Woman blames the church and not her ex-husband, for being abused by him

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not trying to argue anything different. I’m just saying that they’re not making it up, as it is a quote from the article.

And since Yahoo isn’t known for spinning things in favor of the church I think most who read the article are assuming it’s accurate.  Especially those like myself who aren’t on TikTok, and never watched those things.

I agree it is important to hear it from her own words though. 

That’s all fine. The issue I have with Gopher’s post, was he knows better. 40 hours a week is not possible. But rather than seek clarification, he decided to essentially call the woman gullible and stupid. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is a fair point. One of the key facts here is how much the bishops really knew about Jake's double life. Jake said he'd confessed to them, but did he really?

I suspect he really did. He practically had the bishop's number of speed dial when he wanted to confess about the second date. It seems clear he really believed the Church, but really couldn't control himself. Confessing his repeated sins is consistent with that.

I have my own personal experience with priesthood leaders disfellowshipping people for sexual sins and then telling them to lie about it ever happening to their future spouses, so that part seems quite plausible to me.

And even if the bishop thought Jake was the purist human being to walk the planet now that Joseph Smith is dead, why would he possibly endorse them getting married 6 weeks after they met? The idea that marrying a stranger is a good gambit to avoid the sin of sex before marriage is messed up.

I completely agree. If it all went down the way that she is reporting, then that really is messed up.

But I have real hesitations in believing everything that she is purporting her husband has claimed about his meetings with his priesthood leaders. Not because it’s not plausible, but because his actions, which seem to have repeated for decades, show him to be an untrustworthy person.  One who is, or at least was, OK with hurting other people to serve his own interests. And downplaying his choices in his life and blaming them on the church and his leaders doesn’t seem that unbelievable to me given the things she said about him.

Not that he is an evil person, but I know a few people  who have made some similar choices and blaming it on everybody but themselves is their common MO.

But I’m not discounting the generalities of her story as I said. It also wouldn’t surprise me if a leader or two gave really bad advice and counsel in the belief that getting him married, would somehow fix him.

[gopher]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s all fine. The issue I have with Gopher’s post, was he knows better. 40 hours a week is not possible. But rather than seek clarification, he decided to essentially call the woman gullible and stupid. 

No, I didn't call the woman gullible and stupid.  I thought she was exaggerating how many hours her husband spent in his calling.  But thanks for the clarification that she really said 4 to 8 hours a week instead of what the article reported.  The article was written by a college student studying Social work.  I'm guessing she didn't bother to check to make sure what she posted was accurate.

[gopher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They are reacting to a quote from the article—

“I see a man that I lived with for 24 years, he was under constant stress, who always acted like he was about to explode because he was dying under the five kids and the callings that sucked 40 hours of his life,” Gage said

Yes, I assumed the article accurately quoted the woman.  I'd never heard of Yourtango before, but I also saw this article on Yahoo so I assumed they had some standards for articles they post.  Here's a sample of articles post on www.yourtango.com about church members.  A few aren't negative.

https://www.yourtango.com/content/search?search_api_aggregation_1=mormon

I feel sorry for this poor woman though.  Too bad there isn't a Carfax for future husbands.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree. If it all went down the way that she is reporting, then that really is messed up.

But I have real hesitations in believing everything that she is purporting her husband has claimed about his meetings with his priesthood leaders. Not because it’s not plausible, but because his actions, which seem to have repeated for decades, show him to be an untrustworthy person.  One who is, or at least was, OK with hurting other people to serve his own interests. And downplaying his choices in his life and blaming them on the church and his leaders doesn’t seem that unbelievable to me given the things she said about him.

Not that he is an evil person, but I know a few people  who have made some similar choices and blaming it on everybody but themselves is their common MO.

But I’m not discounting the generalities of her story as I said. It also wouldn’t surprise me if a leader or two gave really bad advice and counsel in the belief that getting him married, would somehow fix him.

