By random coincidence, after I had written this post, news broke that the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) is undergoing a huge scandal regarding sex abuse among their clergy. You can read more about it here. One of the many money quotes:
In sectors of today’s SBC, women wearing leggings is a social media crisis; dealing with rape in the church is a distraction.
“This is the Southern Baptist Apocalypse,” Christianity Today
**SPOILERS ABOUT EPISODE 5 OF UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN FOLLOW**
There’s a moment in Under the Banner of Heaven, episode 5 where the narrative turns a corner for me. Detectives Pyre and Taba are talking to a witness / possible accomplice in his very Mormon home with his very Mormon wife. The husband is gushing about how wonderful his sweetheart is and encourages her to go make everyone some homemade lemonade (WTF is up with this lemonade nonsense?), and while she’s safely ensconced, out of earshot, in the kitchen (where she belongs, no doubt), he openly admits to the Detectives that he has been a part of this secret School of the Prophets polygamist group that is discussing that they should all be taking additional wives, and obviously that’s what all men want, right? But he keeps checking over his shoulder to be sure his wife won’t hear. Det. Pyre, who is clearly appalled, keeps acting like he’s going to expose the husband to his wife as the dark-hearted would-be adulterer that he so obviously is, but he never really does it, instead applying pressure to get compliance from him.
The scene reminded me of an Eddie Murphy sketch on Saturday Night Live from the early 80s in which he puts on “white face,” and then the camera follows him into public spaces and captures just how differently white people act when only white people are present. All the other white people he encounters act like he’s in a secret club where everything is free, there are private parties and drinks on public transportation (but only when all the BIPOC people have exited), and there are no consequences for one’s actions. Apparently, that’s what it’s like to be a Mormon man once the wives are out of the room. Like Trump claiming that “if you’re rich, they let you,” then explaining it was just “locker room talk” (an all-male space), Mormon men secretly harbor the hope that they can have sex with as many women as they want, have their every domestic wish fulfilled without lifting a finger, have a huge posterity that they only have to spend 15 pleasurable minutes contributing to, and their eternal reward is glory and godhood. Are there Mormon men who are like this? I’m sure there are. Were founders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young like this? Probably, according to lots of evidence. Are they the majority? I hope to God they are not, and I hope equally fervently that they are becoming more rare.
Lindsay Hansen Park did an eye-opening post sharing the stories of women (and a few men) who found the portrayal of Mormon abuse in Under the Banner of Heaven to be all too familiar. It’s definitely worth a read if you haven’t yet. As I read through these stories, including several in which a woman’s partner tried to coerce or manipulate her into allowing him to practice polygamy, or used “plural marriage” as a justification for his own infidelity, or physically and verbally abused her using the justification that she needed to submit to his priesthood authority, it occured to me that 1) I have not been abused in these ways, but 2) I do know people who have been abused in these ways, and 3) they were frequently not given the support that they should have been given by their family, their ward, church leaders, and church rhetoric. It made it more easy to understand why these victims of abuse feel triggered by the progressive criticism that the show inaccurately portrays our faith culture. One thing was clear to me in all of the stories I’ve heard, that this is the protection hierarchy: Church > priesthood holder > victims and everyone else. [1]
All patriarchal religions seem to have a “flavor” to the types of abuse that flourish in them. That flavor is comprised of the unique justifications abusers use to blame their victims, exonerate themselves, and garner support from the organization. Within the Catholic Church, the flavor includes elements of the celibate priesthood, pedophilia (and other sex abuses), and the sacredness of the confessional (your confessed misdeeds can’t hurt you). Within Mormonism, our recipe includes polygamy, godhood, priesthood, and gender roles, to name a few of the ingredients. Part of the specific Mormon flavor is that, unlike Catholicism, we’ve brought that patriarchal “priesthood” authority into the home and given that privilege (and justification) to all males, whereas in the Catholic Church that potential weapon remains inside the Church and its institutions. We’ve imported the abuse. The calls are coming from inside the house.
