Article in "This People" magazine Spring, 1995 pg. 37-40
© by Carlfred B. Broderick

Is there a point beyond which one passes from being a patient wife to being a consenting victim of physical and emotional abuse?

        The sister who gave the lesson somehow managed to communicate the fact, without saying so, that she had lived the principle she taught. Her subject had been the responsibility of wives to be patient with their husbands' imperfections. Men, she acknowledged, often had the tendency to be too much influenced by the World and too little by the Spirit. Often they were insensitive and unappreciative. The remedy was neither to give up on them nor to try to make them over into something finer. Rather, the spiritually underdeveloped spouse ought to be led by unconditional love and a good example to see the better path.

        Various sisters responded differently to the message. Certain ones nodded wisely, serene in the confirmation of their own conviction. Others sighed and added the burden of repentance in this thing to their already full measure of challenges. But one outspoken young woman came up afterwards to express a view shared by some others who lacked the courage to voice it. "Patient and forgiveness are okay to a point, " she said, "but what if your husband is a jerk?"

        The question, through inelegantly phrased, is a profoundly important one. What if your husband really is a jerk? What if living with him is spiritually toxic and demeaning? Is it righteous counsel to advise wives (or husbands, for that matter) to set no limits on a spouse's bad behavior? Isn't there in fact some point beyond which one passes from being a patient wife to being a consenting victim of physical and emotional abuse; from being  a loyal and nonjudgmental mate to being an accessory to dishonest business dealings, sexual immorality, or child abuse? 

        The trick, of course, is not in agreeing that there must be such a point, but in identifying it clearly in one's own situation. Are there righteous principles that can guide one in the decision that this far is too far?

        Perhaps a few examples may serve to raise some of these issues.

        Carol was a widow with a fifteen-year-old daughter. She decided to marry a charming faithful member that she had met some months before at a singles' function. He had three teenage boys, one preparing for his mission. Given their age and sex, they seemed reasonably well-behaved and personable. It was decided that they would sell his house and move into hers because it was bigger and in a better neighborhood. After the marriage, there were the usual to be expected hassles with getting the boys to respect her furniture, to do their fair share of the chores, etc. It bothered her that her husband always sided with his sons rather than working with her to find solutions, bus she accepted all of this with as much grace as she could, understanding that these issues were not too unusual in blended families. But certain other issues raised the question of limits with her. First, she found that the decor in the master bedroom reminder her uncomfortably of her first marriage, she determined to redecorate it, using her own money to do so. She informed him of her plan, expecting him to be pleased about it and was shocked when he not only declared the idea stupid and neurotic but forbad her doing it. She was not accustomed to being forbidden to decorate her own home. 

        About the same time, her young daughter asked for a lock on her door. No one had actually disturbed her privacy, but she felt exposed and insecure with all of these new male presences in the house. She thought a lock would help her feel more secure. This seemed a reasonable request to her mother, but her stepfather was mortally offended at the implication that she was less safe with him and his sons than she was before. Again, he forbid his wife to install any such affront to his family's morals. In this case, she felt that her daughter's comfort should prevail, and she installed the lock herself one day while he was at work. When he discovered it, he ripped it out of the door, cursing her and her paranoid, neurotic daughter in front of the assembled family. 

        There were other, similar incidents that had the accumulative effect of making this woman feel that somehow, by marrying, she and her daughter had become an oppressed minority in her own home. Most would agree that her husband was being "a real jerk." Question: Was she justified in doing something about it, and if so, what?

        Let us look at a second real-life case. Anna had a temple marriage, but despite this, she discovered that her husband was addicted to pornography. Soon after their honeymoon he began bringing home sexually explicit videos, pressuring her to join him in watching them. He also thought that a little wine would loosen up her inhibitions and that the combination would add immeasurably to their sex life. Sometimes he hinted that if she altogether refused him in this, he would be driven to meet his needs elsewhere. (Of course, this would be her fault if it happened, since it didn't need to be that way if she would only loosen up and try it his way.) She mentioned her dilemma to a girlfriend at work who assured her that men were just like that, and that if you could learn to please them in bed, it made everything else go a lot better. "Hey," she said "you might even get to like it."  Latter-day Saints, at least, would agree that her husband was being "a real jerk." Question: what should she do?