I think this is a very good and reasonable response to her story. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, gopher said:

No, I didn't call the woman gullible and stupid.  I thought she was exaggerating how many hours her husband spent in his calling.  But thanks for the clarification that she really said 4 to 8 hours a week instead of what the article reported.  The article was written by a college student studying Social work.  I'm guessing she didn't bother to check to make sure what she posted was accurate.

I apologize for misreading you then. I took your comment to mean she was gullible for believing he was spending long hours away at church when he was obviously cheating. 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree. If it all went down the way that she is reporting, then that really is messed up.

But I have real hesitations in believing everything that she is purporting her husband has claimed about his meetings with his priesthood leaders. Not because it’s not plausible, but because his actions, which seem to have repeated for decades, show him to be an untrustworthy person.  One who is, or at least was, OK with hurting other people to serve his own interests. And downplaying his choices in his life and blaming them on the church and his leaders doesn’t seem that unbelievable to me given the things she said about him.

Not that he is an evil person, but I know a few people  who have made some similar choices and blaming it on everybody but themselves is their common MO.

But I’m not discounting the generalities of her story as I said. It also wouldn’t surprise me if a leader or two gave really bad advice and counsel in the belief that getting him married, would somehow fix him.

I think we're basically on the same page. I would emphasize a couple of things.

1- I don't think he is or was "OK with hurting other people to serve his own interests." I think he had some addictions and compulsions he couldn't control, but just because he couldn't control himself doesn't mean he was OK with the consequences of his behavior.

2- He doesn't blame his actions, addictions and compulsions on the Church or the Church's leaders. What he blames on the Church is the advice they gave on how he should deal with his inability to control himself.

Whether or not the description of the advice they were given by the priesthood hierarchy is accurate or is a caricature is anybody's guess. Maybe she is being a bit unfair in how she describes them. Or maybe she lost the game of bishop roulette.  

Edited August 3, 2023 by Analytics

[rpn]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The EQ president meets this really sweet, 19-year old virgin, and tells her that he is going to introduce her to her eternal husban

This idea that getting married solves all sexual and porn issues has been believed and pushed for waaaay too long.   Hopefully not as much in 2023, but still out there.  (And it has to be men because surely all women know that sex is NOT and will never be the most important part of any intimate relationship, which can't really function at all successfully until both parties are fully in control of their sexual desires, and have the impulse to put their spouse as an equal in the giving/receiving/more/patience spectrum.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think we're basically on the same page. I would emphasize a couple of things.

1- I don't think he is or was "OK with hurting other people to serve his own interests." I think he had some addictions and compulsions he couldn't control, but just because he couldn't control himself doesn't mean he was OK with the consequences of his behavior.

2- He doesn't blame his actions, addictions and compulsions on the Church or the Church's leaders. What he blames on the Church is their advice the Church gave on how they should deal with his inability to control himself.

Whether or not the description of the advice they were given by the priesthood hierarchy is accurate or is a caricature is anybody's guess. Maybe she is being a bit unfair in how she describes them. Or maybe she lost the game of bishop roulette.  

1-I can't get behind the idea that being abusive is out of someone's control.  I think that excuse almost always falls apart when you look into an abuser's life and see that they actually can control it quite well, with people that they know they can't abuse and get away with it.  Like at work, at church, or with adult males, for example.  If a man abuses his wife and kids and no one else in his life then yes, he can control it and yes he is "ok" with doing it in the moment, even if he regrets it later.

2-Well, we don't really know much about him either way because all we have to go off of is what she is saying, but my point (which wasn't very clear) was that I'm not putting much stock in her account of what he is claiming his leaders said to him.  It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't being completely honest with her about that (since not being honest with her seems to have been a regular thing for him). 

And if he wasn't being honest with her it would be because it was easier to say "the bishop told me not to tell you" than to say "I chose not to tell you".