I am aware of a few specific examples of “Mormon-flavored abuse” that I actually heard about. One was a mission president who tried to convince sister missionaries (successfully in some cases) that they were supposed to become his plural wives. This was in the 1970s, I believe, maybe the 1980s. I remember thinking how ridiculous it was that anyone would attempt that or fall for it because the idea was so foreign to me. Another was closer to home. A man in our ward was physically abusing his wife because she would not submit to his priesthood authority (he said) and she fled with her baby. Our family harbored them for a while, but her husband convinced her to come home again. One assumes the abuse resumed at that point because that is how domestic abuse stories go.
Of course, that’s not to say that the Church deliberately creates abusers, and it probably doesn’t even follow that abuse occurs at a higher rate within the Church. [2] Abusive people exist inside and outside of the Church, just like racism and sexism exist both inside and outside of the Church. The reason there is a flavor (including a Mormon-flavored racism and a Mormon-flavored sexism) is because there are elements within the Chuch’s own rhetoric and culture that protect and foster racist, sexist and abusive attitudes, even if the Church also claims not to condone any of these things and sometimes speaks out against them. As Professor Kendi put it, it’s not enough not to be racist; you have to be anti-racist because the system is racist. The culture is racist. The default is racism. If you aren’t actively and effectively and consistently fighting against these problems, you are allowing them to flourish. You can say you are anti-cockroach, but words without actions do nothing about what’s hiding under your fridge.
One thing I related in my mission memoir was that as sisters we were constantly approached by victims of domestic abuse, and yet, we really didn’t have any tools or training to help us know what to do for them. The only tool in our kit was baptism, something which not only didn’t address their abuse but might even lead to more of it. In one case, a distraught woman explained that she had an abortion because her husband was physically abusive and she was afraid he would kill her. We were told by our Mission President to drop her because of his anti-abortion views; her violent abuse was easily dismissed, but her abortion was a dealbreaker.
Reading through the stories Lindsay compiled and considering the horrible abuses that culminated in murder and incest in Under the Banner of Heaven, I am reminded of the Swiss cheese analogy. When things go wrong, we have a tendency to blame the last person who touched it. The reality is that sytems and relationships are more complex. There is never just one failure or cause, including with abuses like these. Many things must have failed to get to this point. Like a stack of Swiss cheese slices, the holes in someone’s support system sometimes randomly all line up, leaving them completely vulnerable to their abuser.
Abuse is often multi-generational; unresolved trauma lives on and is passed from one generation to the next, both through family and church culture, and even in our DNA. Abuse is usually justified by the abuser who blames his or her victims and teaches them to internalize the shame, to hide the abuse, and to protect the abuser. People who should be the victim’s support network, who should help them extricate themselves from the abuse, fail when they don’t believe victims or look for the ways the victim was imperfect rather than dealing with the abuse directly. Abusers are adept at using their privilege within systems to silence and marginalize their victims.
If you want to know where the trauma lies in a family (or a church), look for the thing those responsible for the organization don’t want to acknowledge or deal with. That’s where the trauma is. If you are Mormon, and you don’t know that polygamy is a place where trauma resides (or the unequal treatment of women, or racism, or homophobia), listening to Brad Wilcox’s breathtakingly bizarre justifications or Elder Oaks’ tone deaf punchlines should make it clear. Let’s pretend it’s a joke, and maybe it will deflect blame and make it look like we’re not complicit because it’s not really a problem, and the people complaining are the issue. Nothing to see here. Move alone. The fact that actual missionaries assigned to conduct the Beehive House tours didn’t even know Brigham Young was a polygamist is another such tell.
Under the Banner of Heaven makes one thing clear that totally rang true: the mainstream Church does not want information about fundamentalist sects to hit the news because they know it will reflect badly on them. [3] While this is true in part because outsiders will conflate fundamentalists with mainstream Mormons, it’s also a neat dodge since both sects share the same roots, and while one may have steered into the trauma, and the other seeks to distance itself from it, neither has rooted it out. Neither has addressed the harm in a direct way. Neither is truly anti-polygamy (one is pro, the other is trying to avoid the question, even to its own membership). Erasing and suppressing trauma isn’t the same as addressing and resolving it.
