The recent Penn State debacle has given Pennsylvania a lot to think about. I suggest these same lessons should cause the church to examine how we handle claims of abuse and molestation.
There is some question about how much administrators and Penn State’s beloved Joe Paterno knew about Sandusky’s activities and why they didn’t follow up on these allegations or take them more seriously.
From the grand jury testimony, it’s clear that one graduate assistant (not named) who was an eye witness to Sandusky raping a ten year old boy in one of the locker room showers at Penn State told Joe Paterno about it. Paterno raised it to his superiors in the administration (Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley) the next day, a Sunday. But that’s where the trail runs cold. Tim Curley & Senior Vice President Gary Schulz interviewed the graduate assistant approximately ten days later. Both claim that they were unaware that the incident was sexual, and both have been indicted in a cover up, although Paterno was not charged. However, 84 year old Paterno has subsequently been fired from Penn State due to his failure to take appropriate actions in this matter, allowing more children to be raped.
As someone who grew up in Pennsylvania, my Facebook news feed was immediately flooded with opposing opinions on the firing of Joe Pa. Many defended him and decried the school for covering its own mistakes with a scape goat. Others condemned the school and its football program for not protecting innocent children. Personally, I was torn. I’ve always considered myself a de facto Nittany Lions fan, but clearly the institution’s actions were outrageously blameworthy. A few lessons noted about institutions and how they handle scandal in an article in the Grantland:
- Institutions lie. They do this for self-preservation.
- Brand damage takes precedence over morality.
- Independent thought & action are discouraged. It is considered risky for individuals to take action that might reflect poorly on the organization or bring a scandal to light.
I also wanted to understand why such a kindly man as Joe Paterno whose life is devoted to helping at risk children achieve their potential would so fundamentally fail to protect them. Another story that came to light about Paterno’s attitudes toward sex crimes gave me additional insight into how this kind of personal failure can happen:
“In 2003, less than one year after Paterno was told that Sandusky was raping children, he allowed a player accused of rape to suit up and play in a bowl game. Widespread criticism of this move was ignored. In 2006, Penn State’s Orange Bowl opponent Florida State, sent home linebacker A.J. Nicholson, after accusations of sexual assault. Paterno’s response, in light of recent events, is jaw-dropping. He said, “There’s so many people gravitating to these kids. He may not have even known what he was getting into, Nicholson. They knock on the door; somebody may knock on the door; a cute girl knocks on the door. What do you do? Geez. I hope—thank God they don’t knock on my door because I’d refer them to a couple of other rooms.” Joanne Tosti-Vasey, president of Pennsylvania’s National Organization for Women in Pennsylvania, was not amused. With chilling unintentional prescience, Tosti-Vasey responded, “Allegations of sexual assault should never be taken lightly. Making light of sexual assault sends the message that rape is something to be expected and accepted.””
Based on my overall reading of the Penn State case and the pattern of Paterno’s attitudes that have been revealed, I would add several more lessons that seem pertinent to considering how the church should ensure our children are protected:
- Older generations may be out of touch with what constitutes sexual crime.
- Loyalty and friendship can be persuasive, especially when pedophiles (who are expert con artists) make compelling excuses.
- Kind-hearted geezers often assume the best of people.
- Organizations need to train and hold people accountable for reporting crimes to the police.
- The fear of litigation (or losing a football game) must not take precedence over our moral obligation to protect the innocent.
- Organizations that are too big to fail (like PSU football) need to beware of how big they’ve become. They can’t get mired in bureaucracy or brand management.
The CHI instructs bishops to immediately contact the church’s legal department for further instruction. Additionally, my dad has served in some bishoprics, and I have some friends who are current or former bishops. Bishops are told to encourage the accuser to talk with their family and, if appropriate, to the police, but bishops do not report alleged crimes to the police. The focus is on ensuring bishops understand how to keep the church from being legally culpable, but little information or training is provided to them on victim counseling or how to be emotionally supportive to the alleged victim.
It seems to me that with over 30,000 bishops out there, the church as an organization is clearly at risk for this kind of scandal: too big to maintain total vigilance, insufficient effort to train leaders how to handle allegations sensitively, and too much focus on protecting ourselves from lawsuits (a very real concern in these cases, unfortunately). I knew many women at BYU who were victims of parental incest or other types of sexual assault who did not receive adequate support when they asked for help. Often the mother will side with her husband and assume that the child is acting out because it is easier than facing the truth. In some cases, these victims felt bishops had failed them, either by referring them to read Miracle of Forgiveness (which implies it is better to die than submit without caveating that a child has limited ability to fight off a sexual advance), or by being persuaded by the parents that the child was “troubled” and not to be believed. Many of these women were suicidally depressed or had bouts of promiscuity to deal with their conflicted feelings about sexuality and lack of control.
