heather-mount-8c3zjKrkkBA-unsplash (3) (1)

The Church Was My Escape from Misogyny and Violence

Joining the Church of Jesus Christ healed me from the violence and exploitation that is common to many women and taught me to expect more from men.
The Deseret News published a slightly abridged version of this article last week, “The Church Was My Escape from Misogyny and Violence” (June 7, 2022). Because we consider this such an important contribution to the larger conversation, we publish today an extended version of her essay with a bit more elaboration from Meagan in advance of Father’s Day weekend.

I recently came across another Twitter thread reproving church members for taking issue with the way they’re being represented by Under the Banner of Heaven. According to these voices, the brazen departures from the facts surrounding the murder, the mischaracterization of the innocent people involved, the manipulations and fabrications of church history, and the demeaning portrayal of Latter-day Saint culture are forgivable in light of widespread elite agreement that this faith community is mired in violence and misogyny.

I suspect that what church members are really experiencing is a kind of punishment for not aligning with elite culture more broadly. It doesn’t really matter that there’s no evidence to suggest either that Latter-day Saints are especially violent or that when they are violent, it’s because of their religious beliefs. It doesn’t even matter that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. The point is that the Church and the cultural norms of its orthodox members are guilty of a kind of cultural violence and misogyny by not more fully incorporating progressive attitudes about gender and sexuality. For this, we are told, we have brought upon ourselves UTBOH’s counterfactual, contrived depiction of not only our own origin story but of one of the greatest tragedies to have occurred among church members in its history.

In the background of this discussion are people who claim that their experiences with the Church have left them “traumatized.” Certainly, real abuse occurs, and there can be no tolerance for it. Christ Himself demanded as much when He said that anyone who harmed a believer should be cast into the sea with a millstone around his neck. Church leaders, too, have spoken forcefully and imposed discipline on those guilty of abuse.

Some of these pronouncements could only come from someone whose life has largely been shielded from the kinds of abuse and trauma that Church teachings and culture largely prevent.

But in certain circles, it’s become acceptable to talk about church teachings and moral norms as a kind of psychological “violence” that leaves people emotionally “traumatized.” Not infrequently do I encounter online discussions in which those who have never experienced trauma or abuse take it upon themselves to speak for victims, adopting an angry and adversarial posture toward the Church as evidence of their conviction. For reasons I hope to make clear, some of their pronouncements strike me as dangerously detached from reality—pronouncements that could only come from someone whose life has largely been shielded from the kinds of abuse and trauma that Church teachings and culture largely prevent (though, not perfectly of course). Although these kinds of abuse and trauma are widespread in many parts of our society, they seem to get relatively little attention online or in popular media.

As a young girl, I grew up surrounded by poverty (at times extreme), physical violence, and drugs. I don’t mean the psychological trauma of sitting through an uncomfortable discussion about the law of chastity. I mean the kind where someone chokes you after you complain that their pornographic video is keeping you awake on a school night.

The kind where you’re living in a tent and eating condiments.

The kind where you remove the car’s spark plugs so it can’t be used for another beer run and then hide in the garage armed with a boat paddle in case the adults discover what you did.

We lived in various low-income housing, and the first time I can remember a man making me feel dirty was when I was five and an adult wolf-whistled at me on my roller skates. I was 6 when a man in a convertible pulled up next to me and exposed himself to me.

My parents divorced when I was 2, and my mother’s second husband would beat her, once smashing her forehead on a faucet and punching her so hard that it tore the skin. His nephew tried to get me to touch his privates while we played a board game in my room.

Because my parents were poor, I didn’t fly out to visit my biological father; I took Greyhound buses, where I spent two days each way playing avoid-the-predator. En route one time, a 40-something man decided that what the 12-year-old girl next to him really needed was a shoulder massage.

My dating life as a teenager was an endless series of males, often 4 or 5 years my senior, doing everything conceivable, lawful or not, to try and satisfy their desires. Thankfully, my mother had impressed upon me the importance of waiting for intimacy, but occasionally the forcefulness of these encounters left me afraid for my life. The predatory males in my life came from a variety of social classes and backgrounds: some were outcasts, some were popular, some were working-class, and some were college students from stable families. Some were brazen and aggressive, but most were simply manipulative or opportunistic. They weren’t necessarily malicious; they were just taking their cues and the limits to their desires from the wisdom of our wider culture.

Attending church was my first experience where trustworthy males were the norm.

Three of my friends had babies before we graduated from high school. All of them were abandoned by the fathers. This was fairly unremarkable in our working-class community; the fault for premarital pregnancy always rested with women because everyone figured that blaming a man for abandoning his responsibilities would be like blaming the clouds for making it rain. Lacking any significant external family support (because their support often consists of other abandoned women), the departure of men from these women’s lives often consigns them to low-wage, menial jobs, sometimes for life.