Every time we teach our young men that they have more authority than the young women, we set up a pre-written script for future abuses to be justified. We aren’t creating that abuse, and abuse is still the exception and not the rule, but we are providing the narrative. We are adding holes to the Swiss Cheese, making it more likely that they will line up. When we encourage women to be financially dependent on their husbands, to marry early, to have children often and early, we are creating vulnerabilities that make it nearly impossible for a woman to leave an abusive relationship and survive. When every ecclesiastical leader involved in giving marital advice is a man, we foster an alignment with the male abuser’s perspective, not because bishops are abusive, but because they are not abusers (and don’t recognize it for what it is). While they can’t imagine being an abuser, they can imagine the horror of a false accusation more than they can imagine the horror of being a victim of abuse.
They also are not women, and we’ve set up women to be a wholly different species, not equal, not comprehensible, a role of domestic duties rather than a person. When we teach that a woman’s sole purpose is housework, child care, and to support a man, we allow her family and friends to turn on her or turn away from her when her ability to fill this role crumbles or if her role performance is imperfect. We leave her in a position to hear that she just needs to try harder, be better, do more, forgive freely; we reinforce her abuser’s justifications that place the blame on her and encourage her to downplay her abuse, even to herself.
We must quit adding holes to the Swiss cheese. We must quit handing pre-written scripts to abusers.
- Have you encountered examples of these types of “Mormon-flavored” abuse, directly or indirectly?
- How should the Church address sexism, racism, homophobia, and polygamy in order to prevent abuse and further trauma?
- What other examples of Mormon traumas, things we don’t want to acknowledge or discuss, can you think of?
- What would you tell the Church to do differently to prevent abuse and to address it? What would you tell your daughters?
Discuss.
[1] That hierarchy holds up in every religious scandal from what I can see, and we are far from the “gold standard” we claim to be.
[2] Kirton-McConkie certainly works overtime to make sure we will never know.
[3] This was so effective that at 18 when I first went to BYU, I had absolutely no idea that fundamentalists even existed, or that anyone was still actually practicing polygamy. I had imagined, completely wrongly, that when the end of polygamy was announced, 100% of Church members were hugely relieved and immediately quit this terrible practice, grateful that the madness was over.
Wheat & Tares 
The Church’s strategy to dealing with abuse is to never talk about it and sweep it under the rug. It’s amazing to me that the Church has been able to avoid confronting its past racism/sexism/etc. It has even been able to avoid taking responsibility for all the abuse that happened when it participated in the Scouts program. All my very active family blame the Scouts for the abuse that occurred in the organization, and not the Church who called the abusers to be leaders in that program and often looked the other way when abuse did occur
Because of privilege, I never really understood why people struggle overcoming abusive relationships. Just leave, right? I happened upon a Nextflix series last winter called “Maid” which really helped me understand the complexity of an abusive relationship. The entire socioeconomic system is set up to keep the main character forever in need of her abuser’s assistance. It really made me think. We need to provide these women access to education and childcare for starters, so they can re-build their lives without turning to the abuser for support.
I also devoured Lindsey Hansen Park’s compiled stories of abuse. And while of course we can all picture these odd, not particularly mainstream families causing trouble, what got to me over and over again was that the Church system is set up to support the abuser while the victim is patted on the head and told to simply forgive. I have experienced the church dismissing a wife as unforgiving while she repeatedly would point out that it’s hard to forgive when your abuser still hasn’t apologized.
As for how I intend to protect the women I know, I would encourage them to seek expert help. Do not seek help from an untrained Bishop.
For starters the church could follow the lead of trauma-informed organizations even if it involves massive restructuring of the institutional framework of the church. Effective ministering cannot take place without attention to principles of trauma-informed care. This applies on individual, local, and church wide levels.