However, the church seems much less at risk for clergy abuse (“low risk” is not “no risk”) due to how we are organized and our focus on having no private one-on-one contact (with the exception of youth interviews). There are preventive steps in place in our church that reduce the threat of scandal more than other churches and other youth programs. Is it enough?
Is the church taking the right steps to assist victims without becoming complicit in enabling false allegations? Are our preventing steps sufficient to protect children? Do we focus too much on preventing legal liability at the risk of letting crimes go unreported? Are there any better alternatives? Do you think the church is at risk for scandal? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
has anyone read this book about the LDS involvement in molestation cases in the 90s? is it accurate? I just heard about it on ESPN
Very important topic. You have handled it well. In some ways I think the legal approach makes sense for large organisations. It seems to me to be incredibly hard to train all those Bishops to provide pastoral counseling in such situations. However, I am convinced that this is one area where we are guilty of not trying hard enough. The impact that this initial response from an ecclesiastical leader can have on a life is massive, and is only magnified when compared with much of what is done as leader. Training in this area needs be mandatory and regular. I recommend a Bishop training meeting at least yearly dedicated to this topic with materials provide by the Church and supplemented by local materials from Area Authorities.
“Are there any better alternatives?”
Yes, especially with Sandusky. That is why God gave us tree-shredders. After he admitted on National TV to Bob Costas that he showered with 10 year old boys, he should have immediately been introduced to the workings of a tree-shredder. It is best to feed him feet first that way he gets, at least for a few seconds, a clearer picture of how one works. In any event, in a matter of seconds the problem is solved, at least for one creep.
As for Paterno, his ass should have been through in jail along with anyone else that knew what was going on, even it if is the cowardly statement “I was only showering with them”. What the hell is wrong with these people and when it is ok to shower with a 10 year old under any circumstance? In summary, Sandusky should be introduced to a tree shredder and anyone else that knew about this and did not expose it to the proper authorities, including following up to make sure it is prosecuted, should be in a prison cell cuddling up with Louie.
here is the ESPN article FWIW
http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7208029/penn-state-joe-paterno-failure-power
I think it’s important to have clear rules in any organization about what’s appropriate and what’s not. Every place I’ve worked so far has a strict se_xual harrassment policy in place for this reason. I hope this scandal (and the catholic church scandal) help encourage lds leaders to address this head on. Not just an 800 number to call (which may still be a good thing). What about always calling CPS when minors are involved. If the allegations are baseless, then there should be no harm in an investigation. I know many think CPS isn’t trustworthy, but what happens if the allegations are true?
Finally, what are the rules regarding people who have committed crimes? If they are in full fellowship, how can the church be sure that they won’t work with vulnerable populations? I think there should be a clear policy that everyone is aware of.
I have posted here previously about how my daughter was molested in our building between primary and sacrament meeting and that local leaders knew about allegations against the molestor and did not report them. One of these local leaders was an eyewitness to molestation and did not report it. They did not warn me or my spouse either.
The church has recently taken to publicly claiming that “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is extremely proactive in its efforts to prevent abuse and to help victims when it does occur”
In our case, the church allowed the perpetrator to operate unsupervised giving him access to children for over a year while the court case was still pending. He was also given official church assignments that gave him access to children. It was only our vigilance that rectified the situation.
In our case, the church passed the message to us via our stake president that “the Church considers its self strictly neutral in a dispute between members and cannot favor either side in this matter.” This is as close as the church came to helping my daughter or to taking any responsibility for its failures. They said this when they knew the perpetrator had confessed to the police and that non-reporting was the cause–the basic facts were not in question. Additionally, part of the letter sent to parents of victims (whose contents are dictated to the stake president by church lawyers) tries to shift responsibility to the parents.
It is sometimes tempting to think that the church has learned something from these events. However, after a molestation case with a Mormon perpetrator was reported in the news in our country last week, my stake president circulated a letter from a public affairs official to bishops asking members not only to refrain from speaking with journalists, but also to refrain from speaking with each other about that case. Bishops were charged with tamping down any discussion of the case. This is of course the best way to enable abusers—to prevent open discussion. This is similar to the way our stake president charged us with not speaking about my daughter’s abuse with anyone.
In my dream world, the church would not only live up to its claims that it protects victims and helps them, but it would also include empowering training in the official curriculum. If there was a YW and YM lesson saying, “If this happens to you or someone you know, call this non-profit rape hotline, call the police, then call the bishop” then many of these children and youth would report after the first incident and they would be better protected against future crimes because they would know how to protect themselves and effectively get help.
I have been a shocked participant in a disciplinary council where the woman was clearly raped, and the bishop held the disciplinary council because she didn’t yell out during the rape.
I have talked with a rape victim who during her youth in the church didn’t dare to tell anyone, and her suffering has created a host of long-term problems.
I have talked with parents that didn’t know they should report what happened to their kids to the police.
The church is doing a shitty job and I hope that someone in the COB who can do something about it reads this blog.
