yes. I don't think the Church and I disagree at all on changes to interviews or restrictions on bishops counseling. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

From the link:

"Update: Feb. 8, 2018. The following is a note from Hal Boyd, who, at the time this piece was published in 2017, was opinion editor of the Deseret News.

The allegations of domestic violence against Rob Porter are deeply disturbing. Mr. Porter denies the allegations. He has since resigned his position as White House secretary. Domestic abuse in any form is reprehensible and must never be condoned. No public accomplishments, educational achievements, prestige or pedigree can compensate for the ill treatment of others, especially those within the intimacy of the home or the heart.

If I was even slightly aware of the allegations which have recently surfaced against Mr. Porter, I would not have written this column, and I certainly would not have deployed such effusive prose. The journalistic failings of this column are mine alone.

Abuse is no respecter of social standing. All victims of domestic violence deserve safety and healing. They also deserve to be heard and believed."

Just as I suspected. Then I don’t get the assertion that they have to eat crow. 

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just as I suspected. Then I don’t get the assertion that they have to eat crow. 

They are a newspaper organization who published a positive article on someone who had already been accused of abuse, an article that would not have been published had they known of those accusations. It was their job to know about them. That is what they do. That is why they printed a correction. Arguing that they could not of known it does not fly either, all they had to do was interview either one of his ex-wives. In the retraction itself the author acknowledges "his failings". 

I don't know I would call it eating crow but certainly they failed to do a proper job the first time around when they missed the abuse.

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Perhaps, perhaps not. But professionals' battering average isn't 1.000 at that, either. 

What's interesting to me is that the vast majority of the "mentally ill" in our wards (depression, anxiety, personality disorders, bipolar, even some schizophrenia) are already receiving medical treatment and counseling without the bishop even knowing or being involved initially. That is, the bishop finds out in the course of working with people that these things are already in place. My experience is not that people come to the bishop as the initial, front-line consultation for mental health disorders; rather, these disorders come out in the course of working with them --- but they are already receiving treatment. Remember the TBM talking point about the apparent high incidence of anti-depressant use among Mormons? "They are more likely to seek professional help and avail themselves of professional advice; hence, much higher prescription medication use among Mormons as opposed to self-medicating via alcohol or illegal drugs, etc." I find in my own experience that this is very true. A high number of active, functioning LDS are on prescription drugs for mental health reasons, but this almost never, in my experience, is initiated by a bishop advising them to seek professional help. They typically have already done that.

One common symptom of schizophrenia and related disorders is that the individual does not believe they are ill (anosognosia), and are therefore resistant to treatment.  It's also common for people in a state of psychosis to experience religious delusions, particularly if they have a religious background or upbringing.  If bishops are educated to be able to spot warning signs and symptoms, then they could be a help in encouraging these individuals to seek professional help.

I've told the story on this board before of when my wife experienced her first state of psychosis.  In her mind, she was having a spiritual or religious issue, and the bishop confirmed that for her by telling her (in the course of a priesthood blessing) that Satan was trying to influence her, and that prayer and scripture reading would make it better.  Since her delusions were religious in nature, the Bishop's blessing compounded the problem and ended up making the situation dangerous.  With the proper training, the Bishop could have actually been helpful in the process of finding and accessing professional treatment.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This is a really important point that needs repeating. I know of at least two instances where in spite of all that was said to them, the women stayed in their obviously broken relationships because of the desire on their part to have the eternal family. I am sure it was not just that simple, that other factors such as finical, children and companionship were also involved but we have to see this as part of our culturally unique hyper focus on a specific idea of what constitutes a family and what kind of problems such an integral belief has when relationships just are not working.  

I don't have any good suggestions on how the church could better expand its teaching of families so that those who fall outside the church ideal  view of a family being a father, mother and children, but the downside to such a focus is the increasing number of members who do not have access to that ideal and how it affects them. 

That's true of my wife's parents. They'd have been much, much better off getting divorced years earlier. From everything my wife told me it was clear what would happen. Of course that was years ago when social norms - particularly in small towns - were much different. Still I think it's often pretty obvious when someone should get out of a relationship.