General Conference was by almost all accounts, a real home run. But there was one glaring thing missing (yes, aside from the much-anticipated 2-hour block): the church’s plans to hold sexual abusers accountable, particularly when they are in leadership positions. The only reference to this was Cook’s poorly worded verbal facepalm decrying “non-consensual immorality.” I’m glad we’re talking about consent–finally–but calling rape “non-consensual immorality” is like calling murder non-consensual suicide. It’s a slap in the face to victims, making them sound like they are now immoral. While I’m sure that’s not what his intention was, and hopefully this terrible phrase will be redacted in the printed version, it demonstrates the lack of understanding and listening to victims up to this point. We haven’t, as a church, really understood what has happened to so many in our midst. That’s an institutional sin that needs to be recognized and repented.
I recently had the honor of participating in a panel interview with Doug Fabrizio of KUED along with Natasha Helfer Parker and Lindsay Hansen Park about the emerging Joseph Bishop scandal, and the church’s announcement that parents or other adults could now be allowed to sit in with their children during youth interviews, and that leaders are not to counsel victims of abuse to remain in abusive relationships. Those seem like common sense solutions, although they don’t really cut to the heart of what we do about abusers who get into positions of power in the church. Abusers are pretty good at finding people to groom and target, and we still have a dreadful history of giving women disastrous advice when they are in these situations. Several callers shared stories in which they or their mothers were told not to report their abuse or to remain with their abuser for fear that if they didn’t they wouldn’t get any financial support from their abusive father/husband.
I was invited to participate because of a post I did at By Common Consent that outlined the information in Church Handbook 1 (2010 edition) and some advice for victims of abuse to help them navigate the system the best they can. While justice is probably not possible, the simple fact is that leaders are given a copy of the handbook, and if your abuser is a church leader, he’s got information you don’t have. He can use that handbook information to help him navigate the situation and avoid accountability.
A few salient points from the interview that I wanted to highlight:
What is the purpose of church discipline? This discussion started with religion writer Lee Hale at the beginning of the interview.
- Is the purpose to rehabilitate abusers, to allow them to repent? If so, that’s quite a rosy view of what a bishop–or anyone–is capable of achieving.
- Is it to prevent future abuse and protect potential victims? We certainly don’t have a great track record at this one, and the handbook seems designed to make it difficult. Even if victims are (now) encouraged to go to the police and open an investigation, that simply means, according to the handbook, that any church disciplinary actions against the alleged abuser will be on hold until the outcome of the investigation and trial. There is no injunction against that person remaining in a position of power while the outcome is pending. Huge miss, easily remedied.
- Is it to provide justice and healing for the abused or to give them a sense of closure? If so, man, we are doing a terrible job at this one. At least we are going to quit telling them to stay in abusive relationships, but that’s a pretty low bar for improvement.
- Is it to protect the church’s image and to prevent damaging litigation, thereby instilling more confidence in the confession process? This one seems likely in that the church has a hotline for bishops to use when they encounter an abuse charge, but the hotline is to the church’s lawyers, to ensure the bishop and church are protected from litigation! However, providing cover for abusers in our leadership ranks is a terrible strategy to avoid bad PR. Taking victims seriously is a much better PR strategy, and also happens to be the right thing to do.
How do you reform a sex offender? Natasha pointed out that even with decades as a licensed therapist and 7 years specifically as a licensed sex therapist, she is not qualified to rehabilitate a sex offender. The idea that minimally-trained church leaders can discern when a sex offender is cured is a very uninformed and naive idea. Look, I have no training other than watching all 19 seasons of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and even I know that.
Looking into the abyss. Because we prefer to remain pure and sheltered, even avoiding R-rated movies in many cases, we aren’t great at recognizing the darker aspects to people. We don’t look at these things in ourselves, and we don’t see them when they exist in others. Instead, we naively believe “Oh, good-hearted Brother S0-and-so would never do such a terrible thing!”
Women being taken seriously. Because women are not involved in many church councils, decision making bodies, and particularly in the confession and church discipline process, men in these roles are not accustomed to understanding a woman’s perspective. Sometimes this makes it easier for abusers to gaslight and marginalize their victims, claiming they are crazy, emotional, too sensitive, or just making things up. That’s how abusers stay out of hot water for their crimes. It’s a staple of how they get away with it, and we make it very easy in our church culture where listening to women is optional, a bonus if you have time and the inclination, but certainly not required.