Paterno’s reputation is going to take a nosedive. People are questioning his choices to allow a player to play in a bowl game despite allegations of rape (among other instances). He has always been turning a blind eye to these types of allegations. Winning took precedence over everything. He should have done more to help the victims.
As a mandated reporter (working in the public K-12 setting), it surprises me to find out who is and who isn’t mandated. It is totally ingrained in me that if I hear of suspected abuse, I report. It is hard for me to think that anyone would to anything otherwise. I wonder if there will be a law in the future about public institutions and abuse reporting.
Caveats and caveating are probably a typo above, caused by over exposure to lawyers.
Hawk, this is one of the FEW things that I disagree with you on. The focus of the Church’s instructions to Priesthood leaders (Bishops and Stake Presidents) is NOT, as you seem to imply, protect the Church’s name and insulate it from liability and to hell with the welfare of the (alleged) victims. From what I’ve seen, local leaders take allegations of child abuse VERY seriously and will not hesitate to take someone down by reporting them to law enforcement and also taking ecclesiastical actions as they see fit.
This is obviously an issue that is, and rightly should be, highly emotional. It’s natural to protect our children, grandchildren, and other young relatives like a “Mama Gundark”. However, the nature of this thing is often that there may be reasonable suspicion but not necessarily enough evidence that law enforcement can act. The alleged perp DOES have rights, which should be upheld in the course of due process…if nothing else, hysteria and sometimes outright skullduggery have caused FALSE accusations to come forth, especially where legal custody of young children is at issue. There was a point in the 1990’s where about 45% of all child custody and support cases in Sacramento County there was an allegation of abuse (not always sexual). Now, either we conclude that it’s an epidemic OR it’s a cynical tactic employed as a legal “WMD” to unjustly deprive an otherwise fit parent of his/her parental rights. In the hysteria of child abuse scandals often the concept of due process has been literally thrown out the window.
The other side of the coin is that there’s all too many (if one lives, that’s one too many!) cretins that manipulate the system and know how to get away with these horrific crimes. The perp can be called before his/her bishop, and if denied, then what recourse does that bishop have? Certainly the bishop can and will report a confession of abuse, but if denied, is he still able and/or obligated to do so? I would think in that case, if the allegations are denied, then it’s incumbent upon the parents/guardians of the affected child to pursue the matter with law enforcement. IMO, the Church can only do so much. Without impartial evidence of this heinous wrongdoing, the leaders’ hands are tied.
Please keep in mind that I have relatives that I’m certain were victimized by one they ought to have been able to trust, and the Church did nothing…simply because the “alleged” perp denied it and there was insufficient evidence to press charges. The Church leaders had no recourse. Now, years later, with the damage wrought evident, that person still waltzes into the temple as if nothing happened. I hope for that person’s sake that the allegations were false (I think that person is guilty, but my opinion carries no weight) because it would be better, as the Saviour said, that a millstone were hung around the perp’s neck and said perp was drowned in the sea.
Will, my father would take all of us kids to play racquetball a few times a year, and we would all shower together afterwards in the BYU locker room. So let’s at least acknowledge that showering (especially in a locker room) with 10 year olds isn’t necessarily a warning flag, depending on context. Not everybody at a local recreation center is a pedophile rapist. Most just go there to swim, work out, or play tennis or something.
Will does seem to overreact but the anger with a “Chester” (prison slang for a child molester) is more than understandable. Use a wood chipper, huh? And with WHAT body part would we feed the perp first? (LoL).
I can’t see how Paterno could be held criminally liable, but I’m not familiar with PA law in this regard. I don’t see anything that’d constitute his being an accessory either before or after the fact. That doesn’t mean that Penn State didn’t fire him legally. Maybe overreacted (letting him terminate his long tenure at Penn State and finish out the season would have better served the interests of the University and the students, but that’s for the Penn State regents to decide, and they’ve already weighed in), but the reputation of a football program and one of the State’s top universities, with a proud tradition had been severely harmed.
It’s a shame that the lawyers and the other “suits” have to dictate policy, but that’s the nature of the litigious society we live in today. CYA is the “leaden rule”….
It’s me again.
The average member of our ward would think that these abuse cases are rare. However, this is only because of the code of silence.
At least
1 of 3 girls in our primary have been molested
2 of 6 girls in our YW program have been molested
1 of 5 boys in our YM program have been molested
1 of 5 boys in our YM program have been convicted of misdemeanor molestation.
2 women in our small ward were molested as children.
2 women in our small ward were raped at YW age.
2 women in our small ward were raped as adults.
Of these 10 cases, only 3 occurred before the member joined the church.
It is highly likely that there are other cases that I do not know about.
In my dream world, the curriculum would address these issues in a way that validated victims and empowered them to speak out and to get the help they need and to protect themselves in the future. Furthermore, the boys should not only hear about chastity, but also the fact that child abuse and rape is much worse morally and legally than other sexual sins.
After all, it seems like a girl in the church has a higher probability of being raped or molested (I guess the 25% percent number is most quoted) than of marrying in the temple ( < 25% chance).