        There are an enormous variety of ways to be offensive in marriage, but we will settle for one final example. Cindy admitted that she was stubborn and had a temper. The trouble was that so did her husband. She had grown up in a family that argued and then made up afterwards, and that pattern seemed pretty normal to her. But her father had never, in all those years of arguments, ever physically attacked her mother, so she was totally unprepared when, in the midst of a fierce debate, he told her to just shut up, and when she didn't, he hit her hard enough to knock her across the room. Then he stamped out of the house and drove around until he had calmed down. Later, he said he was really sorry, but that she drove him to it, and besides he had really only shoved her, not actually hit her with his fist. He said he really loved her and he'd never do it again and they made up-just like her folks always did after a quarrel. 

        But it did happen again. In fact it became a regular cycle. They would quarrel, he would hit her and then leave till he calmed down, then he would come home and beg her forgiveness, promise not to do it again, and they would make up. A few times he really hurt her and she had to have stitches taken, but mostly, he just humiliated and frightened her. Sometimes she thought that if it were only the two of them, she could handle it, but as the children got older, they would be awakened by the racket and she hated for them to be exposed to this kind of violence. Thinking how it might affect the children was the worst of it for her. She considered going to the bishop about it, and almost mentioned it in a temple recommend interview, but her husband and the bishop were good friends and hunting buddies, and she just couldn't bring herself to do it.  A few times she thought of leaving him, but she had three little children and nowhere to go--and besides, at heart she knew she really loved this jerk she was married to. Question: What should she do? What could she do?

        In considering these women's dilemmas (and all of the similar ones we haven't the space to illustrate), several things seem clear. First, these women have just complaints. None of them are perfect wives, and it is probable that each contributed to the problems she faced; but none deserved the response she got. Each of these husbands crossed the line from acceptable to unacceptable behavior. Second, none of these men showed any inclination to change their behavior. In fact each basically blamed his wife for his actions, taking no responsibility for them himself, much less considered honest repentance. Third, if she does nothing to change the pattern, it will continue, and she becomes, through her inaction, an accomplice to it. Fourth, marriage vows are among the most sacred a man or woman can make, but one is not required to participate in humiliating subjugation, sin, or abuse to honor them.  In fact, these dishonor the vows and the God before whom they were taken.  

        Several gospel principles would seem to apply. These occur to me. You may think of others.

        1.) The Lord cares about the plight of women and children who are abused physically or spiritually by their husbands and fathers. Jacob, the Book of Mormon prophet, was addressing families whose fathers had committed the particular sin of adultery, but the principle applies to any serious offense:

For behold, I, the Lord, have seen sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people... because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people... shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. ... Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad example, before them (Jacob 2:31-32, 35)

    2.) Although the Lord counsels patience and long-suffering in the face of persecution in the particular case when the welfare of our homes and children is at stake, he counsels us that a protective obligation sets limits on the application of that more general principle. I do not believe it stretches the parallels unduly to apply the advice he gave the Nephites when they were struggling to protect their families and their right to worship and obey the God of their Fathers. 

They were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and thei children, and their all, yea, for their rights of worship and their church. And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them ... that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. [But]... ye shall defend your families. (Alma 43:45-27)

    3.) Clearly, there is an obligation to make every effort to resolve the problem within the marriage. Counsel from priesthood leaders should be sought, and, if it seems appropriate, professional counseling from a competent therapist who shares your values might be helpful. Often these interventions may lead your husband to reconsider his ways. It is an unhappy truth that sometimes nothing seems to help, and he may persist in his offensive behavior. The Savior counseled the Church on what its course of action ought to be toward those whose offensive behavior threatens the integrity of the Church. Again , it does not seem to me to be stretching the parallel to apply this guideline to the family:

Ye shall not [initially] cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth ... then shall ye receive him ... But if he repent not he shall nt be numbered among my people that he may not destroy my people. (3 Nephi 18: 30-31)

Paul elaborates on the conditions that justify breaking up a marriage faithfully entered into:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hat Christ with Belial? or what part hat he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hat the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hat said: I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

        All of us find things in our spouses that we do not appreciate and that we wish were different. Perhaps most of us could find areas where genuine spousal repentance would be in order (leaving aside for the moment our own failings). Most of us understand that marriage is a matter of give and take, of forbearance and forgiveness. But there are limits, no protection against the influence of the Adversary in our homes. With the help of the Spirit and inspired counsel, we can determine what those limits need to be in our own situation--and what to do if those limits are exceeded.

Carlfred B. Broderick was a professor of sociology and was executive director of Ph.D. Marriage and Family Therapy Training Program at the University of California. Brother Broderick died in 1999.