With an ethnic group, the group is an extended family. When we were “Mormons” (and an ethnic group) the church was an extended family. That was both the model and the reality.
Families have some significant characteristics. Importantly, when faced with predators and abusers families react by expelling the malefactors to protect themselves.
Fifty years ago, priesthood holders who sexually took advantage were excommunicated for at least a year and their names identified to the congregation. Those guilty of sexually abusing children had mandatory excommunication and could only be rebaptized with specific permission of the first presidency.
But we are no longer an ethnic group and things are in practice judged by membership in “the club”.
The term “the club” comes from federal sentencing issues. If the criminal was a member of the same country club as the judge, someone who the judge could see as a peer, punishment was often very light and (obviously) focused on rehabilitation of a peer.
Since predators generally join a group for cover and access to victims, this natural human behavior of as sympathy to fellow club members resulted in a constant class based enabling of predators.
In the modern church “the club” mindset results in predators and their rehabilitation taking precedence over protecting and healing victims.
As an issue, that behavior results in a constant refrain and complaint of how predatory behavior ends up being swept under the rug and how in practice some predators are more important than their victims.
The problem is endemic to churches. The Catholics, the Baptists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all have a constant stream of scandals in the news.
While the entity “the LDS Church” appears to have attempted to define “the church” as “the source of covenants and ordinances” instead of “an extended family” in practice it has become “the members of the club” and “the hoi polloi” with all the inherent problems that causes — including abused children.
I have no solutions. All I have are observations about human nature and how it interacts with the loss of an ethnic identity in spite of serious attempts to set policies that put victims first.
So that we have a “club” instead of a “family”.
What observations do you have?
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve been pondering on this all morning.. something just wasn’t sitting right. My conclusions:
I’m not sure the church hasn’t always been a boys club. The difference I see is when women and children were viewed as a man’s property, then their abuse is a crime against a man, the man whose property they are seen as being. Resulting in excommunication of the perpetrator. Once women and children are seen as individuals in their own right, it turns out that crimes against them aren’t important. It’s the man in the picture that takes priority.
Stephen R is absolutely correct. The abolishment of the Mormon community has had catastrophic consequences.
As Stephen points out, we were a community when we were Mormons. A community in which we cared for and looked out for one another. By and large, child abusers were identified publicly and were removed from the community.
Now that we are no longer Mormons, and are a collective of individualistic zoom watchers, the sense of community is gone. And the identification and removal of child abusers is gone too.
Now, conglomerates of individuals are led by untrained bishops who might as well have come straight from the 7-Eleven Slurpee line. The bishops have no idea who the half of the congregation zooming in even is. They feel no more affinity for the zoomers than they do for the Dua Lipa background dancers on TikTok.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to abuse of any and every form. But I must likewise condemn the change in the system that has destroyed a sense of community and thereby decreased the chances of successfully fighting against abuse.
Stephen R is absolutely correct. The abolishment of the Mormon community has had catastrophic consequences.
As Stephen points out, we were a community when we were Mormons. A community in which we cared for and looked out for one another. By and large, child abusers were identified publicly and were removed from the community.
Now that we are no longer Mormons, and are a collective of individualistic zoom watchers, the sense of community is gone. And the identification and removal of child abusers is gone too.
Now, conglomerates of individuals are led by untrained bishops who might as well have come straight from the 7-Eleven Slurpee line. The bishops have no idea who the half of the congregation zooming in even is. They feel no more affinity for the zoomers than they do for the Dua Lipa background dancers on TikTok.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to abuse of any and every form. But I must likewise condemn the change in the system that has destroyed a sense of community and thereby decreased the chances of successfully fighting against abuse.
Wait, you are seriously suggesting that sexual abuse of Children is more likely to be swept under rug now than 50 years ago? That families have the natural inclination to expel members for sexual transgressions?
From my anecdotal experience, both are false. I know of too many stories where family members quietly warned each other to be careful around Grandpa So-and-so, but never actually reported their knowledge to civil authorities, or excluded them from family functions.
What is gained by cover-ups of sexual abuse?