#12 – “Code” of Silence? Anon, you seem to live in a remarkable STRANGE ward. Like yourself, my own experience would admittedly be a statistically insignificant sampling, but due to confidentiality issues, it’d be difficult to know who in my local wards/Stakes has been thus victimized or a prep. However, I’ve not seen in 32 years of membership any cultural or organizational mindset of wanting to cover up these issues when they occur, nor of ostrich-like bevahior. If anything, when there’s been a credible allegation, the bishops and/or stake presidents have acted both swiftly and with tact.
However, I do well know of an incident that occurred about twenty years ago wherein a full time missionary did something “wrong” (it wasn’t as serious as the situations that you’ve described, but it wasn’t good). When the matter what brought to the mission president’s attention, he seemed not only angry that this type of allegation was being made again one of his missionaries, but even threatened retaliation for “harming” the Church. Fortunately, the Stake President was supportive, and in a short while not only was that missionary transferred, but assurance was given that the MP had been put in his place by the Missionary Department.
Again, methinks its incumbent upon parents to teach their children not to be naive or exploitable, and to report anything that seems uncomfortable or simply wrong. True, likely in the majority of cases there’s an innocent misunderstanding, but we can’t lessen our vigilance. It’s unfortunate that the LDS tend to be overly naive and trusting, making them a fertile (no pun intended) ground for these sickos to wreak their havoc. The Saviour did say be ye WISE as serpents though harmless as doves…
I have personal experience in multiple organizations as part of official discussions concerning allegations of sexual abuse of a minor – and there is very little an organiation can do without creating lots of other problems. Everything has to be phrased carefully; certain things can’t be stated as fact; certain things can’t be discussed openly with everyone, for very clear legal reasons; etc.
Add in the issue of ecclesiastical exceptions to mandatory reporting, that vary from state to state . . .
It’s sad, but it’s the world in which we live, unfortunately.
Can we do more? Absolutely, especially with regard to counseling the person(s) reporting the abuse to contact legal authorities. ***Imo, that almost always should be the very first thing a Bishop says, so they can focus on pastoral care.*** I can’t stress that enough. If someone is willing to make an accusation to a Bishop, they should be counseled to make the allegation to the cops.
However, as “clergy” there are restrictions on what can and can’t be done in many cases when it comes to directly reporting the allegations to the law – and those restrictions vary from state to state and country to country. (Remember, the LDS Church is a world-wide organization.) Bishops have to know those lines and not cross them, or they can open themselves up to terrible consequences – so I understand that the first call must be to the Church’s legal advice line. It simply must be.
Anon,
I’m calling B.S. on those numbers for the Church as a whole. The implication from your numbers is that 33% of all LDS youth have been molested by other Church members and that is just total B.S., so please stop implying there is a bigger problem than exists. All your overstating the problem does is undermine the positive things the church is trying to accomplish.
Hi Douglas,
You stated that “due to confidentiality issues, it’d be difficult to know who in my local wards/Stakes has been thus victimized or is a perp. However, I’ve not seen in 32 years of membership any cultural or organizational mindset of wanting to cover up these issues when they occur, nor of ostrich-like behavior.” I suppose this is my point. I think that the problem is widespread enough that dealing with it could be put into the curriculum to empower people. But because of confidentiality, people tend to underestimate the problem, so the helpful empowering teachings that could play a role in prevention are not delivered to youth or parents in the church. I think that on the education side all (or maybe most) of the legal problems go away. After something has happened, it is a total mess and the church goes into lawyer mode.
I know you don’t believe a “code of silence” exists, but I referred in my post to official communication that came out last week that sought to prevent any members from discussing a case that was in the news. We were told not to mention our daughter’s experience to anyone. Maybe that doesn’t happen in the US, but it does here.
Hi Ray,
I have no problems with bishops or stake presidents calling the church hotline and I support it 100%. I think the law should be followed. I am comfortable with the church looking at legal issues and I understand that they want to protect themselves.
However, a defense of the legitimate legal problems the church faces prevents an imaginative look at how prevention programs through education could empower young people and greatly diminish this problem. When our stake did an abuse training session, it was only done to the bishops and it basically said, “I recommend you call the hotline if you know of any abuse.” And a bishop who knows to call the hotline does nothing for prevention. The best way to handle a scandal is to prevent it from happening. It would never be perfect, but it could be much better.
You may have also assumed that the bishop is the right person to help the victim heal. I would rather that femail victims meet with a professional, and preferably a woman, and preferably someone not on church payroll. The church says it helps victims, but I think this means that they basically hope the bishop’s pastoral care is sufficient. Is there a reason why lawyers working for the church have never given any details about how the church helps victims? Is there a reason why they don’t have a victim’s hotline? I think it is because the victims are an afterthought at the institutional level. Given that church lawyers are the ones who control if/what the church does, it looks more like a risk mitigation thing than a real program to help victims.