Those dreaded local leaders. Our greatest strength is often our greatest weakness, and so it is with having an untrained clergy. We don’t do a consistently great job at discerning the abusers among us, taking appropriate actions to prevent or address abuse, or assisting victims in healing. We are too proud of our untrained clergy to ask the experts–and there are many out there. We claim we have the gold standard at dealing with and preventing abuse, but the reality is far from that. We sneer at the credentials of experts, claiming that we know more because we have the gift of discernment. Victims would be better served by humble reliance on experts than a bishop’s arrogant belief in his own intuition or ability to follow the Spirit.
The comparison to Catholicism. One caller said that this was on par or worse than the Catholic church’s scandal. I certainly think we should take this seriously, but it’s not a contest. The Catholic issue was also different in that their professional, supposedly celibate clergy, were systematically sexually abusing children and then covering it up at very high levels. It hasn’t been demonstrated that this is the case here, but that doesn’t get us off the hook either. This is a different flavor of problem, one that requires its own solutions.
Should the church apologize? This question always comes up, and I have to say, I certainly think it couldn’t hurt. Instead our time-tested approach is to throw local leaders under the bus, implying that they are rogue agents using bad judgment without the sanction of the church. That would be a whole lot more believable if it wasn’t our modus operandi. The excuse is wearing thin. At least apologize that rogue bishops are given such free rein to make bad calls.
The perfect victim. We absolutely have to quit expecting victims of sexual assault to behave like anything other than a person who is traumatized, whose life has been ruined, whose trust has been betrayed. Calling out that Joseph Bishop’s victim left her mission early and is no longer a member of the church was a low blow, definitely un-Christlike behavior. Why do we think she left her mission early and left the church? Because she was sexually assaulted by a Church-sanctioned leader and then not believed! What standard of victim behavior would satisfy us as “good enough”? Sex offenders are excellent at choosing victims, and they are excellent at discrediting them. We should expect this, but for some reason (see above), we don’t.
Victims don’t know the rules, but perpetrators do. We’ve literally given leaders the handbook, and made it secret, preventing their victims (if they are sex offenders) from knowing what is due process in the church and what is not. Leaders have told victims some pretty outrageous things because they can, either due to misunderstanding of what the handbook says, or due to not believing the victims and wanting to appease them or send them on their way. We enable this when we keep everyone but leaders in the dark about what the handbook says.
Gender roles contribute to the problem. Abuse flourishes when victims are financially dependent on their abusers. Encouraging women to stay out of the workforce makes them more vulnerable to abusers. Several callers shared stories that were from decades past in which their local leaders told them they had to stay with their abusers because they were financially dependent on them. When we preach as ideal a situation in which women cannot support themselves financially, we unwittingly and unintentionally make it harder for them to leave an abusive relationship. It works out fine when a single breadwinner makes enough money and is a trustworthy, good spouse. It harms women disproportionately when a man is an abusive monster in sheep’s clothing who also happens to hold the purse strings. Women in these situations are even more vulnerable.
I wanted to do a quick follow up article to that post with the advice I would give to the church, so here goes:
- Take ALL abuse claims seriously. This doesn’t mean “believe women,” but it does mean assume that where there’s smoke there’s fire. False accusations are very rare. The church’s revised statement also says this.
- Immediately remove from leadership anyone accused of sexual abuse. This is kind of a no-brainer, but it would be a change. Being in a leadership role is a privilege, not a right.
- Make a second adult present in an interview the rule and not the exception. First choice would be to scrap these interviews altogether. Worthiness is self-reported anyway. Let kids self-select out if they feel they are not worthy. By making it an exception that must be requested, it means that the most vulnerable kids–those who don’t want to rock the boat or don’t have parental support–will still be targeted and groomed. They are even easier to identify now.
- Create a victim hotline and use it. The fact that the hotline is to help bishops and not victims is pretty damning. It’s fine to do both, but victims need to come first. How can we claim we have the gold standard without this?
