Buzzfeed Article on Mormon Women Being Abused: I Got Some Questions

[Darren10]

I just read a news article on Buzzfeed regarding women confessing abuse to their bishops. I was left with some questions about the content of the article. Any feedback to clarify will be appreciated. Especially appreciated would be feedback from people with professional training in law or domestic abuse. 

The article in question is called, In The Wake Of Rob Porter Allegations, Mormon Women Say Church Leaders Encouraged Them To Stay With Their Abusers. Let me cite you a few portions from this article and address my confusing regarding its content. I will try not to cite too much as to not violate copyright protection of Buzzfeed’s article but enough to let my concerns known. 

Buzzfeed bases their report on “more then 20” who spoke to them regarding their experiences in speaking with us supportive bishops and in one reported instance in the article, a stake president. Although Buzzfeed does mention several other articles having appeared reporting unsupportive LDS clergy, around 20 women does not seem representative enough for the Church as a whole. I say this fully realizing and fully agreeing with the idea that if any one of their reported testimony to Buzzfeed is too many. No abused women should find non support from anyone under the auspice of being an LDS clergy leader. 

Quote

A 34-year-old Colorado woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said that while attending an LDS church-run university in the early 2000s a man she was dating physically assaulted her. When she went to her bishop about the incident, the woman said she was told she “forced him to act in this way” and “needed to repent.”

“He said that it was a very serious situation, that I needed to repent, and told me I had to meet with him weekly to discuss what had happened,” the woman said. “At the time, his response was more damaging to me than what the guy had done.”

Several years later she married a man who developed mental health problems, which led to emotional abuse and sexual assault.

“He then snapped and pushed me down and raped me while I was saying no, asking him to stop, and crying,” she said.

When the woman later told the stake president, a lay church leader who oversees a group of congregations, that she had decided not to move with her husband to another state where he had accepted a new job, the church leader warned her decision could jeopardize her husband's career.

First off, was the boyfriend she’s dated attending the same “LDS church-run facility”? If so, did he see his bishop? Would anyone with first hand knowledge as to an LDS confession, including from non LDS members in “LDS-run universities” disagree that, if the report is accurate and assuming the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault (more on that in a bit), that he would not be condemned by said bishop? 

Now, regarding what in no doubt controversial lanuage by me, “the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault”, let me explain. First and foremost, this woman from Colorado absolutely deserved no assault. However, that does not mean she did nothing to provoke anger in her boyfriend. No doubt Buzzfeed readers are left with the impression that she did nothing at all. That very well maybe true but not guaranteed. I’ve dated girls who’d pinch me to inflict pain because she was upset at me, I’ve been tripped out of jealous resentment by one causing pain, pulled away from hanging out with friends simply because she wanted to spend time with me after being 20 minutes separated, and other annoying events were provided to me by ex girlfriends. Everyone of those instances triggered resentment in me. In some of those cases, anger. This is in addition it my 20 years of marriage. There have been moments when my wife really has pushed me to my limits of my patience and anger. So the thought of hitting a girl has crossed my mind more than once in my life; but except for my own being a total jerk moment in 6th grade, I have never hit a girl in my life. You simply walk away, get your mind off the situation, on to something else you’re calmer or calmer and in control. 

Now, back to the Colorado woman. Did she inflict physical pain upon her boyfriend? Did he hit her after she hit him? She slapped him and then he punched her in the face a couple of times? Again, she would not have deserved being hit and I believe she should not have been assaulted as she reported but her words do not vindicate her of any wrong doing so I find this reporting wanting in detail.

As for her husband, the man who developed mental illness, I think of my wife’s grandfather. After his first wife passed away, he remarried a woman who developed Alzheimer’s which became violent. At one point she tried to kill him with a knife. Eh placed her in a home and wiped out all his personal savings after insurance ran out. He paid for her stay unti the end of her life. I thought that was very noble of him. But, could he have divorced her? Absolutely. In fact, I think I would in the same situation. I’d make sure she’s taken care of to the best of my ability, but probably divorce her. As for her counsel from her bishop, I do believe that happened but under what circumstances is not known. What the bishop told her is not inherently wrong, but not correct in my opinion as per what was reported in this article. Under what circumstances would an LDS bishop counsel divorce or if they are prohibited from promoting divorce, at least think and / or feel that divorce was correct? My family was over at a friend’s house last Sunday for dinner. The lady of the house recently divorced and is a divorce lawyer by profession. Niki (my wife) and I have known her and loved her as a good friend years before there was even talk of divorce between her and her ex husband. I asked her about her experience with her bishop(s) and stake president through the ordeal. She said that although none openly advocated divorce they all knew it was the best course for her marriage. In her case, her ex husband had cheated on her several times during the last few years of their marriage, well, of their marriage and living together (the divorce took three years after their separation). She said that the stake president gave her the most grief out of all the leaders she spoke to. At one point he told her to pray again to make sure she was making the right decision. She said she simply told him no. That her mind was made up and divorce was her course of action. I told her “good”. Niki agreed with her as well as her new husband of four years, who is also very active LDS member.