If you have a more optimistic view of things, I can see why. You have had different experiences.
Hi Will,
I think that the 25% number is probably not too far off for the current US population of women, based on self-reporting. I have pasted in some statistics below:
One in Four college women report surviving rape (15 percent) or attempted rape (12 percent) since their fourteenth birthday. (1)
In a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease control of 5,000 college students at over 100 colleges, 20% of women answered “yes” to the question “In your lifetime have you been forced to submit to sexual intercourse against your will?” Thus, one in five college women has been raped at some point in her lifetime. (2)
Taken from http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php
Results from Stop It Now! telephone public opinion surveys in the US: 29% of women and 14% of men surveyed reported having been sexually abused as children.
Stop It Now! meta-analysis of ten random digit dialed telephone surveys between 1997 and 2007. See the report:What do US Adults Think About Child Sexual Abuse?
For Utah women, sexual assault is the lone violent crime in which Utah is worse than the national average, according to the state Department of Health, which says as many as one-third of Utah women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. SLtribune April 6, 2010.
Will, I would think that the Utah numbers are not too bad of a proxy for LDS women, and it seems to be roughly accurate for my ward (which is not in the US).
I am glad you are living in a much safer place, if in fact you are. However, if my personal knowledge matches public data, I will assume that I am not too far from the truth. If I am wrong by a factor of two, then it is 1/8 or 1/10 mormon women who are rape victims rather than the U.S. number of 1/4 or 1/5. This is still a very large percentage and I think that the church curriculum could be revised to do better on the prevention side both for primary kids and for YW / WM.
From my point of view this is the primary lesson of scandal management, better education of potential victims to achieve better prevention. A secondary one would be the the church would live up to its public commitments to victims. Right now it is basically just laywers and PR guys calling the shots, as far as I can see.
Anon,
The error you are making, which is extremely dangerous, is extrapolating and misrepresenting statistical data to promote your agenda. Just because your ward has been plagued with this evil doesn’t mean all other wards in the church have; and, sending this message is just plain wrong. The truth is you have no data to support your assumption. It is devoid of the presumption of innocence, which is one of the beacons of light in the United States. What’s more, it is tantamount to making a false sexual harassment claim against someone. This damages not only the person to whom false allegations have been made, it is also a slap in the face to those women you have actually been assaulted. In short, unless you have actual data to support your claim, I would suggest you quit bearing false witness.
With that said it is reasonable and fair to go after sexual predators with the full force and fury of the law.
Will, Anon, et al…
One of the problems is that the Church, having the proverbial deep pockets, can be a target for gold-digging opportunists. Also, in some US states (Anon seems to be from the UK and I have no ideas how the law works there for this matter), a bishop or Stake President is compelled to notify law enforcement if someone confesses to child abuse (sexual or not), else he can be held criminally liable. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the concept but the application has unintended consequences: namely, the ability to have confidential communication with ones clergy is now compromised, and the local lay leaders, most of whom aren’t professionally trained to deal with these matters, go into “prevent defense” mode rather than serve the needs of the victim. I suspect that many perps who could have these sorts of things nipped in the bud (I kinda like Will’s wood chipper idea, though!) are driven underground and their problem is NOT resolved, until it blows up into some tragedy that devastates lives (and sometimes takes them).
Methinks folks both in and out of the Church misunderstand just what the Church as an organization can do. Ultimately, its greatest resource is the talents and experience of its constituent members. However, the responsibility to repent and better oneself ultimately lies with the member, not with his leaders. All they can do is counsel and/or administer discipline, up to and including removal from the records. That’s it. They can’t change people that themselves can’t or don’t want to change, and many that are willing need both professional help well beyond the means of any lay leader to administer, and oft times, especially in the cases of child abusers, to be removed from polite society, confined, and treated if possible.
From what I understand, Church discipline towards those guilty of sexual abuse is typically severe. One of the requirements of repentance is that the offender must go through the justice system and suffer the consequences, including prison time and parole. These must be fully complied with before that person can be considered repentant and eligible for reinstatement. Even then, that person wouldn’t be allowed to be in a position to work with children. Period.
Where the system “goes wrong” is when the allegations can’t be proven and the accused denies them. So what do we do? Do we in effect “damn with faint praise” by treated the accused as if he/she is likely guilty? Or do we just pretend that nothing happened? Though I believe strongly in due process, at the same time I don’t throw common sense out the window. Sometimes where there’s smoke there truly is fire…and other times someone’s trying to blow it up my hiney.
Hi Will,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the prevalence of child sexual abuse among the LDS population is much smaller than that of the general population and it is dishonest to suggest that the LDS prevalence is similar to that of non-LDS populations. Do I understand you correctly?