- Don’t ask sexual questions of minors–or anyone–beyond “Do you live the Law of Chastity as it has been explained to you?” Nothing is lost by eliminating this type of questioning. We don’t train bishops or members how to set appropriate boundaries for this type of discussion, and it’s a minefield. Let’s quit walking in minefields.
- Stop telling women not to work outside the home. If they choose that, great, that’s their choice. By telling them that they are somehow derelict if they earn money, we are morally complicit if their financial supporter is abusive or threatens to impoverish them if they leave.
- Get up to speed on the science regarding sex offender rehabilitation. We aren’t rehabilitating them; by fooling ourselves into thinking we can, we are enabling further abuse.
- Apologize already. I don’t care if Fox News says we never apologize. Apologize for the local leaders being buffoons if you must distance yourselves from them. Whatever. But victims of abuse deserve an acknowledgment that they are heard and that we care, and that includes an apology. Mistakes were made.
- Involve women in church disciplinary courts. Not having women in council in these matters is frankly pretty scary at this point, like sitting trial in the 1960s. No thanks. Consider them “consultative” or “witnesses” or whatever you have to, but we need to hear from women in discussing offenses against women. Change policy to include the RS president and her counselors (or YW or Primary) and ask them to weigh in.
- Publish the Handbook 1. Make it so that everyone can see what due process is.
- Be clear about the purpose of church discipline. Maybe we should get out of the church discipline game altogether.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Excellent post! I think your point on women and finances is especially important! I would even say that in homes where one spouse is working the non-working spouse should be have finances for savings, retirement and for fun. It should clearly be THEIR money.
Discuss? I can only come up with one word – “YES”
Second ‘yes’, but I would add that no discussion of sex should be initiated without a request from the interviewee. ‘Anything I can help with?’ should cover it.
Do we expect to much of the church in terms of law enforcement, counciling, etc. There seems little it can do other than release, disfellowship, excommunicate. And then refer victims to the police and therapists. Even with all you outline above, if abuse happens it is time to go to the police right away. Excommunication should be the last thing the abuser is worried about.
Good morning Hawkgirl: I listened to your interview with Doug Fabrizio and have carefully read your article this morning. Please accept my heartfelt thanks for your work on this particular issue and for having the courage to speak as boldly as you have done. Solid, steady clapping!!! Kudos to you.
Thanks, Hawkgirl, for your incisive yet charitable parsing of Elder Cook’s goof.
Can you explain, though, why you’d advocate redaction in the printing? I’ve always found that practice quite creepy, unless perhaps it’s done to correct an obvious error on the part of the speaker. But it didn’t look like Elder Cook deviated from his printed talk at that point – he meant to say exactly what he said (no matter how misguided). So why are we OK with the Soviet-style censorship, given that we generally want the Church to be more open/honest, and less correlated/edited?
Hawkgrrrl: another excellent post. Thank you.
Gadfly: For my part, I’d have no problem with a footnote indicating “The text of this talk was edited after its delivery in General Conference. The original can be found online at [link].” It’s only Soviet-style if we pretend that it was always one way and don’t speak of the editing.
Gadflown, I would advocate removing it from the written transcript because that will communicate that the phrasing was and is incorrect/unnecessary/a mistake without Elder Cook having to actually admit he made a mistake. Since we know that would never happen anyway. Further, we absolutely cannot allow such a ridiculous and potentially damaging euphemism to creep into our instituional lexicon. So. Excising it from the written transript will help prevent others from latching on to it and using it (in lessons and talks, for example). Less exposure limits how deeply it will permeate our discussions and will keep it from becoming the latest absurd, unclear and unhelpful Mormon-ism.
I SO much agree with everything you said! Thank you for putting my heart into words.
Pondering the plight of women in the church being financially dependent on their abusive spouses prompted me to leave the church with my two daughters when I had to divorce my ex-husband. Luckily, I had computer support skills with which I could support my children.
Perfectly said. All of it. Covers everything that makes me weep every day. And I’m not even a victim/survivor of abuse. But I’m so, so tired of the denials and scapegoating by members and their leaders.