I found nothing wrong or “unMormon” my friend’s response. Is there anything in the LDS Church which obligates a Mormon to obey his or her stake president’s counsel? And, if any Mormon believes he or she should, why? I understand that LDS culture does stress that many times but I have never found that foundation as correct. All LDS members should absolutely include God and living revelation into their personal decisions. 

My last citation:

Quote

Ginny, a 43-year-old Utah woman, said her husband started physically abusing her soon after their marriage in the early 1990s. She eventually suffered a broken jaw and had “a big chunk” of her hair ripped out, she said.

“My bishop at the time told me I needed to work it out and figure out what I needed to do to fix me,” Ginny recalled. “I got told, ‘Maybe if you lost a little weight he wouldn’t cheat. As the wife, you’re the one who sets the tone for the family.’”

Ginny finalized her divorce after about five years of marriage.

“I think that in his own mind he thought he was helping,” Ginny said of her bishop.

OK, a bishop said, ‘if you lost a little weight he wouldn’t cheat’? This sends up a big red flag in me. Under what circumstance would a bishop say such a thing? The only circumstance I can think of is a bishop responding according to his cultural learning. By that I mean his life as a whole. I cannot think of any official LDS Church teachings including conference talks, lesson mauals, and especially not scripture, which would influence and Mormon to think such a thing. This, in my view, is completely worldly, not remotely “LDS”. That said, i if there is a “Mormon culture” out there which teaches such a thing, is there any disagreement from any active / believing Mormon who would think in this manner is a result of worldly teachings?

Thanks for your time reading. I look forward to responses.

UPDATE: Taking so much time to write up this post and struggling to keep a sweet five year old off of my lap while typing all of this I had forgotten to bring up the lawyer at the end. He is stated that he in 26 years seen Mormon bishops speak to the the defense of accused male abusers but never to the female accusers. My question is of those times how many of those bishops were summoned to testify on behalf of the female accusers as opposed to being summoned to testify for the male accused? I think such data would paint a more accurate picture as opposed to Buzzfeed’s portrayal of some sort of widespread neglect amongst LDS leaders. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Darren10

[Calm]

This was discussed in the other thread...see my post(s) on the prosecutor not seeing a bishop in court for victims cause I don't want to repeat.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

..........., In The Wake Of Rob Porter Allegations, Mormon Women Say Church Leaders Encouraged Them To Stay With Their Abusers. ........................................ assuming the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault .........., that he would not be condemned by said bishop? ................................, “the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault”, .......................... Under what circumstances would an LDS bishop counsel divorce or if they are prohibited from promoting divorce, .................................... Is there anything in the LDS Church which obligates a Mormon to obey his or her stake president’s counsel? And, if any Mormon believes he or she should, why? ..............................................., a bishop said, ‘if you lost a little weight he wouldn’t cheat’?...........................

........................ My question is of those times how many of those bishops were summoned to testify on behalf of the female accusers as opposed to being summoned to testify for the male accused? .......................

Altogether too many hypotheticals and questions about unknown detail.  People just need to exercise common sense, and severe assaults should immediately be reported to the police.  The victim should report the matter to her bishop later, with a police report and restraining order in hand, just so the bishop will know what is going on and can take action against the perpetrator if he thinks necessary.  If the victim thinks the bishop is not acting correctly, the victim should go to the stake pres. and complain.  In any case, the victim may need professional counseling, and the bishop can pay for that if necessary.

The LDS Church (like most churches) does not require that members go to the bishop/pastor about such matters.  Those are law enforcement and civil matters which should be handled primarily by police, the courts, and DCFS.  The perpetrator needs to understand the seriousness of the event(s) and seek immediate counseling.  The bishop should try to help the perp get professional counseling.  Otherwise the perp will simply continue the bad behavior.  This also applies to other kinds of unlawful activity by members of the ward (theft, burglary, drug abuse, assault, etc.).

The mission of the LDS Church is to make bad people good, and good people better.  Can't really do that if you don't have compassion for both victims and perps.  Sometimes jail or prison time is the best thing for a wayward Mormon.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This was discussed in the other thread...see my post(s) on the prosecutor not seeing a bishop in court for victims cause I don't want to repeat.