Edited August 3, 2023 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

This is probably slightly off base, but I need to bring up a recent podcast I listened to with the guy that protested one on one bishop worthiness interviews. Sam Young was his name and he mentioned being a bishop and never asking certain questions that he has heard many youth have been asked and he was shocked to say the least. When he asked his daughters if they were asked illicit questions one or two had. One said she was asked if she masturbated and she had never heard of the word, and when she looked it up it brought up some pornish stuff. This makes me think that a lot of youth have been exposed to porn through looking up words such as masturbation, or even the word porn! The church should have never let this happen or even let the bishops decide. But draw the line on asking these kinds of questions. And shaming youth for doing it and then causing cycles somewhat like this Jake dude. I'd like to ask if he was asked these types of questions by his bishop and if it led him to porn. https://www.mormonishpodcast.org/episode/sam-young-and-lds-child-protection-policy-changes-with-inside-outs-ian-wilks-and-jim-bennett Sam speaks about 7 1/2 min. in. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

Abusers lie to their family about what they confess and what their leaders told them. So @bluebell, I agree that any information filtered through her husband is suspect. I think the church is trying to do better on these issues. A lack of proper training is a huge issue. 
 

I know a Stake where the Bishops are begging for more guidance training from stake leaders and not getting it. (A 2nd time Bishop in this stake  feels sorry for the 1st timers)

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Abusers lie to their family about what they confess and what their leaders told them. So @bluebell, I agree that any information filtered through her husband is suspect. I think the church is trying to do better on these issues. A lack of proper training is a huge issue. 
 

I know a Stake where the Bishops are begging for more guidance training from stake leaders and not getting it. (A 2nd time Bishop in this stake  feels sorry for the 1st timers)

It's such a crap shoot when it comes to bishops and stake presidents.  More training and less "do whatever you think the spirit is telling you to do" would probably be helpful.  Good men with good intentions can still do a lot of harm if they aren't careful.  I agree that I think the church has recognized this in the past and is trying to do better.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is probably slightly off base, but I need to bring up a recent podcast I listened to with the guy that protested one on one bishop worthiness interviews. Sam Young was his name and he mentioned being a bishop and never asking certain questions that he has heard many youth have been asked and he was shocked to say the least. When he asked his daughters if they were asked illicit questions one or two had. One said she was asked if she masturbated and she had never heard of the word, and when she looked it up it brought up some pornish stuff. This makes me think that a lot of youth have been exposed to porn through looking up words such as masturbation, or even the word porn! The church should have never let this happen or even let the bishops decide. But draw the line on asking these kinds of questions. And shaming youth for doing it and then causing cycles somewhat like this Jake dude. I'd like to ask if he was asked these types of questions by his bishop and if it led him to porn. https://www.mormonishpodcast.org/episode/sam-young-and-lds-child-protection-policy-changes-with-inside-outs-ian-wilks-and-jim-bennett Sam speaks about 7 1/2 min. in. 

I think kids are exposed to those words and ideas in school and other places far more frequently than they would get from a bishop's interview.  My wife and I recently watched a maturation video from around the 80s/90s.  It was fairly accurate and quite entertaining and we plan to show it to our older kids.  It talks about masturbation and porn in it.  This was a video that was presented in school as one of those required maturation meetings (though parents can opt out of them).

When I was a kid and one year before the required maturation presentation, my school messed up and switched the pamphlets to hand out to the kids.  They handed out the girl pamphlets to the boys and vice versa.  The school bus ride that day was quite the thing.  All the boys were passing around the pamphlets, including to younger kids like myself.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

I think any wife should be suspicious if her husband says he's spending 40 hours a week away from home with his calling in the church.  In this case, it sounds like he was really using that time to have affairs with other women. 

And/or with men.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

And it has to be men because surely all women know that sex is NOT and will never be the most important part of any intimate relationship,

I wish this was true, but I think many women buy sexual compatibility and other sexual aspects are the most important aspect in a long term relationship, that it’s the glue that will keep them together, that it’s the primary, deepest way to communicate love.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

This idea that getting married solves all sexual and porn issues has been believed and pushed for waaaay too long.   Hopefully not as much in 2023, but still out there.  (And it has to be men because surely all women know that sex is NOT and will never be the most important part of any intimate relationship, which can't really function at all successfully until both parties are fully in control of their sexual desires, and have the impulse to put their spouse as an equal in the giving/receiving/more/patience spectrum.