Jacob 2: 6-7 might provide an opportunity to understand a little more abut the language which was used. I am not a linguist but from my limited experience this translates better then other English words.
Hawkgrrl with all of your traveling you have probably can give first hand experiences where you chose words which could be translated and still not insult both the parties you are representing and those you are talking to.
Well said!
I particularly was struck by the thought of avoidance of R-rated materials leading to a counterproductive innocence being an impediment to recognizing and avoiding potential situations. And by the consequences of not involving women in disciplinary events. Both are extremely problematical and make me wonder further whether the actual intent is to resolve problems or keep them undercover.
Thank you for this clear and incisive assessment!
Mark Marsh: I’ve certainly made verbal missteps in my travels. I understand what Elder Cook intended. I just hope he can understand why that was a terrible thing for victims to hear.
Gadflown: Given that these talks are now lesson fodder for the next 6 months, I’d rather not see the phrase “non-consensual immorality” make it into our lexicon. Given the percentage of my ward who voted for Trump and might be inclined to consider rape victims “snowflakes” and being “too politically correct,” I wouldn’t trust the average member, particularly one in whom a rape victim is unlikely to confide, to make a wise call about normalizing terminology.
This is so thoroughly well done; it encourages me as a member to read this approach to a problem that’s been largely ignored for– like, ever. I think this would make an excellent curriculum for several 5th Sundays, or the six months of once-per-month classes in Gospel Doctrine, after we finish the survey of observing the Sabbath. That would really be encouraging. But most encouraging of all would be to see this become a routine part of priesthood leadership training, for bishops on up. Yeah, how healing would that be for many silent survivors, and how much more of this garbage could we prevent in the future. Something is broken in leadership when it looks like they just don’t care to fix this.
I honestly hadn’t thought about the implications of the talk being repeated in lessons (I don’t attend Elders Quorum), though that’s now obvious. On balance, I think it makes sense to revise the printed talk, but I also not that I’ve never seen the printing acknowledge that “changes were made,” as Bro. Jones suggests should be done.
The bigger problem is that I really wonder what revision Correlation would make. While it’s a pipedream, perhaps the best revision would be a sentence stating that, of course, victims of sexual exploitation or predation are not guilty of immorality, but that perpetrators certainly are. That would remedy the misleading nature of Cook’s original statement, while also preserving the important distinction between some prevailing sexual-moral codes (which turn merely on consent) and the law of chastity (which turns on consent and lots of other things).
About the revision, if we don’t keep the original wording (with a note about it’s correction), we never open the opportunity in a lesson to discuss why the « non-consensual immorality » is hurtful and damaging and why exact terminology like « rape », « sexual abuse »,etc though harsh-sounding to prudish ears, is necessary. I believe any discussion must include even what we are discussing here or else you remedy the surface without considering the deeper issues. If you’re hope is to make the church a healthier place, members need to see exactly what and why something is unhealthy. So as long as a teacher is willing to bring it up in a class, TEACH it…….just my two cents worth.
I don’t see a redaction because it would ruin the parallelism he was going for (however off base). But I could see a footnote clarifying that victims of “non-consensual immorality” are not themselves immoral. (Elder Cook tends to make liberal use of footnotes, some of them substantive rather than mere references. His October talk had 40.)
I didn’t think non-consensual immorality worked well. Clunky and vague. Left me wondering, what he was trying to say. The parallelism did provide a track of what he was going for, but I agree it was off base. I searched the term ‘rape’ in General Conference talks and it has been used a number of times–though often related to exceptions for abortion.
I thought perhaps his use of the concept of consent was a baby step in the right direction, but I agree that in avoiding harsh-sounding terminology, the talk became problematic. Here’s hoping for a redaction and a diversion of the term from our Lexicon. Good post from beginning to end.
D&C 42:80-81 will be helpful in understanding what is needed to support a disciplinary council.
Hawkgrrrl. you are the one who hit a home run with this post. Bravo!
We already have a victim hotline — it is 9-1-1 in the US, and other numbers in other countries. Victims of crime should call that number as soon as possible.
The text is up and there is no redaction. There is a footnote, but it is an explicit acknowledgement of the #MeToo movement. No clarification of the term.