I am including a reference to a peer-reviewed summary of all articles published in English in peer reviewed journals in the ten years previous to the article. FW Putnam, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY, Vol: 42 Issue: 3 Pages: 269-278. Their main conclusion is that prevalence rates are 16.8% and 7.9% for adult women and men, respectively, i.e. 16.8% of adult women underwent child sexual abuse. Looking around, it seems that the typical survey gives 25% of women claiming that they were sexually abused as a child, but that the non-responders tend to be less likely to be abuse victims. So by sampling the non-responders, one can estimate the true prevalence rate, which is in the 15-17 % range for women.
Now that I took the time to look, there is quite a literature in peer reviewed journals discussing prevalence, the effects of sexual abuse on mental and physical health, etc. If you would like to send me your email address, I could send you a summary of the literature and some of the more significant papers. You could review their statistical methods and learn why the research community has a degree of confidence in them. If you want, I could help you contact authors of some of the articles to ask for original data if you find some that you think are not honest.
There is even an article about how Mormon women sexual abuse survivors cope and interact with their male priesthood leaders.
I have not been able to find a peer reviewed article about the prevalence of child sexual abuse rates in the LDS community. But the State of Utah reports their statistics on the web site for overall sexual assault and Utah has a slightly higher rate than the national average. This would suggest that LDS populations have roughly the same rape incidence as the US population as a whole. It would be hard for me to imagine that the childe sexual abuse rate is significantly different in Utah vs. non-Utah, and roughly speaking, between LDS and non-LDS populations. If I find more data, I will post it here.
Here is a link to the State of Utah statistics, provided by government officials:
http://health.utah.gov/vipp/rapeSexualAssault/overview.html
Will,
After seeing the data I referred to above, I would say that the chance of an LDS young women experiencing child sexual abuse is in the 17 percent range. This is roughly the overall activity rate of members, so my statement that an LDS girl has a higher chance of being a survivor of child sexual abuse than of marrying in the temple is probably true across the church as a whole.
I did not say this to offend people, but to point out what reasonable prevalence numbers mean.
#18 – Please don’t assume things based on what I have never said, and please don’t minimize my input based on those incorrect assumptions. Just saying, you don’t know me well enough to make those assumptions, it’s dismissive of you to do so, and it helps in NO way whatsoever to brush someone off and mis-characterize them in that manner. It’s not a case of, “If you don’t agree with everything I say, you disagree with everything I say – and you believe whatever I think you believe.”
Please back up and take a breath. I’m not a foe in this conversation.
I’ll address other stuff in another comment, but I think that needed to be said. You’re picking fights where no fights are needed and with those who don’t want to fight.
“You may have also assumed that the bishop is the right person to help the victim heal.”
I never said that, or even implied it, and I don’t believe it. I ALWAYS would suggest professional counselor in the case of abuse. I’m just saying the Bishop should be focused on pastoral care and encourage the person making the charge of abuse to report it to the police – and that’s ALL I said.
Will:
The assumption that “it doesn’t happen in OUR community” is typically part of the problem every institution ensnared in a major sex scandal eventually sees in hindsight.
The response to accusations is more typically “Father X couldn’t possibly… Elder Y couldn’t possibly… Coach Z couldn’t possibly… Professor W couldn’t possibly…”.
Indeed, the presumption that moral authority figures “couldn’t possibly” is so psychologically strong that victims can’t even readily understand that it isn’t their fault, and witnesses to the events have trouble in believing what they saw. It’s human.
But you start to train yourself out of it by recognizing in advance that sexual predators WILL seek to slip into positions of authority, and that the probabilities of sexual abuse (including in-family sexual abuse) ARE higher than we typically think.
“Coach Z couldn’t possibly…”
Yeah, Coach Z is way too good at his jorb.
Ray, I can see how I misread what you were trying to say. Thank you for pointing that out.
Starfoxy:
I’m sure that became an issue in the cover-up. But I’ll not be surprised if the graduate student who saw the rape in the locker room believed it until AFTERWARD, and then reported it, and later convinced himself he’d acted more heroically at the time than he actually had.
How many of us instinctively go to the aid of a mugging victim in that first critical moment? Even Captain Kirk froze in that first critical moment on the Reliant. 😀
Anon/Firetag:
“I have not been able to find a peer reviewed article about the prevalence of child sexual abuse rates in the LDS community.”
Exactly, and that is my point. I don’t know what the prevalence is in the LDS faith and neither do you. As I said above, the problem with taking data applied to a population as a whole and applying to any group in the population is the attitude it creates – it is devoid of the presumption of innocence. It provides a penumbra over the group and creates a regulatory and judgmental attitude. It is a Gestapo type tactic. It is tantamount to walking into a home as a Bishop with the conclusion that 3 out of the 4 boys in the family are viewing pornography because that is what statistics say.
This is precisely why God pushed aside the corrupt legal systems in the world and created the constitution of the United States “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose (D&C 101:80)”, with the presumption of innocence being a quintessential element of that sacred document. I totally understand and appreciate having empirical data for the population as a whole as it alerts leaders what to look for in protecting their flock. I also agree with Firetag that leaders cannot, and should not think it can’t happen in their flock.