SAMHSA’s six principles that guide a trauma-informed approach are relevant: 1. safety, 2. trustworthiness & transparency, 3. peer support, 4. collaboration & mutuality, 5. empowerment voice & choice, and 6. cultural, historical, & gender issues.
https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/infographics/6_principles_trauma_info.htm
Incorporating these principles on all levels would go a long way to helping the church accomplish its mission, make member units and families healthier places for children to grow, and I dare say align us better with the teachings of Jesus.
(SAMHSA and CDC are U.S. institutions but I believe the principles they espouse are universal. But input from international commenters would be welcomed.)
As a white CIS male, I feel a little unqualified to comment. It’s like that LDS book “Women” with a list of male authors.
I will have to return to the questions later, but – this, times a million:
“Every time we teach our young men that they have more authority than the young women, we set up a pre-written script for future abuses to be justified. We aren’t creating that abuse, and abuse is still the exception and not the rule, but we are providing the narrative. We are adding holes to the Swiss Cheese, making it more likely that they will line up. When we encourage women to be financially dependent on their husbands, to marry early, to have children often and early, we are creating vulnerabilities that make it nearly impossible for a woman to leave an abusive relationship and survive. When every ecclesiastical leader involved in giving marital advice is a man, we foster an alignment with the male abuser’s perspective, not because bishops are abusive, but because they are not abusers (and don’t recognize it for what it is). While they can’t imagine being an abuser, they can imagine the horror of a false accusation more than they can imagine the horror of being a victim of abuse.”
Excellent post. Sad that this abuse exists, and in a distinct enough flavor in the church that it warrants a post about it, but your insights are right on. I especially like your swiss cheese metaphor: the church culture itself creates and perpetuates vulnerabilities that enable abuse to thrive in specific pockets.
One thing that I would add is that the reason these pockets of vulnerability don’t get fully addressed is because they are central to the church’s claim to legitimacy. This was implied in the post, but wasn’t explicitly stated and is worth calling out. For example, prophetic leadership is central to the truth claims of the church, and they don’t want to undercut those claims by taking a truly anti-polygamy stance (which would throw Joseph and Brigham under the bus). Deference to priesthood authority (and the spirit of discernment, which enhances that deference) is a critical piece to getting members to serve in callings, pay tithing, and do all of the other outward signs of being a member in good standing; the church cannot undercut that authority without severely undermining the authority of the church in member’s lives.
In other words, to extend the metaphor, the reason the holes of the swiss cheese line up as they do is precisely because that particular structure is what upholds the church itself. They may try to make small tweaks to practices to shrink some of those vulnerabilities, but entirely filling in those holes would make the church overall something very different, and that’s not a viable option.
Mike H, your last paragraph is too true. In order to lessen the abuse of women and children in the church the Church would have to change it entire structure.
A while back Elisa asked me if I would write a guest post about what changes the church could make to help cases of child sexual abuse. I suppose that being both a survivor of it myself and having worked with it as a social worker, I know the subject pretty well. The problem arises in that I know the problem well enough to know it to be pretty hopeless, or that is my emotional reaction.
When I was getting my Master’s degree in social work I found a book in the university’s School of Social Work Library. My university had a big enough Social Work program that we got our own name and several buildings across the street from the main campus, plus’s a huge library dedicated to nothing but Social Work. Anyway, this book talked about a major study done on child sexual abuse breaking down by religious belief. They studied in family abuse, not stranger danger or danger from other trusted adults. And they broke it down by what the family’s religion (the abuser believed) taught. Not by denomination, but which beliefs coordinated with higher levels of child sexual abuse. So, of the things a religion teaches, that put those holes in the Swiss Cheese that lead to more child sexual abuse.
Those traits of a religion that correlate to higher levels of child sexual abuse.
#1 male only priesthood.
#2 strong emphasis on traditional gender roles.
#3 strong emphasis on keeping the family together
#4 history of strange sexual practices such as polygamy.
Does that scream Mormon to anyone else?