In my opinion I also think one of the barriers to justice for victims is that our handbook defines apostasy as not following local leaders’ instructions and they can excommunicate you for it. So if leaders don’t believe you and you try to continue to seek justice they can threaten your “eternal salvation” for not doing what they say. (Keeping quiet, not bringing it up, not going to press or authorities etc) regardless if these have or have not happened in real life our system allows for the possibility. It only needs to be implied to shut a victim down.
This is excellent, Hawkgrrrl. You’ve hit on so many important points. I think what many of your points really highlight is that this problem isn’t a surface-level issue that can be cleared up with some minor fixes. It’s a deep structural problem in the Church. Women have less power than men, and this is reinforced and explained as being God’s will at every turn, and it can’t be surprising that when things go wrong–when men who have power in the Church use it for evil–that the fallout largely hits women.
It has become painfully evident in the last few years, particularly recently, to everyone except the senior leadership that: (1) bishops badly need actual training; (2) the worthiness interview process is broken; and (3) the LDS disciplinary system is broken. The whole system needs reform and redesign.
I want to agree with ji that in the US there are amazing resources available to victims already in place. I would LOVE to see bishops helping women call the Domestic Abuse Hotline. Seriously, I’ve called, it wasn’t even for me, and I hung up so incredibly grateful for such an amazing and compassionate service. I’ve also called the Suicide Hotline (also not for me) and had the same experience. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard of a Bishop calling these numbers though. Do they? So many members see the church as their primary lifeline before the US government that I don’t know that women would call without an invitation from their bishop.
Crimes must be reported, and should be reported immediately. This should be taught to everyone, not just women, and not just Mormon women.
If a man stabs another man in a fight over a girlfriend, there is a much better chance for arrest and conviction if the crime is reported to the police the same or the next day. Wait three weeks, three months, or three years, and the possibility for justice deteriorates dramatically. It’s just the way it is. If they were both Mormon, and the victim waits three weeks and then reports it to a Mormon bishop, well, the victim has knowingly or unknowingly made it almost impossible to get justice or punishment — Mormon bishops don’t do justice or punishment.
If a man date rapes a woman, the same principles apply.
If a MTC president rapes a missionary, the same principles apply. With an immediate report and a semen sample, the perpetrator would be found guilty even in Mormon Utah. If the victim delays reporting for three weeks, three months, three years, or thirty years, the possibility of justice deteriorates dramatically as evidence dissipates.
If I am ever on a jury, I will vote to convict if there is good evidence. If there is not good evidence, I cannot vote to convict. Generally, one person’s word against another’s is insufficient for a conviction, and rightly so. Fairness and due process and all that.
We need to teach everyone, men, women, and children, to report crimes and to report them immediately. Evidence starts to dissipate quickly. Adult victims need to make reports directly to the police, not to Mormon bishops. Child victims and some adults have additional help in mandatory reporting laws.
In a case of late reporting, the guilty might go free. That’s how it is, and rightfully so — criminal convictions require evidence — no evidence, no conviction. The lesson from late reporting situations is to encourage immediate reporting. Let’s teach fellow Mormons: go to the Mormon bishop for scriptural lessons and strengthening in personal healing, but go to the police for justice.
Here’s a shortened version…
If you want to protect and empower Mormon women, teach them to report crimes to the police immediately. Don’t wring hands about changing Mormon culture, whatever that is.
Hete’s the shortest version…
If you want to protect and empower women, teach them to report crimes to the police immediately.
Ji,
Having collected dozens of rape exam kits over a number of years, I can say that while your idea of immediate reporting is good…it is not the end all. The most common report prior to the rape exams that occurred where I was working “I had been drinking and passed out and when I woke up, he was raping me’. The law officers most common experience would be that the women would decide not to press charges. Given that expectation, they developed a pattern of reaction that was less than vigorous in expending resources on a case that was likely to have no charges pressed and at best would be hard to prove. All of this would be added reason why women who are already reluctant to go through the embarrassment of an exam would even report something.