That is ridiculous. It has to be a polygamous relationship to solve all sexual and porn issues.

Edited August 3, 2023 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I think kids are exposed to those words and ideas in school and other places far more frequently than they would get from a bishop's interview. 

This.

Like...a thousand times this.

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

And if he wasn't being honest with her it would be because it was easier to say "the bishop told me not to tell you" than to say "I chose not to tell you".

Or to claim he spent hours and hours endlessly working with the bishop because saying that makes him look sincere in trying to stop, etc.  If I were her (well, I wouldn’t be in that situation because I wouldn’t have married someone without knowing them relatively well first as in met and spent time with family, etc.), I wouldn’t trust anything I hadn’t been part of myself even for something relatively minor because I know how easy it is for our brains to accept we did much more or much less than we really did (meaning we may easily make excuses for ourselves, but we also can be nasty critics of ourselves).

Edited August 3, 2023 by Calm

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But (if this woman is to be believed), the church* encouraged this young woman to marry a man with sex addictive behaviors that were known to the church but not the woman.

While I don't think the church has an obligation to disclose prior sexual sins to a potential spouse, I do agree that, to the extent this is an accurate representation of events, this was likely bad counsel.

Marriage isn't a cure-all. Marriage is hard work.

 

Quote

The church discouraged disclosure of these issues.

This one's a bit trickier for me.

For starters, I'm more than a bit skeptical that all of his priesthood leaders told him to lie about this to his wife. If this really was ongoing throughout their marriage as she suggests (20+ years), I have a hard time believing that none of those leaders ever thought he needed to make restitution to his wife as part of the repentance process. I suspect we're not getting the whole story here.

If we are limiting it to just the premarital stuff, I can see a bishop saying that he isn't obligated to disclose all of his past behavior - assuming he had repented and was no longer beset by any other problems. And while I agree that couples need to be open and honest with each other, I also believe that not everybody needs all of the details of their partner's previous exploits (it isn't always helpful). That being said, that is the sort of thing that a couple needs to work out between themselves.

 

Quote

When early in the marriage, a divorce was sought by the husband, the church threatened the husband with eternal damnation, if he broke his covenants.

Well, it obviously didn't work.

Because, last I checked, stepping out on your wife is breaking your covenants.

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

this was likely bad counse

Can you see any situation where telling someone to get married after six weeks of knowing a guy because they had made out makes sense?  Unless maybe they were pregnant and very in love and were generally sensible or at least had a good support system in place?

Using one person as the solution to another’s issues without regard to how beneficial it is for them is wrong, wrong, wrong.  She had the right to find someone who was a better fit for her, who wouldn’t carry that baggage if she wanted a different path (not saying the bishop should have told her, just saying he should have encouraged her to date others first).

I find the EQ President’s action very disturbing. I would like to know why he thought this was a good fit (was he just thinking about the needs of the man or did he really think he was strong in ways she needed?), if he knew the guy she was already hooked up with (maybe he knew stuff about this man and wanted to save her from being harmed by him or maybe he was friends with her future husband and didn’t care).  I would also like to know why she was so willing to accept his counsel as so important she broke up with someone.  I find that very strange.  I can’t think of very many women in my experience who would do that if they were in a relationship, let alone what appears to have been a committed relationship (she is engaged to someone already).  To me this is a red flag that something is going on with her.

My parents were both engaged to others when they met each other, so I get the fairytale appeal of that scenario…I was brought up on it as the ultimate romance.  I wouldn’t have let that possibility tempt me from dumping a good thing though.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Calm

[gopher]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's such a crap shoot when it comes to bishops and stake presidents.  More training and less "do whatever you think the spirit is telling you to do" would probably be helpful.  Good men with good intentions can still do a lot of harm if they aren't careful.  I agree that I think the church has recognized this in the past and is trying to do better.