So, what would the church have to change in order to close up some of those holes in the Swiss Cheese? It’s whole structure, it’s whole emphasis on the importance of family, it’s emphasis on temple marriage, and the importance of gender roles for the health of families. And it would have to at least disavow polygamy. So not going to happen. Everything else is just bandaids. Yeah, so this is why I am out of the church. Not because of disbelief, but because of the holes in the Swiss Cheese.
In order to end child sexual abuse, women would have to be seen as people, not their role as mother/homemaker/wife. In father/daughter incest, the mother is often incapacitated, sick or absent or emotionally withdrawn. And the father just switches his daughter into the role of “wife”. Because he sees, not an individual person as his wife, but a role to be filled, and his daughter will do if he feels the wife isn’t doing a good job. When I was working as therapist in an offender’s support group, the men would try to justify raping their child with “at least I didn’t commit adultery.” It was better in their mind to keep their sexual desires in the family because finding a willing adult female might break up the marriage. Somehow, their wife and daughter became one thing in the man’s world. Interchangeable. Because his wife wasn’t a human, but a role to be filled by “available female.” And his child was the closest available female. It is the man’s sense of ownership of his family, his ruling over all of them, wife and children in the same category of meeting his needs. The church does this too when they see “women and children” as opposed to “priesthood” = men.
Yup, the church would have to change everything in order to get their level of abuse down to average for other religions.
When I was trying to get help with spiritual issues with the abuse, you know when my professional therapist told me I should talk to my clergy for spiritual issues. But I found that my bishops didn’t see me as a person, I was either subsumed under my father, or my husband. I somehow wasn’t separate. So, bishops have this same “thinking clitch” where women are not separate humans, but an appendage to the men around them.
So, there is my post on what the church needs to change to help deal with and prevent child sexual abuse. Everything.
That’s a comprehensive assessment, Anna, and you are right on. To say the Church is imperfect because it is administered by imperfect men is to give it a pass it does not deserve. As you roundaboutly note,, the problem’s in the institutional DNA. That changes more slowly than the geological face of the earth.
Wow – the statement, “her violent abuse was easily dismissed, but her abortion was a dealbreaker.” I want to write that more as, “The woman’s fear of being killed was easily dismissed, but her abortion to possibly save her life (from her husband’s violence) was a dealbreaker.” And when I was a missionary I wouldn’t have blinked an eye if the mission president had told me this.
And I fully agree with Chadwick’s last comment. Don’t go to a bishop for help on issues such as what was mentioned – at least not at first and never the primary mode of help. They are most likely going to be worried about the good name of the church than abuse.
I want to answer the “how should the church address this” with suggestions such as training bishops (including where to stop and hand it over to other professionals and the law), but I am convinced they won’t. As mentioned above, it seems the top leaders are worried talking too much about abuse within the church will hurt the “good name of the church” and that general silence and a small whispers of lip service “further the work better”.
Wow, Anna, thanks for that comment. It really put words to a lot of thoughts I’ve had that I’ve never been able to articulate so clearly.
You have top Church leadership, including a prophet, that talk about how women are valuable because of how useful they are to men. I have long thought that using our “role” to define our worth is dehumanizing and has nothing to to with the Gospel. I never thought of the abuse angle, but I can see it now.
“The Lord…visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
It’s true, it’s all truth. Throughout history white guys have sucked big-time. And some of our worst sucking took place four generations before us in the form of the “twin relics of barbarism” – slavery and polygamy. And if that wasn’t enough, white dudes have started most of the wars (i.e. Putin), produced most of the infidelity, treachery, hatred, breaking up of families, serial killing, neglect, abandonment, struggles with alcoholism, selfishness, drug dealing, lack of compassion, violence, crime, all forms of abuse, and almost every problem that is challenging the Church and society in the 21st Century.