So yes, I think a Bishop or a RS President could provide very meaningful emotional support in helping a victim seek early reporting. If I was a Bishop, and victim came to me without having made a report, I would do my best to support her in making one. However, just as the legal system I knew had become skeptical of the need to expend resources in cases, there are factors that may intimidate victims making their way through LDS cultural obstacles in getting help. It is more than ‘teach them to report crimes to the police immediately’ rather it is walk with them, hold their hand, cry with them, and inspire their confidence that they can say the words.
Rigel,
I’m all in favor of helping someone. But we still need to teach women to report crimes to police authorities. But if a woman reports a rape to a bishop three weeks, three months, or three years afterwards, well, the bishop can support her as she calls, but the likelihood of justice has dramatically deteriorated. In such a case, tragic as it is, and absent other evidence, the woman cannot fairly say that the justice system failed her. And if the Church doesn’t excommunicate the alleged perpetrator, she cannot say that the Church failed her. Immediate reporting is so very important.
Ji,
I am not in disagreement to teach reporting. I understand the importance of collecting evidence. I have collected evidence. But think of this…you can teach someone not to grieve and accept the possibility of a loved one passing in the future, but you cannot control the grief reaction when their loved one unexpectedly does pass.
I understand. And the statute of limitations runs for several years, so later reporting is always allowed.
Going with the idea that the women that are victimized are not complete idiots and universally know the phone number for 911, there must be some humongous reasons victims do not report. What do you see that we can say or do or teach at church on Sunday to change that?
ReTx,
This is not a church problem — this seems to be a problem across societies.
Many years ago, when I was in my mid-twenties, I was guardian of my two teenage sisters. In the parking lot of the grocery store where we shopped, a woman was forced into a car by a man with a gun, and taken to the woods where he raped and murdered her. Neither were Mormon. I told my sisters that if anyone approached them with a gun, to yell and scream and kick and fall on the ground right then and there — to make a real scene — if he was going to shoot her, let him do it right there in the parking lot rather than in the woods — DO NOT GET IN THE CAR! I even made them practice screaming out loud. I did not want them to repeat the error of the murdered woman.
Her error was not culpable or blame-able error, but it was a tragic error (error is too harsh, but I don’t have a substitute word right now). Maybe, maybe, if she had been taught and maybe, maybe, if she had remembered her training in the crucial moment, maybe things would have been different.
Parents, Mormon and non-Mormon,need to teach their daughters to call 9-1-1. Teachers should teach their students to call 9-1-1. Police officers should teach their citizens to call 9-1-1. If a Relief Society activity focuses on safety, the instructor should teach listeners to call 9-1-1. College administrators should teach students to call 9-1-1. Anywhere the subject of rape arises, in Mormon and non-Mormon settings, women should be taught to call 9-1-1.
There is a comparison. Please read Deuteronomy 22:22-26 and see how charitable the law was toward the woman. If a woman cries out, she can save herself. Regardless, the man is stoned — but the woman’s fate depends on whether she cries out or not, and whether in the town or in the field. Maybe calling 9-1-1 is today’s version of crying out.
ji – I don’t disagree. But I think you skipped over what I was saying…. There are reasons that women don’t report. Teaching women how to scream and yell and call 911 doesn’t have anything to do with the reasons that they stay silent.
I even agree that this is a societal problem and not a church problem. But the church takes it on when Bishops act in the role of spiritual ‘counselor.’
ReTx,
I don’t know why some women don’t report crimes. Nature or nurture? I don’t know. Regardless, we can encourage new behavior patterns. We can help others choose to act instead of choosing to be acted upon.
In the Church, I think we are changing the notion of a member going to a bishop for every problem and every decision. If one is ready to confess a sin (his or her own sin, not someone else’s), or needs a temple recommend renewal, or needs help from the bishop’s storehouse, go to a bishop. But for almost anything else, there might be a better selection to be made.
I’m speaking only of general patterns, of course.
Googling it has a ton of resources for explaining why women don’t report. Many are related not to the moment of assault, but to all the repercussions to the woman in the days, months, years, following the assault to the woman if she does report. Teaching new behavior in the moment of the assault (yell, scream, call 911) does nothing to help with all those future negative repercussions.
Especially when it is unlikely to lead to the perpetrators going to jail. Googling says that of 100 men accused of rape via the police, only 6-10 end up going to jail…
I am not saying this is okay or that we shouldn’t make changes, but that the changes we need to make are systemic (such as mandatory reporting by Bishops).