1. Protect the “good family name” of the perpetrator and the reputation of the LDS Church.
2. Downplay the concern that that choice of the perpetrator for a church leadership position was not inspired after all.
3. Limit legal and civil liabilities that would come about if the perpetrator confessed.
4. Allow the perpetrator to privately repent so that he can be given future leadership callings.
5. Because the victim needs to prayerfully consider whether he or she is partially responsible for the abuse, according to Elder Richard G. Scott
6. The responsibility of the victim to forgive the perpetrator is greater than that of the perpetrator to repent.
7. It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true. – President Dallin H. Oaks
8. Because the LDS Church’s main law firm, Kirton McConkie, recommended covering-up even if by omission of the truth or failure to report.
9. Some things that are true are not very useful. – President Boyd K. Packer
10. Shaming the victim or accusing him or her of “false memory syndrome” is often an effective strategy.
11. The Lord chastens those whom he loves even if that chastisement comes in the form of unrighteous dominion by his anointed servants.
Needless to say, I find all of this very appalling.
Didn’t they announce EVERYONE’S excommunication from the pulpit? I think they just stopped doing that in every case, not just abusers. I also think it was a lot more likely to be swept under the rug 50 years ago.
“Fifty years ago, priesthood holders who sexually took advantage were excommunicated for at least a year and their names identified to the congregation. Those guilty of sexually abusing children had mandatory excommunication and could only be rebaptized with specific permission of the first presidency”
I’m intrigued by this as it was before my time. Was this official policy and consistently applied, or more a localised practice that varied from place to place? Following on from Mike Sanders comment, there was a guy in my childhood ward who a few years ago started grooming a 14 year old after his wife died. He was in his 50s. He was warned off by ward members and stopped attending. He eloped and married her as soon as she turned 16 (they had continued to have contact in secret). Turns out that when he moved to the ward in the early 80s he had already been convicted of sexual crimes against minors which the leaders in my ward and stake knew about, but which was not made known to the wider membership. Over the years he was given high profile callings, at one point serving as Stake YM Pres, with his wife as Stake YW Pres. He was considered a pillar of the church community.
Now the details here may not map exactly onto what you have said about past practice – I don’t know what happened regarding potential excommunication/rebaptism in his previous ward. And of course, I’m not saying that when he moved in they should have announced “We welcome Bro so-and-so and his family, who by the way, is a paedophile.” But the wider culture around this sucked at the time, and so the ‘culture shift’ described in the OP doesn’t necessarily ring true to me. One of my friends was horrifically sexually abused, along with her sisters, by her father in the early 90s. It was covered up by stake leaders because they were all friends.
There may have been clear policies in place back then, but I’m highly dubious as to how far these things were followed and how often things were covered up instead.
tomirvine999,
If one chases away abusers via excommunication, then that stream of tithing income is cut off.
Official policy about 50 years ago was the “adultery” was grounds for excommunication. I am not sure when it changed, but about 50 years ago. By 40 years it had changed because a stink was raised and after threatening those who raised the stink, the church quietly changed things.
But before the change, child sexual abuse, specifically incest, was not excommunicated. That was only worth a slap on the wrist. The reasoning was that a man’s child was his property.
I personally knew one man who tried to go up against the church and tell the male idiots that child sexual abuse destroys the child, where sex with someone else’s wife only I convinced the husband because he might not know if a child was actually his. The guy was my first counselor for my own sexual abuse. He was a young idealistic convert, when he found out the church’s policy, and he assumed it was just because they didn’t understand how harmful child sexual was. So, being a believer, he tried to correct them. They told him quite forcefully to shut up and mind his own business or face excommunication. He chose to shut up. But it destroyed his testimony.
See, adultery hurt the itty bitty feelings of a MAN. But incest only hurt a female child. No problem if female children are destroyed emotionally. But we must not hurt the itty bitty feelings of MEN.
Your assumption that because we were more of a community 50 years ago means we protected female children is sexist trash. No, the church protected the interest and well being of “priesthood”.
And as for families protecting the children of the family against the FATHER, think again. Nope, he earns the income, that 50 years ago supported the family. The only income. Reporting meant the father might go to prison and the family would be thrown into poverty and shame. And you can bet your sweet bippy that my father made good and well positive that I knew that if I told, the rest of the family would all starve. Yup, he made sure I knew the consequences of telling. And my mother, yes, I was intelligent enough to see that she could not support the family. She worked as hard as my father and earned 1/6 as much. And on top of working full time outside the home, she did 100% of the housework and child care.
And then there is my professional experience working with child sexual abuse. Zero of my clients who told back in the 50-70 were believed. If they told their mother, she either didn’t believe them, or told them not to tell anyone. If they went straight to the police, the police who often knew the man, didn’t believe them.