I’m sorry. I’m seriously, seriously sorry. I really don’t know what to do. I really try to be a good person, I swear I do. Once, being active in the Church showed that you were trying to be a good guy. Now, to many, we appear to be enablers for those above us. But Thoreau was not wrong in saying “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation…” We go to work wondering if we’ll get laid off this week. We serve in callings that we’re not very good at. We coach little league soccer even though we never played it ourselves. We know we take our wives for granted. We know we are carnal, sensual, and devilish. And many of us feel extreme guilt for the iniquities of our fathers. But we really don’t know what to do to rectify the past, and the present is a bit overwhelming. I just constantly feel inept.
Sorry.
Chadwick: I second your recommendation of Maid. That was a fantastic series that clearly exposed the vulnerabilities for women that are baked into the system, including a total failure of support networks. Since we run a house cleaning company, I can confirm that many, many of the women who do these roles experience problems like these, as well as food and shelter insecurity, and a lack of support in their families. (It is less of a problem, from what I’ve seen, in the Hispanic community where maid work is not considered a “last resort,” but is a way for family members to have work-life balance and provide each other support, one of the reasons anti-immigration policies really hurt our industry).
Anna: fantastic comment and additional information. Yes, the weird sexual practices of the past (and the implied future) create some very warped and twisted justifications for abuse in some minds. But rather than call this out for the exploitation that it was (and is), we are more invested in making sure the current leaders who are polygamists (due to two marital sealings) won’t have to change anything or see themselves in a negative light, or even simply defer the question by making it equal in temple sealing practices. Instead it has to be a punchline, guiding members to consider women’s issues as laughable and silly.
Seeker, may I recommend Kabat-Zinn’s FULL CATASTROPHE LIVING. It includes exercises. Do them.
On a day where we yet again struggle to comprehend unspeakable tragedy, I am struck by how our patriarchal institutions refuse to protect the most vulnerable among us. Fifty arrogant U.S. Senators refuse to even vote on a bill requiring universal background checks. Fifteen pious Mormon men turn blind eyes to the plight of abused women, children, LGBTQ, etc. All in the name of an insatiable lust for power and money. There will be no change where there is zero motivation. I swear Brigham Young has been reincarnated in the form of one Mitch McConnell.
Steve Kerr’s comments last night have broad application:
“When are we going to do something? I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated
families that are out there; I’m tired of the excuses; I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough.”
When will we ever learn?
“How should the Church address sexism, racism, homophobia, and *polygamy* in order to prevent abuse and further trauma?“
Simply say it was and is wrong. Only then do women have a chance of becoming equals with men.
“The church does this too when they see “women and children” as opposed to “priesthood” = men.”
THIS! A thousand times this! It diminishes, infantilizes, and disregards women as full adults with adult feelings, and thoughts, and emotions, and abilities. We are not expendable. I am not expendable. I can’t just be replaced by another woman. And I shouldn’t have to cower to the priesthood to maintain good graces with my husband, leadership, and deity.
My abuse has been emotional. To have been metaphorically beaten into the mold of happy homemaker, cheerful mother, and always available wife that has been sold to the men. Never valued for just the individual that I am.
Some figures and facts. These are from Australia which is a far less violent society (murder rate .89 v 4.96 for US), but I could not find similar figures for America, or Utah. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/summary.
55 family violence deaths a year. From 28 million. Arizona pop 7 million, 96 deaths.
28,000 women and 560 men hospitalized after domestic violence.
1 in 6 women and 1 in 16 men have suffered physical abuse from partner or ex.
1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men emotional abuse.
1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted by partner.
I in 6 girls and 1 in 9 boys sexually or physically abused by age 15.
68% of women were abused with children present. Effect on children.
When you look at a ward or class considder these numbers.
Family violence is greatest cause of homelessnes for women.
This is much more centre stage in Australia because abortion, and gun violence are not, and because we have had recent Australians of the year who were victims of domestic violence(Rosy Batty) and child sexual assault (Grace Thane) who then campaigned for reforms. We had a womens march last year demanding action on equality for women. The then PM refused to address the marchers or see a delegation. He was just voted out by women.
I can not see how a more conservative man is not more likely to be involved in domestic violence than a feminist/ more progressive man (more respect for women). Good church men are more conservative.