At this point, I forget that what thread that was. Could you link it? 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Altogether too many hypotheticals and questions about unknown detail.  People just need to exercise common sense, and severe assaults should immediately be reported to the police.  The victim should report the matter to her bishop later, with a police report and restraining order in hand, just so the bishop will know what is going on and can take action against the perpetrator if he thinks necessary.  If the victim thinks the bishop is not acting correctly, the victim should go to the stake pres. and complain.  In any case, the victim may need professional counseling, and the bishop can pay for that if necessary.

The LDS Church (like most churches) does not require that members go to the bishop/pastor about such matters.  Those are law enforcement and civil matters which should be handled primarily by police, the courts, and DCFS.  The perpetrator needs to understand the seriousness of the event(s) and seek immediate counseling.  The bishop should try to help the perp get professional counseling.  Otherwise the perp will simply continue the bad behavior.  This also applies to other kinds of unlawful activity by members of the ward (theft, burglary, drug abuse, assault, etc.).

The mission of the LDS Church is to make bad people good, and good people better.  Can't really do that if you don't have compassion for both victims and perps.  Sometimes jail or prison time is the best thing for a wayward Mormon.

“People just need to exercise common sense, and severe assaults should immediately be reported to the police.”

Most definitely!

As for going to the bishop afterwards, I’ll leave that as optional though I would assume that any marital relation leading to divorce would be so something any good bishop would want to know about. Whether they have a restraining order in hand (an extremely good idea I think) or not is not absolutely necessary but any LDS woman is 100% free to get away from an abusive relationship. I have never known anything in the LDS Church which would compel a woman to remain in one. 

“If the victim thinks the bishop is not acting correctly, the victim should go to the stake pres. and complain.  In any case, the victim may need professional counseling, and the bishop can pay for that if necessary.” - You and I are in full agrement on this. 

As for your distinguishing bewteen civil / criminal and spiritual matters, you make a great point but it makes me wonder about the many countries in the world which the church exists but where the law lacks in sufficiency to protect women in abusive cases. O think here LDS women would very much seek comfort from their bishops. Here I think it is very important. And at tines very volatile to give the correct counsel to women whatever the circumstances may be. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Darren10

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

At this point, I forget that what thread that was. Could you link it? 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70202-rob-porter-and-mormonisms-metoo-moment/?do=findComment&comment=1209795635

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70202-rob-porter-and-mormonisms-metoo-moment/?do=findComment&comment=1209795635

Thank you Calm. I never entered that thread until now. I liked what you said, 

Quote

Victims are not on trial (technically speaking), so isn't it the prosecutors' responsibility to seek out witnesses?  If bishops are not coming forward, that may be because they can only be used as character witnesses and prosecutors don't see the need while defense attorneys do.  Unless bishops are witnesses to the actual abuse, all they can do is report what the victim told them and the victim can report that themselves.

So before getting upset by this, I would have to know how many were asked to do either.

PS:  a lawyer friend says bishops would be very unlikely to be called during the main trial where guilt is established (in their capacity as bishops; if they witnessed abuse that would be different); they might speak during sentencing to help determine impact of the abuse of the victims, but concerns over breach of confidentially for the victim or abuser probably discourage this.

Well stated. 

[juliann]

Quote

However, that does not mean she did nothing to provoke anger in her boyfriend. No doubt Buzzfeed readers are left with the impression that she did nothing at all. That very well maybe true but not guaranteed. I’ve dated girls who’d pinch me to inflict pain because she was upset at me, I’ve been tripped out of jealous resentment by one causing pain, pulled away from hanging out with friends simply because she wanted to spend time with me after being 20 minutes separated, and other annoying events were provided to me by ex girlfriends. Everyone of those instances triggered resentment in me. In some of those cases, anger. This is in addition it my 20 years of marriage. There have been moments when my wife really has pushed me to my limits of my patience and anger. So the thought of hitting a girl has crossed my mind more than once in my life; but except for my own being a total jerk moment in 6th grade, I have never hit a girl in my life. You simply walk away, get your mind off the situation, on to something else you’re calmer or calmer and in control. 

And this is why women aren't believed, because even as they are bleeding or even dead....they may have "provoked" it. That is code or earned or deserved it. Lovely. 

 

[juliann]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

This was discussed in the other thread...see my post(s) on the prosecutor not seeing a bishop in court for victims cause I don't want to repeat.

Abusers are often pretty good at conning others, like Porter, they have to to survive.  Those I have known present themselves to bishops as model citizens and are great helpers in the ward (my personal experience is in middle class type white wards.)  What prosecutor wants to hear that? The bishop wouldn't really have much to offer aside from what the wife told him,  that he believes her might not be helpful in a legal setting.