Such had been my experience of overt violence, misogyny, and trauma when, at the age of 15, I met missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

One of the first things that drew my interest in the Church was that not a single missionary made any attempt to engage with me on a sexual level. Attending church was my first experience where trustworthy males were the norm. It was an earth-shattering revelation to me that you could have a culture where men act like that consistently. All the adult males in the church treated me like a daughtera cherished onesomething that my own father had failed to do. 

And these experiences continued when I enrolled at Brigham Young University, where I was never once pressured for sex in five years of dating male 20-somethings. In those years of both casual dates and multiple long-term relationships, I was never once struck, called a name, whistled at, groped, or complimented on one of my body parts. I went on to work as a secretary for the Church’s Family History Department, where men would regularly open doors for me, chide each other for not showing me enough deference, display obvious biases toward my opinions and desires, and try to set me up with their sons.

When I finally left Utah, it was with an elevated sense of inherent value that nothing in my childhood would suggest was possible. This is the principal point I wish to make. My childhood left me shot through with fear and shameinnumerable layers of it. I may not recover from all of it in this life. However, the healing and the real happiness I’ve experienced so far are nothing short of miraculous. And it is largely because of my association with the Church and the love bestowed on me by the good and faithful men in it.

Contrary to popular perception, men in leadership capacities in my faith are not “bosses” but brothers and fathers, which I desperately needed. I don’t know why or how, but I know that I needed to feel this kind of love, particularly from men.

Few of these men knew anything of my past, and some of them had no specific stewardship over me. But at every turn, I found myself inexplicably but genuinely lovedeven adoredby honorable, worthy, selfless men. I came to know God’s own love in large part through interactions with inspired priesthood leaders who became conduits for God’s own pure and rationally unaccountable love that put my shame to shame. A counselor in one of my ward bishoprics drove 30 minutes each way to deliver me to seminary every morningwhich began at 6 am. Another man in my ward, a country veterinarian, offered to pay for me to serve a mission (about $7,500 at the time) despite the fact that the Church has funds for poor missionaries. A former student ward bishop has remained in my life as another father to this day, through all my tragedies and triumphs, even taking my 4 am phone calls during bouts of PTSD and weeping with me when my faith began to buckle under the strain of resurfacing nightmares.

I suspect one of the chief reasons why God expects so much of men in this church is because they often provide tangible examples of His own love to those who might otherwise assume He was distant or indifferent. Perhaps the greatest miracle yet has been my own husband, whose simple but unswerving sense of duty, hard work, honesty, and incomprehensible devotion have never allowed me a second’s doubt that he loves me more than himself. The violence and exploitation of my past die a little more each day, overpowered by his living, breathing expression of honorable, selfless manhood. 

What could better blot out the memories of abandonment and abuse than his sweat and tears, his tenderness and protection, his body and soul, willingly committed to me for eternity? Was he, and the countless men like him in the Church, the product of a violent and misogynistic religion?

Of course not. God is, clearly, the ultimate source of all love. His face moved upon the formless void of the deep darknesses of my life and said, “Let there be light.” And there really was light. And though I searched for Him, feebly at first and then with increased earnestness as He pulled me along, I did not truly meet Him until I found His church.

I don’t want to oversimplify. There have been good men in my life outside of the Church, such as a wonderful stepfather who loved and provided for me. And I know there are, and always have been, bad men within the Church; even the best ones are not perfect, and, as it has been said, “the dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” 

But the Church does a remarkable job of forming men who care for women and about women. This only becomes less clear and obvious when we limit what it means to care about women to merely holding certain political or social views (views which are gladly held by many opportunistic and predatory men).  In my experience, some political and social “freedoms” have come with a private price that is largely paid by the women and children who nevertheless suffer from the behavior of bad men. 

In contrast with my early life, the men who have really been able to care about women are those who have worked to curb their impulses, who are responsible and diligent, and who have cultivated a sense of sacredness about women and children that allows them to go beyond mere external pressures to “be good,” and internalize the power of their influence for good.

You cannot create men like this through shame, hashtags, or politics.


You cannot create men like this through shame, hashtags, or politics. Church teachings and priesthood responsibilities provide unique opportunities for the Lord Himself to develop the spirit-deep qualities in men that enrich women’s lives. 

I don’t want people to have to live at the mercy of men whose ideas about women, sex, and responsibility were formed primarily by broken families and Hollywood. Yes, there will always be things that can improve within the Church and among its individual membersI’m not asserting that anything’s perfect here or that there isn’t room to improve. But in our haste for progress, let’s not forget the empowerment denied to the many women and children whose lives lack the stability and resources provided by caring, committed husbands and fathers. The idea that the Church should be lectured by our larger culture about its violence and misogyny defies everything in my life’s experience and that of many other women. Having endured my share of trauma and violence, much of it at the hands of men, I can confidently say that this church has been my haven for healing.