I have said before that one of the most telling examples of how ingrained this pattern is in the church was a BYU alumni magazine article about what the author called soft decisions to divorce. One of the examples was of a woman whose husband unilaterally decided shortly after their marriage that they would not use any form of birth control. The woman talked about how hard it was for her to have child after child in quick succession. She loved her children, but her life was very difficult. Her bishop talked her out of divorcing her abusive husband, telling her she needed to change her attitude toward the husband and her marriage. The article was very clear that this was a good thing as it enabled her to remain married. Calling BYU to tell them that providing support for domestic abuse is obviously wrong was of course useless. And every time I’ve brought up the article, several men have responded that the husband was not an abuser. Yet this was clearly an abusive marriage, and BYU was clearly providing justification and support for domestic abuse.
PWS: Do you mind if I share your comment in an article at BCC (By Common Consent)? Anna, is it OK if I share your list of 4 hallmarks of religious abuse in organizations as well?
Angela C, absolutely fine.
Here’s the article I referenced: https://magazine.byu.edu/article/divide-or-conquer/
Angela C, absolutely fine. Though I think the place I got the most pushback was in a similar comment on BCC.
https://magazine.byu.edu/article/divide-or-conquer/
I was intrigued by the book @Anna mentioned and was hoping to figure out what book it might be (I’m still interested if anyone knows what book it might be). I don’t think I found it, but I came across some interesting resources including another book that looks interesting.
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781616144050/Breaking-Their-Will-Shedding-Light-on-Religious-Child-Maltreatment
https://childfriendlyfaith.org/
The grooming of children for sexual abuse in religious settings: Unique characteristics and select case studies, by Raine and Kent
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.08.017
I am not sure if I got the wording exactly correct, and there might be one I am leaving out. I keep thinking there were four, then the history of strange sexual practices was kind of an after thought. It’s been a long time, and singling out any religion in this way is not really something that would be done today. I did my master’s degree in the late 1980s, so, whatever book it was is at least that old. And I have kicked myself dozens of times for not keeping the reference. But I didn’t even use that book in the paper I was researching for so I kept no record of it.
And I have no idea if that study was replicated or more recent data might be different.
But those things fit with the dynamics of families with sexual abuse.
I kind of want to say don’t quote me on this, because I am going off of old memory even if it one of those things that horrified me about my religion in a way that one doesn’t ever forget. And I would hate for it to not be entirely correct because it really does paint an awful picture of the church. I probably should not have brought it up and really only ever do when I get so angry I could spit nails. I just wish I could back it up with a reference.
Regarding sexual abuse rates;
I grew up in Utah in a decent middle class active LDS home.
I had 3 sisters.
Three of the four girls in our family were sexually abused.
Two of us—younger than 10 yrs old—by a stranger in a store that sold ski clothing and equipment.
My other sister was raped when she was a teenager.
What kind of training do leaders get regarding these issues? All the leadership meetings I ever attended were just a standard sacrament type meeting, minus the sacrament. No real training.
Certainly no discussion of these types of issues.
Women should have equal leadership roles to men. Period.
Anna: That’s totally fair, and I agree. Instead I used a quote from one of the links provided by JustTrying.
PWS: I also quoted directly from that BYU Alumni article and mentioned you. It’s discouraging that you got trolled for that, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. I’m just dismayed.
Great post @Angela. I have read all the submissions on Lindsay Hansen Park’s post and also saw the Netflix series Maids that you mentioned which is based on a true story. All harrowing in their own different ways.
I bought in to the Mormon narrative and had more children than I might have, didn’t pursue further education etc. One difference is that I was lucky enough to marry a really good man and I’d say our relationship is truly equal. In my young nativity I didn’t concern myself at the time with temple wording even though I saw it as problematic I didn’t see how it would affect me personally. I don’t think many young people starting out married life expect their relationships to go sideways but with the type of patriarchy that is built right into the church system there are definitely some very big red flags – and it can be hard to see how it might affect us personally down the road.
Great post! I love your distinctions between creating abuse and creating narratives for abuse.