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Whether they have a restraining order in hand (an extremely good idea I think) or not is not absolutely necessary but any LDS woman is 100% free to get away from an abusive relationship. I have never known anything in the LDS Church which would compel a woman to remain in one. 

From this statement I assume you have never even had any encounters with an abused women who was staying.

There are so many reasons that any women does not feel free to get away, that it defies belief you may think they have 100% freedom just to leave.

If you are looking for something within the church that would compel a women to remain in one, how about:

 

"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

or

"Families are Forever"

or

"Celestial Eternal Marriage"

 

[CA Steve]

45 minutes ago, juliann said:

And this is why women aren't believed, because even as they are bleeding or even dead....they may have "provoked" it. That is code or earned or deserved it. Lovely. 

 

Juliann,

From my perspective the church places a lot more emphasis on dressing modestly for the women than it does the men. If you agree with that, do you think that has the unintended effect of making men believe women are partially to blame when women are sexually assaulted? That they provoked the attack by dressing immodestly?

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by CA Steve

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Juliann,

From my perspective the church places a lot more emphasis on dressing modestly for the women than it does the men. If you agree with that, do you think that has the unintended effect of making men believe women are partially to blame when women are sexually assaulted? That they provoked the attack by dressing immodestly?

 

 

This idea was around long before the church began to over-emphasize modesty as being about women's bodies.  It is, of course, an unintentional consequence,.  I see evidences of modesty being approached lately to be more true to its meaning now such as not bringing attention to yourself and moderation.

[SteveO]

I think women should be heard, but not always believed...

I don't know the whole story with each of these 20 women, what was actually said, or what they thought they heard.  But there always seem to be enough people who have the, "yes...but" stories.

My sister was 17 when they had the summer sales guys come through the ward.  They were tools, but my sister was 17.  She got too friendly with one of them one night, and she regretted it later.  She went to the bishop and said he raped her.  It was a lie, and I suspect the reason she went to the bishop was to get it on record, but without any legal blowback from going to the police.

My brother had an intimate affair with one of the girls in the ward.  After a year of dating, he broke up with her.  She said she was pregnant.  He got back together with her.  After a few months, and no sign of pregnancy, she claimed a miscarriage.  Her roommates, family friends, say there was never a pregnancy, much less a miscarriage.  He broke up with her again.  She went to the bishop and said he raped her.  My brother is an idiot, but he's not a rapist.

So I don't know.  I do know that personally, the #metoo moment for the church has been awful for men.  I also know that the #metoo moment has recently gone off the rails nationally.  There are certainly legitimate cases such as the situation with the Porter's,  but I would caution against believing every case that comes into the bishop's office--which is why I think they ought to be immediately referred to law enforcement.  

[juliann]

Just. Stop. False accusations are no more common than they are in any other felony. If you are running around worried that you are going to be accused of murder then you need help. If you are running around worried about being accused of rape only, you have a problem with women. 

[SteveO]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Just. Stop. False accusations are no more common than they are in any other felony. If you are running around worried that you are going to be accused of murder then you need help. If you are running around worried about being accused of rape only, you have a problem with women. 

Nope, that’s not how due process works.  And we don’t destroy innocent lives because false accusations are a fact of life.  The idea that 9 guilty go free so that the 1 innocent goes unpunished is a cornerstone and pillar of western thought for centuries.

I don’t worry about being accused of murder.  I worried of innocent men’s lives being destroyed.  Good Lord, I can’t believe this even needs to be said

[Calm]

There is due process and there is the safety of possible victims.

They are two different things and need to be addressed separately.

There are two possible innocents when accusations are made, the alleged predator and the alleged victim.

Why is it so important that the benefit of the doubt be given to the alleged predator that giving the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim is not only ignored, but rejected as a valid approach?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Calm

[SteveO]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is due process and there is the safety of possible victims.

They are two different things and need to be addressed separately.

There are two possible innocents when accusations are made, the alleged predator and the alleged victim.

Why is it so important that the benefit of the doubt be given to the alleged predator that giving the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim is not only ignored, but rejected as a valid approach?

Now you’ll have to tell me, as a woman, what is the possible motivation for these women going to the bishop?  What was the expectation here?  If it was to go to the authorities, why not go there first?  What’s the end game?

I’m honestly trying to understand here, because it was absolutely unfair the things done to my brother. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by SteveO

[Calm]

The same reason they might go to their father...an authority figure who is seen as safe that they can get both support and wisdom from during a time where they are unsure of themselves.  Victims of abuse are generally made to feel responsible for the abuse, both by the abuser and by the common personal perception we are responsible for the actions of those around.