The official literature still said that in family incest was 1 out of one million, so, since it “never happened” well, nobody believed a kid who said it did. It was more likely people would have believed a girl if she said she was abducted by aliens. Remember, even Freud did not believe his female clients who told him they had been raped by their father.
Child sexual abuse was unbelievable. Except maybe the creepy stranger. But it was NEVER a family member.
The average bishop didn’t believe or support a wife who was battered either. And you know how the first person who was put on trial for beating his child to death was tried? Under laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Yup, it was illegal to beat your horse, but not your child. Then social workers came along.
It was 100% a man’s world back 50 years ago. You are talking the BEGINNING of the feminist movement and ERA.
But, yes, the church has lost community. But church community was not ever the solution to child sexual abuse. It was the problem because it was a community by and for men who owned their wife and children.
I’ve updated the original essay with a quote from the appropriate general priesthood bulletin.
To everyone: the church was never the solution for child abuse.
But conversion is.
@ Jack
I don’t know that I would bet specifically that conversion will be *the* solution to child abuse. I am a bit cynical and wouldn’t even rate it as an “effective” solution to child abuse because how much child abuse has occurred in the name of being converted as well as in spite of being converted. I think that greater conversion can be a by-product of changing habits (intended and unintended), but not a consistent cause.
If you are stating that conversion to the church will be the solution to child abuse – well, there are a few institutions that clearly show throughout history that is not the case.
If you are stating that conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ will be the solution to child abuse – that may be the case AND it is not the complete solution. By itself, I don’t think that the deliberate conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ will always override developed harmful coping mechanisms (though it can provide a motivation that acts as a catalyst for making different choices in real time). Assuming that a deliberate conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ works “as advertised” (which is actually more of a thought process of mine then my experience) – it’s not a 100% solution. So the next time a “converted” individual acts out of anger and chooses an abusive coping mechanism – it becomes a “I wasn’t converted/righteous enough – so God ditched me” moment that leads to a shame cycle instead of a “I screwed up. I need to start the process of making amends and figure out additional ways to avoid taking things out on people near me. I need to start the process of figuring out when I am about to hurt other people and remove myself from that situation so that I don’t do so. I am trusting in God to help me on this one.”
Key takeaway – for every life-changing, “Alma the Younger” story, there is at least 1 promising though non-life-changing “Laman and Lemuel” story.
Amy,
I’m not convinced that a system of laws, however highly ethical, will ever be powerful enough to prevent abuse. The fact is people have to be good. And the only way people can become good enough to build a culture wherein abuse is absent is by being transformed through Christ. And of course, that means the entire world must be transformed in order to guarantee that the possibility of abuse is practically nil. We have to be like the people of 4th Nephi:
2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.
16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
@Jack,
I am also not convinced that a system of laws, however highly ethical, will ever be powerful enough to prevent abuse either. I don’t have the answers, and I don’t know that we are asking the same question – or the complete question yet.
This conversation wanders into philosophy, where there are more advanced thinkers than I am, and more questions than answers anyways:)
At the end of the day, a lot of people ask, “How can people become good?”
A lot of people also ask, “People are are already good. How do we support their discovery of that and how to act from a strength-based perspective to show that?”
These look like similar questions, but to me, they are not. The first applies external pressure to generate an outcome and does not really address how to handle it when the outcome is not met (except in a shame cycle). The second enhances what is already there to generate an outcome (which is less controlled and may not meet performance measures exactly).
I feel that the church organization is focused on “How can people become good?” and has some specific answers based on a very specific structure of family and community formation. And for most people, it probably works well enough to help them set up really good lives.
For my family and myself, that was the wrong question to ask. We needed variations of the second question and needed to remove shame (convert it into actionable guilt and revise expectations) as well as question the priority of various expectations (and drop some “standard” expectations as not currently viable). For my family, the external motivations worked only sporadically and caused more harm then good.
Another way of putting the dilemma that I have encountered is this:
As a parent, are you designing your child like an architect or a designer, or are you creating the environment for them to flourish and be who they are like a shepherd?
Are you setting up habits of accommodation for yourself to let your strengths shine, or are you trying to “New Year’s Resolution” yourself into becoming your expectation? Both groups are going to have relapses, and both may use strengths-based approaches.