There is a problem with predators in every group — even in churches. We are not immune.
by Diego Delso, delso.photo, License CC BY-SA“
The predators in our spaces:
1. Are charismatic
2. Make themselves useful and important to the important people.
3. Prey and abuse on those of lesser social status.
Due to their ingratiating ways, those in charge tend to like the predators and find them useful. This dynamic can cause the complaints by their victims to be diminished. Credability of the victims is lost. To believe and support the victim can be awkward and socially inconvenient. When abuse occurs, leadership often seeks to save and reform the valuable predator and does not focus on protecting the victims.
This social dynamic within the structure of a ward priesthood hierarchy, makes calling predators to account difficult. Too often, their friends are inclined to excuse them or give them second chances. Within the criminal courts, the issue is known as the “country club problem.” When the perpetrator is someone the judge views as a fellow member of the country club and the victim is not, the judge is more likely to look at the issues within the case as “how to save and recover a valuable member of society” rather than how to deliver justice to the victims.
You can see that at play in the various clergy sex scandals across the specturm of religious organizations . The Catholic sex scandals. The Evangelical sex scandals. The Anglican sex scandals .. . and all the other sex scandals.
You can see it with the Epstein matter. There were so many victims and yet aside from the two coordinators, none of the criminals have been prosecuted. An example is Prince Andrew. His punishment has been some social loss and less involvement in the public duties of the family. His standard of living proceeds unabated.
Social hierarchy has always existed. In every time and place in the history of humanity, it has also been a time that dealt with this same issue. The sequence of valuing predators over victims repeats because the predators are ingratiated with the social structure and heirarchy while the victims are outside of it.
70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church established a Committee on Sexual Exploitation, it was the only successful group to resolve the issue of predators. They took the issue seriously in 1991 and thereafter established an independent group to handle complaints and initiate responses. That process took some time. Once an independant group was created, predators could not find safety or protection from friends in the heirachy because the heirarchy was removed from the process. Social connections were no longer protective to predators.
Establishing an outside indepenedent group deprived abusers of all the levers they had and of any friends in the hierarchy who could influence the process. It appears to be the only way to solve the problem of predators that has shown success and true support for the victims.
——-
For perspective.
You can google Tom Kimball from 2020. Look at the links and look for people who comes up when you google Tom Kimball. Look to see who mourned the harm to the victims more than the suicide of Kimball. Look at the recent scandal in Utah where the head of the legislature changed the rules on the rape of a child to protect an 18 year old relative who had abused a 13 year old. When challenged, he claimed his behavior had been exemplary and of the highest morality and ethics. After all, his relative was valuable and the 13 year old was someone he felt safe in discarding. Look to see what politician has denounced him and what has happened to his hold on power. He isn’t resigning. Utah Senate President Stuart Adams said: “It was done ethically and morally perfect.”
It got me thinking because the topic is current again (quick name a president who ran teen beauty pageants, brought underage girls to the states to work illegally as “models”, took most of their earnings as “expenses” and was connected to a sex trafficking group). Or any of the other scandals out there.
The scriptures seem clear, the Bible at Proverbs 28:13 says:
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
The Doctrine and Covenants agrees:
“By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” (D&C 58:43.)
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
I think that if Stuart Adams’ granddaughter had been the 13-year old, he would have tried to get the sentence changed to life in prison.
Everyone should listen to this extremely well-done podcast about the issue of child sexual abuse in the LDS church. It’s a huge problem, and leaders are fighting the solutions every step of the way. https://architectureofabuse.com/
Thank you for again bringing attention to this pattern.
The problem we all have to deal with is that having a “Predator in Chief” undermines our country’s moral values, allowing for and not even questioning what other leaders of his party do. Denying science, rewriting history, using the military as police, becomes suppressing voters, redistricting to gain more seats, and reducing funding for research, education, social programs, health care, and already committed funds for programs the Predator in Chief doesn’t like.
That was exactly my experience in the church. My abuser was loved and they bent over backwards to give him everything they felt he needed to “repent” and return to “upstanding member of the priesthood”. His female victims were essentially shoved aside and told to forgive, not for our healing, but for the abuser’s and the church’s convenience in burying it all. It had to be buried so they could all live in their happy male priesthood fairytale.
