On Holding: Ecclesiastical Support or Lack Thereof

After hearing the same story from betrayed partners for years, it feels important to address one of the most significant challenges couples face when seeking help for pornography or sexual addiction within the LDS community: the role of Bishops.

Frequently, Bishops serve as the first responders for couples navigating betrayal. I have often wondered why this is the case. Why would a couple not seek support from a therapist or coach first? Why is the Bishop often the first person people feel they must speak to?

I’m not sure there is one simple answer. Here are some of my thoughts:

Compulsive sexual behavior—especially problematic pornography use—is often viewed in LDS culture primarily as a spiritual and moral issue. There are certainly spiritual and moral implications to this challenge. We have heard many General Conference addresses and other teachings that highlight the harmful effects of pornography on a person’s spirit, and on their family. However, when problematic pornography use is framed primarily as a spiritual concern, it significantly influences how people seek help.

Across LDS teachings and communities, pornography is often understood as:

• A sin or moral failing

• A threat to spiritual worthiness

• A violation of covenant relationships

• Something that disrupts connection with God

• A risk to family stability and eternal relationships

Because of this framing, problematic pornography use in LDS contexts is most often addressed through:

• Repentance

• Priesthood interviews

• Faith-based recovery programs

• Spiritual accountability systems

When a person expresses to a Bishop that they believe they have an addiction, additional measures are often taken to guide them toward appropriate support. The Church has developed an extensive set of resources created with input from experienced professionals in the field of addiction. This is where faith-based recovery programs, such as the Addiction Recovery Program (ARP), play an important role.

So, if spiritual guidance is being provided and addiction recovery resources are available, what might still be missing?

What about the lying?
The manipulation?
The secrecy required to maintain hidden sexual behaviors?

Is there accountability for the emotional harm that probably occurred in the process of hiding these behaviors? And where is the betrayed partner in this? Has she been included? Has anyone asked whether she is safe, informed, or supported?

Lying is not always part of the story. But when deception is rampant, it introduces an entirely different set of spiritual, moral, relational, and recovery considerations that have to be addressed.

It is not the Bishop’s role—and should not be the expectation—that he provide marriage counseling or possess specialized expertise in betrayal trauma or addiction recovery. Bishops are encouraged to refer individuals and couples to qualified professionals. They are often even discouraged from navigating complex conversations about relational trauma without the support of the social service resources at church headquarters. Yet, this referral process does not always happen when it should.

When a Bishop withholds life-altering information disclosed by one spouse from the other, the unintended consequence is a perpetuation and the continuation of secrecy. In situations involving deception, withholding information can contribute to ongoing relational harm and reinforces patterns of emotional injury rather than interrupt them.

Accountability is a critical component of meaningful recovery. Facing the impact of harmful behaviors—and acknowledging the damage caused—is what allows individuals and relationships to move forward. I don’t know that true repentance can take place without it.

Time and again, I hear stories from betrayed women who describe receiving counsel that unintentionally minimizes the impact of secrecy and deception. Too often, the message communicated is that confession alone means progress is already well underway. While disclosure is an important step in accountability work, it is only the beginning—not the resolution.

It is incredibly confusing and harmful for a betrayed partner to be told that lying, deception, manipulation, and gaslighting behaviors are not spiritual or moral concerns requiring intervention. This is especially difficult to reconcile when ecclesiastical intervention is most certainly provided for sexual behaviors that violate church teachings.

Such inconsistencies can send this message—that the deception, mistreatment, and relational harm do not matter as much as the sexual behavior itself. When the focus remains solely on stopping the behavior, without addressing the relational harm caused by secrecy, betrayed partners are often left feeling unseen, unsupported, and spiritually disoriented.

And for many betrayed partners- this feels wrong. They know in their gut.