Or do you mean the false reporters?

If that, there has been recent research into that behaviour, both for the frequency (probably around 2% of reports are false, fewer of these are even found out about by the general public or even the accused, far, far fewer end up prosecuted) and reasons.  I believe I linked to an article that reported the findings already in this thread.  A search on my name and "false" will bring it up wherever I posted.

If you are looking for individual judgments on these specific women, that requires mindreading.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

If you're interested I discussed things with the author, who I actually like reading a lot. I was rather happy for him when he got the Buzzfeed job. But I earnestly feel like this story really gives a misleading view of how common this is in the Church. 

[SteveO]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you are looking for individual judgments on these specific women, that requires mindreading.

I’m right there with you.  But I’m saying it also requires having been a fly on the wall during the interview.  It would also require being a mind reader for the bishop...that’s all I’m saying.  

[strappinglad]

Each time threads like this come up it is obvious that domestic violence is assumed to be men on women almost exclusively. My reading paints a different picture. Although this may end up with " battling statistics " , I present a link below which indicates that domestic violence/abuse is more a gender-equal-vice than shown by most headlines. I doubt that 1 man in a hundred would go to his Bishop with a complaint about his wife/partner abusing him, and if he did , I wonder if the first question from the Bishop would be , " what did you do to provoke her ? "

 

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by strappinglad

[The Nehor]

I would be interested to hear how the Bishop describes these interviews. Unfortunately we will never know.

[Darren10]

16 hours ago, CA Steve said:

From this statement I assume you have never even had any encounters with an abused women who was staying.

There are so many reasons that any women does not feel free to get away, that it defies belief you may think they have 100% freedom just to leave.

If you are looking for something within the church that would compel a women to remain in one, how about:

 

"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

or

"Families are Forever"

or

"Celestial Eternal Marriage"

 

You obviously have not read some previous posts of mine but regardless, keep this in context. What teachings of the LDS Church compels a woman to stay in an *abusive* relationship?

Abuse in a relationship *is* failure in the home.

Eternal marriage?

Quote

There are some men who, in a spirit of arrogance, think they are superior to women. They do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority they demean her. It has been said, “Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself” (Alexander Walker, in Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book[1923], 204).

How very true that is. We see the bitter fruit of that degradation all about us. Divorce is one of its results. This evil runs rampant through our society. It is the outcome of disrespect for one’s marriage partner. It manifests itself in neglect, in criticism, in abuse, in abandonment. We in the Church are not immune from it.

Jesus declared, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6).

Quote

God has given us the priesthood, and that priesthood cannot be exercised, “only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–42).

The Women in Our Lives

Quote

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and … the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

“That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

Quote

You will become involved in the search for an eternal companion. You will wish to marry in the house of the Lord. For you, there should be no alternative. Be careful, lest you destroy your eligibility to be so married. Have a wonderful time. But keep your courtship within the bounds of rigid self-discipline. The Lord has given a mandate and a promise. He has said, “Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly.” Then there follows the promise that “thy confidence [shall] wax strong in the presence of God; and … the Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion” (D&C 121:45–46).

The wife you choose will be your equal. Paul declared, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11).

In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.

She is not your servant, your chattel, nor anything of the kind.

How tragic and utterly disgusting a phenomenon is wife abuse. Any man in this Church who abuses his wife, who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her is unworthy to hold the priesthood. Though he may have been ordained, the heavens will withdraw, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved, and it will be amen to the authority of the priesthood of that man.

Bold mine. 

Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood

Where in he LDS Church is there room for abusing women? 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

On 2/15/2018 at 1:13 PM, juliann said:

And this is why women aren't believed, because even as they are bleeding or even dead....they may have "provoked" it. That is code or earned or deserved it. Lovely. 

 

Really? A woman goes into the ER bleeding and the thoughts of men are, “she provoked it”? A woman is rolled in dead at the same ER and the men typically think “she provoked it”? Where are you drawing these conclusions from? Seriously, source please for when women bleed or are dead and men think, “she provoked it and therefore deserved it”? Good heavens you are vile. 

You are suspended as of 2/20/18. It is taking us awhile to catch up on all the vile insults.

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

Abusers are often pretty good at conning others, like Porter, they have to to survive.  Those I have known present themselves to bishops as model citizens and are great helpers in the ward (my personal experience is in middle class type white wards.)  What prosecutor wants to hear that? The bishop wouldn't really have much to offer aside from what the wife told him,  that he believes her might not be helpful in a legal setting.

“What prosecutor wants to hear that?”

Patterico would. Also, there is a DA in our former ward. I’ll message him your question.