What do you think about the fairly recent change for Bishops to have the EQ and RS presidents take over some of the counseling responsibilities in the ward?  From the handbook for EQ/RS Presidents: "Under the bishop’s guidance, counsel with adult members of the ward.  Only the bishop counsels ward members about matters of worthiness, abuse, and approval to use fast-offering funds."  I've seen Bishops use other members as well to help counsel about a wide range of matters.  It allows the Bishop to offer counseling from someone in the ward that may have personal experiences or insights that may be helpful.  So while the Bishop would have to counsel with the husband in this case since there's abuse involved, a RS president or counselor could meet with the sister instead of the Bishop.  I doubt a RS president would have encouraged her to marry this guy.

Of course, I think people also need to realize when they are at the point they need to seek professional help.  But it can be helpful to have someone in the ward to talk to especially if they've gone through similar experiences as you (divorce, death in the family, job loss, wayward child, etc).

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, gopher said:

What do you think about the fairly recent change for Bishops to have the EQ and RS presidents take over some of the counseling responsibilities in the ward?  From the handbook for EQ/RS Presidents: "Under the bishop’s guidance, counsel with adult members of the ward.  Only the bishop counsels ward members about matters of worthiness, abuse, and approval to use fast-offering funds."  I've seen Bishops use other members as well to help counsel about a wide range of matters.  It allows the Bishop to offer counseling from someone in the ward that may have personal experiences or insights that may be helpful.  So while the Bishop would have to counsel with the husband in this case since there's abuse involved, a RS president or counselor could meet with the sister instead of the Bishop.  I doubt a RS president would have encouraged her to marry this guy.

Of course, I think people also need to realize when they are at the point they need to seek professional help.  But it can be helpful to have someone in the ward to talk to especially if they've gone through similar experiences as you (divorce, death in the family, job loss, wayward child, etc).

I've never seen it utilized so I'm not sure how helpful it is.  My gut reaction is that having more people available to help is probably a good thing, but it could go wrong.  In this case, the RS president never would have been involved since it was a confession of sin that brought the bishop into contact with the woman, and it sounds like it was at that point he was recommending marriage (according to her).

[The Nehor]

I get unreliable narrator vibes with that story. I could see all the individual things happening but all of them to the same person…….yeah. If I were her I wouldn’t blame the church at that point. I’d blame God.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Can you see any situation where telling someone to get married after six weeks of knowing a guy because they had made out makes sense? 

I can understand a bishop counseling a couple to not forestall marriage any longer than necessary in order to prevent themselves from falling into serious sexual transgression. And if you believe a couple is trending that direction (and quickly) then I can sort of understand someone recommending they hurry up and get married.

While it's not something I can see myself ever recommending (not like I'm ever going to be a bishop), I do think that if a couple is really committed both to each other and the gospel then they ought to be able to make things work. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Using one person as the solution to another’s issues without regard to how beneficial it is for them is wrong, wrong, wrong.  

I completely agree. But is that what the bishop was really doing or is that just her interpretation of what the bishop was doing? 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I find the EQ President’s action very disturbing. I would like to know why he thought this was a good fit (was he just thinking about the needs of the man or did he really think he was strong in ways she needed?), if he knew the guy she was already hooked up with (maybe he knew stuff about this man and wanted to save her from being harmed by him or maybe he was friends with her future husband and didn’t care).  I would also like to know why she was so willing to accept his counsel as so important she broke up with someone.  I find that very strange.  I can’t think of very many women in my experience who would do that if they were in a relationship, let alone what appears to have been a committed relationship (she is engaged to someone already).  To me this is a red flag that something is going on with her.

Yeah, the whole situation seems very strange to me. Who dumps their fiancé and then marries someone else less than two months later?  

I've got a nagging feeling that we are missing a lot of important details. 

 

[Vanguard]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Whether or not the description of the advice they were given by the priesthood hierarchy is accurate or is a caricature is anybody's guess. Maybe she is being a bit unfair in how she describes them. Or maybe she lost the game of bishop roulette.  

This. We simply can't know. We have only her report to go on. It might be interesting to explore the ramifications of said advice but for all we know much of this could largely be a fiction. Though there are certainly real examples of abuse and ignorant advice within the Church, there are likewise extreme characterizations that falsely leave the Church in the most unfavorable light possible. Who's to know which is the case here?