I’m okay with some mandatory reporting laws when bishops hear of allegations from victims, but I honestly believe they will have at best a minuscule effect on conviction rates. If a woman waits three weeks, three months, or three years and then reports a rape to a Mormon bishop, and the bishop reports the allegation to the police the same day, well, much or all of the evidence is already lost.
Really, we need to get bishops out of this. In almost all cases, adults should report crimes to the police, not to Mormon bishops. Or, they can report to Mormon bishops if they want help with the healing process, but they must report to the police if they want justice.
I think we disagree in that I don’t want to imagine Mormon bishops as responsible for rape crimes, but I think you do. True, most rapists are men and all Mormon bishops are men, but there is no connection. I believe that if more women reported to the police sooner or immediately, conviction rates would substantially increase, and it would be easier to future women to report. Everyone, including Mormon bishops, should encourage women to report — whether women report or not is up to them, and I respect that.
Best wishes…
I think we probably agree more than we disagree. I don’t want Mormon bishops responsible for rape crimes either. I just see the reality of the current situation as the bishops’ themselves, the organizational church, and church culture as putting them there. Part of this is that the bishop is the determiner of ‘worthiness’ in terms of the church and part of this is a culture that sees him as the first-stop for everything.
True story.
I was recently speaking to a friend with an inactive adult daughter. The daughter is an intelligent, thoughtful and reflective professional, who mentioned that she would never return to church whilst ‘that pervert’ was in the ward, her former bishop. She is now in her thirties.
He had asked her when she was 14, as he understood he was mandated to do at the time, whether she masturbated. She expressed that she hadn’t even understood what she was being asked. Poor kid.
The former bishop I know to be a well intentioned and also reflective man with several daughters himself, my husband served with him on that bishopric and so knows he was reasonably aware of safeguarding issues for the time.But it didn’t occur to him not to do this.
My point is that both the young woman and the bishop were in an impossible position that was entirely inappropriate.
Both our young people and our bishops are and have been exposed to danger by this system, and it needs to stop immediately. Our sex lives are of no appropriate interest to religious authorities unless we invite their counsel and support.
I fear there will be many of our young people with similar stories, and I think it’s a miracle we haven’t attracted more opprobrium. for this mandated behaviour. Let’s hope it stays that way for the sake of honest hearted bishops. But it has to stop. it was never right. It is never right to ask a person about their private sexual behaviour. Should one choose to counsel with a leader as an adult whilst assessing worthiness to partake in sacred ordinances, then I think that’s a whole other thing.
The intrusion on our young people’s space by bishops needs to stop.
Sexual assault should always be reported to appropriate law enforcement if the victim so wishes.
handlewithcare you make a great point,. Our former and current Bishop would both have been background checked, one as a foster parent and the other as a school teacher. Being put the position you outline they are were/are both of them running the risk of losing that certification, and the case of the teacher their teaching career.
Great post, Hawkgrrrl! I’m glad you wrote specifically why these issues are problematic.
I think the intended parallelism is one of the biggest problems with the phrase “nonconsensual immorality.” Because Cook then went on to talk about consensual immorality, and implied that marital sex is consensual morality, that leaves one wondering if he believes there is such a thing as nonconsensual morality.
I fully recognize that the church does not use the words immorality and morality as opposites because it has specialized its definition of immorality to refer specifically to sexual transgression. Nonetheless, I am deeply troubled by the idea that someone in our leadership may believe that a sexual act could be both nonconsensual and moral at the same time. It moves us backward from understanding that marital rape is a crime that should be prosecuted and returns us to less enlightened beliefs that a man is entitled by marriage to the sexual use of his wife’s body whenever he wants. Yikes.
I believe in calling a spade a spade, saying the word rape when we mean rape instead of the appalling non consensual immorality. This newly mouthed way of speaking is not helping. Even adult members cannot recognize true evil because they do not see it or speak of it. When they live in such a rose colored bubble, they think wearing a tank top is evil (for a woman) and think that abuse such as rape only happens in the outer world, never at church *gasp*