About the author

Meagan Kohler

Meagan Kohler is a Latter-day Saint wife, boy mom, writer, and occasional philosopher. She also writes on Substack at Mirabile Dictu.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven: Episode 4, “Church and State”

Summary — The episode begins with the detectives checking in on Bishop Low’s home, which they find ransacked and deserted. Pyre finds a letter written by Ron’s wife to the Prophet expressing concern about her husband’s refusal to pay taxes. The detective contacts the Church about the letter and is told the letter was handed down to one of the bishop’s counselors, LeConte Bascom, who works at the bank. Brother Bascom says he had to turn Ron down for a loan because his brother’s refusal to pay taxes made him a liability, though it’s heavily implied that the real reason is that his wife’s letter was seen as an embarrassment to the Church. In flashbacks, we see Dan marching in a Pioneer Day parade, shouting about the government’s illegal taxes, as well as smoking and kissing a woman who isn’t his wife. Dan’s father says he’s ashamed of his immoral behavior and anti-tax nonsense and advises him to study the scriptures to set himself back on the right path. This unfortunately drives Dan into researching more obscure history of the Church, including information on polygamy.  He makes a business trip down to Colorado City to visit the breakaway polygamist sect there and manages to get the name of a pro-polygamy pamphlet called “The Peace Maker.” He reads this pamphlet and brings up the idea to his wife Matilda, telling her she’s limiting his spiritual power if she doesn’t let him marry a second wife.  During this conversation, Dan is pulled over for speeding and refuses to cooperate with the officer, leading them on a police chase that ends with his arrest. At the jail, Dan’s brothers try to convince him to stop his resistance to the government. Ron feels it’s his responsibility to show Dan the error of his ways, but instead, Dan runs circles around him, leaving him speechless and admitting that he’s going to lose his business and home. Dan somehow turns this fact into evidence that his views are correct and ends up winning over Ron to his side. In the present, Detective Pyre is being leaned on by the Laffertys’ stake president to release them into his custody but refuses. The detectives have identified the car the killers were probably using and plan to hold a press conference to ask for tips when the police chief returns from vacation and demands that all mentions of fundamentalism Mormonism be scrubbed from the press briefing. (It’s implied he’s being leaned on by the Church.) Pyre tries to toe the line at the conference but eventually caves to a persistent reporter and admits that he thinks that the murders may have something to do with fundamentalist beliefs. The next day at church, the ward is shunning the Pyres, and a specific couple is assigned to keep an eye on their faith. Meanwhile, a police officer has located Bishop Low fly fishing in the mountains and safe. Church History — During Dan’s explanation of polygamy, we get flashbacks to the infamous scene where Emma finds out about the doctrine of polygamy for the first time and throws the revelation in the fire. Though church members will be familiar with this story, the tone is portrayed very differently than we are used to. Emma is shown as being absolutely skeptical of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and other prophetic acts, even though she firmly testified of the truth of these things even after her break with the Church after Joseph was murdered. Joseph is portrayed as proclaiming the doctrine of polygamy only for his own physical gratification, which is a common anti-Mormon trope with little evidence behind it. While it is true that one of Joseph’s wives was only 14, the facts behind the situation are more complex than portrayed in the show. The pamphlet “The Peace Maker” is portrayed by Dan Lafferty as an “essential LDS tract” written by Joseph Smith, and no one in the show ever corrects this perception. In fact, the tract was not written by Joseph Smith, and he repudiated it during his lifetime. This episode presents a slanted view of church history, giving only one side of the conversation and showing the modern church as trying to hush it up rather than having its own interpretation of events. Shibboleths — Pyre claims that writing a letter to the prophet is like writing to “Heavenly Father himself,” which is absolutely wrong. While members of the Church do revere the prophet and listen to his teachings, he is not God, and this equivalency is not one Saints would make (though outsiders think we do). The idea that doing business with fundamentalists is like “doing business with the mafia” is totally alien to me. They are regarded as somewhat of an oddity in Utah, but not dangerous like organized crime. One unusual phrase occurs when the stake president claims that the Laffertys need to be released into his custody for “healing prayer.” I honestly have no idea what this phrase refers to and have never heard it in an LDS context. And the formal type of shunning portrayed happening to the Pyres is not something we do. Though obviously, wards vary in their culture, there is no formal instruction not to talk to those who have questions. Rather, we are encouraged to keep being friends with those who are struggling with faith and support them however we can. Changing History — It is interesting to note that in the actual chain of events, it was Sister Low, not Bishop Low, who was on the Lafferty hit list. Sister Low was a Relief Society President who supported Dan’s wife as she sought a divorce. Why does the show change this? Perhaps the idea that the Church has female leaders doesn’t fit well with the show’s depiction of the oppression of women in the LDS church. Brenda Lafferty’s sister has also expressed her disappointment with the way the show is misconstruing her sister’s murder in pursuit of an