With all this said, everything should be done to protect the presumption of innocence including distorting judgment by *applying* statistical data to the flock. Questions should ONLY be asked, or police called when there is clear evidence or admission of ANY behavior; or, when a member is seeking worthiness approval.
#29 – Actually, Adm. Kirk deliberately disregarded standing Starfleet orders regarding confirmation of intent when greeting another ship, even one with Federation markings. Jean-Luc may be pretentious, self-righteous, and boring, but he wouldn’t screw up like that.
The naivety that many LDS have about their leaders and/or other respected members is precisely the chink in the armor that predators employ. I’m highly dubious of Anon’s stats but the important thing to remember is that even one occurrence is one too many. Although it’s not necessary to treat every male member as “guilty until proven innocent”, we still can’t be careless. IMO it should be a policy of “team teaching” for Primary and Nursery to mitigate the possibility of either wrongdoing or mistaken (or downright false) accusation. Also, children and young women should have the ability to have a trusted sister sit in with them when counselling with a bishop…protects them both. Cautious? Perhaps, but it’s an ‘avoidance of evil’ thing. Now, since I’m middle-aged, grouchy, and don’t care for kids other than my own (and the grandkids, and them I just ‘rent’), I shouldn’t have to worry much about this. I’ve just refused to have anything to do with anyone under 16 simply because I don’t want to deal with everyone else’s little darlins no more…I’ve done me all fer King and Country…
Personally I think there is greater risk from inaction when crimes are reported than from predatory lay clergy where we do have precautions in place. But when crimes are reported, where I see the bigger risks are: 1) getting the abuse reported to the police and stopped, and 2) getting victims appropriate healing care.
We are probably all like these bishops who have minimal training in these matters. And things can be incredibly difficult to prove.
Douglas:
Sorry, I messed up the ship’s name (or maybe I didn’t and it’s a difference between movie and TV continuity). It wasn’t one of the movies; it was a first series episode in which Kirk remembers a pre-Enterprise assignment as a lower rank officer where he fails to fire immediately at a gaseous creature entering an opening on the hull. The creature feeds on hemoglobin and kills many of the crew.
On the substantive points, I agree with you totally. It’s one of the reasons we are instructed to go two-by-two, IMO.
I have spent much of my adult life trying to repair damages to people who were harmed severely by high priesthood members for years before the church identified them and took disciplinary action. The consequences have been literally down “to the third and fourth generation”. I won’t give specific examples, but only because those are not my stories to tell, but stories for the victims to tell if they wish.
Presumption of innocence is about whether or not you put people in jail. It isn’t about whether you pull a calling. Callings are not primarily for the honor of the minister; they’re about the good of the ministeree.
Hawkgrrl, I am glad for your post and your summary that nicely encapsulates the debate. My wife suggested to me, and she is right, that I am currently too angry to advocate effectively. I am glad you have been level-headed.
Will, I am checking out now. My anger at my personal situation definitely makes me a less effective advocate. I responded to hawkgrrl’s questions in a way that was offensive, though I believe I have been factually correct. My primary concern has been with how victims are protected and helped, and how to better prevent abuse. I would not have believed how prevalent the problem was in my ward if I were not a relatively new bishop and had not had members tell me about their experiences after I started serving in that calling. I was aware of less than half of the cases before. It makes perfect sense to me that you feel differently. We both share the desire that LDS girls and women would be safe and victims would be helped, so we’re on the same side here.
FireTag, I am starting to understand the damage you are talking about. I have appreciated your comments here.
Douglas and Ray, I hope you can both forgive me for having reacted poorly to your posts. I am still quite angry about my family’s experience and I let it affect how I have treated you. I agree with you that these situations are complicated legally for the church.
Thanks for the apology, anon – both times. I actually do understand how hard it is to react dispassionately when involved in a conversation about a topic about which you feel passionately – and I’m not really asking that you be dispassionate, just so you know. It’s OK to be angry – but . . . 😀
Will, you said:
“Questions should ONLY be asked, or police called when there is clear evidence or admission of ANY behavior; or, when a member is seeking worthiness approval.”
I agree that a Bishop shouldn’t be the one to call the police in many cases, especially when there is a legal reporting exemption on the books. In those locations, reporting an allegation that turns out to be spurious (or even true but unprovable) in the position of someone hearing a confession can open up a Bishop to legal repercussions from the accused – and nobody wants that, I believe.
However, in many cases a Bishop is allowed to and should report potential cases without “clear evidence” or “admission” – and in ALL cases, imo, a Bishop should encourage someone who tells him of illegal abuse (as opposed to verbal abuse that is not illegal, for example) to report that abuse to the legal authorities.
If unlawful activities are alleged, it’s not the Bishop’s responsibility to dig for evidence; we have police detectives for that. I believe it is his responsibility, however, to encourage that illegal activities are reported and investigated – and that is the greatest failing historically in these cases with regard to authorities of any kind (like administrators at Penn State). It’s not the lack of active reporting; it’s anything that even appears to lead to cover up – that allows someone to continue to abuse without effort to see the abuse reported.
That is the main lesson I take from the Penn State debacle. It’s not that the assistant coach didn’t report it to Coach Paterno. He did – although we have no idea exactly what he said and how he described it. It’s not that Coach Paterno didn’t report it to his “higher-ups” (theoretically, since JoPa was as high as it gets at Penn State in terms of practical power). He did – although we have no idea exactly what he said and how he described it. It’s that neither person insisted, when they saw nothing formal happening, that the higher-ups report it to the police. They let the strict performance of their own “duty” (self-focused) keep them from going beyond their own duty (self-less) and putting the protection of children ahead of their own comfort and safety.
As a church, we can’t do that. If there are allegations of this type of abuse, we need to do whatever we can to encourage reporting of it to those who are responsible to investigate – and we can’t wait for “clear evidence” to do so, since “clear evidence” often appears only after intense investigation and interrogation. We can’t make assumptions of guilt OR innocence; we need to encourage actions that will let the legal process work – and sexual abuse of children, especially, is so heinous that we have to be extra vigilant in our encouragement of proper investigation.
#33 – Firetag, your last paragraph is profound and incredibly important to understand. Thanks for saying it that way.
It’s also important to realize, as Firetag said, that a main problem with investigating the Sandusky charges now is that so much time has passed – meaning memories probably have morphed over the years and exactly what was said by whom at the time is lost by all objective analyses.
If everything had been recorded at the time, this would be a very different investigation right now.
Ray, nicely said.
#34 – Thanks, Anon, but it’s precisely because you’ve been hurt that I don’t take offense. In fact, please forgive any insensitivity on my part. Much of this situation poses real dilemmas that don’t have quick-and-dirty solutions. You have needs which likely haven’t been adequately addressed. You need healing, closure, and a sense that you and your family have been protected. Oh that I could just wave the proverbial magic wand and things would be alright, but, of course, life just isn’t that easy.
I totally agree with Ray that church leaders should report allegations of illegal activities or ensure they are reported and let the proper authorities investigate crimes. If there is no evidence, at least a record of the allegation will exist so that if there is a future complaint it is taken even more seriously.
Seems to me there is a distinction between abuse that takes place in the Church setting and that which is reported or confessed to the Bishop occurring outside the Church such as in the home.
While I am a strong advocate that all abuse needs to be reported to the authorities ASAP, it seems the liability to the Church is much greater if the abuse is in the Church setting than if just reported.
I would also imagine that swift response on the part of leaders in both situations would lessen the potential for legal action against the Church rather than any “stone-walling” or failure to act.
So, it would seem the Church Legal department should press for the authorities to become involved sooner rather than later.
I’ve read many comments regarding the graduate assistant who allegedly witnessed a rape occurring, but did not take immediate action to intervene in stopping the crime. He has been called many things in the comments sections following the news articles, and perhaps they are all justified. One journalist commented on how it would have been to be in the graduate assitant’s shoes, having lived in awe of the alleged perpetrator, having, perhaps, gone to school with his children, being too shocked emotionally to think clearly enough about the best immediate course of action, or, perhaps, feeling threatened at the prospect of taking action.
I think all of these are lessons in thought pertaining to situations in the church. There are figures/families in the church are held in such high regard that a key witness could somehow arrive through a shocked thought process at a couse of inaction. I remember one high councillor that was many-a-ward’s favorite speaker who had some very solid evidence that he had used his ties to scam people to invest financially and then steal from them. Even when the evidence came to light there were those who refused to believe it because they had such strong personal affections for the individual.
Just as the Second Mile program provided an opportunity to take advantage of young boys, there are, as ugly as it is to imagine, those who would use their church callings to do the same thing. With the con artist persona, many would be deceived because of their personal affections toward the persona that was created.
I know that there have been efforts in our Stake to give bishops training regarding the freqency of abuse and procedures for reporting. I hope that this is a sign of a churchwide approach and not just the fact that someone with counseling experience has influence on the stake leadership.
First Penn State football…then Syracuse basketball…sheesh, what’s up with men’s college sports and their messed up coaches?
I think part of what the church is failing to do is properly teach members the limits of bishop’s roles in their lives, and members need to take actions for themselves on these issues. Bishops shouldn’t be the ones guiding families on this just like home teachers would be ill-equipped to know what to do.
The message from the church should be to bishops and college sports coaches and all members and non-members of the church alike, if you know of any abuse or see anything, no good human being can stand on the side lines and not take action to protect children.
In mormon culture, there is a danger that people could report things to the bishop and then leave it in his hands to deal with. No…the church needs to do more to dispel that line of thinking, I think. Bishops are great guys…but we need to all take responsibility for major things like this topic is discussing.