The child rapist was more valuable to the church than us worthless females were. All the effort went into rehabilitating him and almost no effort went into healing of victims.
Now, to be fair, There are good individuals in the church and once in a while someone tries. I had a couple of good priesthood leaders, after I was well separated from my father at about 45 years old. Until that time, my own bishops focused more on my “poor father” than they did on my own spiritual healing. I suppose they just do not comprehend how the church teaches us to identify our earthly father with our Heavenly Father and model God after our loving earthly father. They just do not “get” how that blows the concept of “God” all to heck when the father is sexually abusive. I couldn’t even deal with a male Jesus. I needed SPIRITUAL help. My professional therapists kept saying that I needed to talk to my clergy. Ummmmmmm, do nonmembers understand that Mormon clergy is really a car salesman with zero training in answering hard spiritual questions? I could not get the spiritual help I needed because the church only understands the sinner and only loves the sinner. I ended up throwing “Heavenly Father” in the garbage and my God is now not anybody’s father, but a mother to all the earth.
I have personally been lucky in not running afoul of any sexual abusers in my time in the church, but the first time I encountered this “country club” problem was in the MTC. One of the elders in my district was an in-your-face bully to the point that his comp was apologizing for him whenever he left the room. He was very angry and intimidating and would fly into rages, directed at me. But I was a nobody, not from Utah, with no local connections, and he was local and family friends with an influential stake president who came by. The two of them had a good laugh at my expense because I was such a hysterical ninny according to him. Ha ha. Bitches be cray, amiright? I’ve since learned that in the church it’s almost never about doing the right thing dispassionately. It’s not about rule of law with everyone being viewed equally and fairly. It’s 100% about your connections and clout and who you know, and women in general are viewed only through the lens of whatever powerful men see them as people.
Predators also very often do all they can to fit in–wolves in sheep’s clothing. Another one of those things that the scriptures are clear on but the church and most its members ignore.
I guess I had more to say. Many years ago, I did a podcast for Radio West where we were talking about the sex abuse scandal du jour. One of the things that was my point was that the handbook (which was not accessible to the laity at the time) basically told a predator how to navigate the system successfully to avoid accountability, and it was not available to their victims. Even now that it is publicly available, it doesn’t change the fact that predators are the “insiders” and victims are not.
The reason the Catholic predation was so visible is because Catholics have a clear hierarchy. Once the crime is observed, which of course takes a long time because of the opacity and protective devices set up by the hierarchy itself. then the very mechanisms that enabled the opacity become tools to unravel the depredations. Most Protestant denominations do not have a visible hierarchy. indeed, in much of the Protestant network much is made of so-called independent or non-denominational entities, with no oversight and no perceived connection to a higher authority other than their so-called “beliefs. (Here I refer you to Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis). Despite predatory sexual abuse being remarkably widespread in fundamentalist and evangelical circles, the evil appears more diffuse and difficult to address. LDS is a hybrid of these two, or so it appears. While the organization is top-down, the church appears to take no responsibility for the abuse perpetrated by members and church functionaries, hiding behind “volunteer,” denial ( he’s not a member; he was excommunicated as soon as we found out), and bullying the victims to take responsibility because they were walking porn, had bare shoulders, or haven’t forgiven.
If Jesus were to return, he wouldn’t be able to stop vomiting after seeing what was being done by his ostensible followers.
While sexual abuse happens in the church — and I know that it happens because our home teacher was one of my abusers during childhood! — the picture that is being painted by some with regard to the degree of abuse within the church is way out of proportion. The church fares better than most if not all other religious organizations with regard to sexual abuse:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023-old/shedding-light-on-the-complexities-understanding-abuse-within-the-lds-church
Jack, in all honesty, who cares if the church fares better than all the other religious organizations in the world? Any amount of abuse happening, especially with local leaders not only turning a blind eye, but putting the abusers in callings where they can continue their abuse, is too much.
FAIR is hardly a credible source of information, given that their stated intent is to defend the church from any and all criticism.
Jack, you are dead wrong if you think our church “fares better than most” with the amount of sexual abuse. Statistically, we are one of the worst. Most of it is just by member against family and unless the church hides it, it never even hits the news. It is “not politically correct” to do surveys asking victims which religion they grew up in, but one was done that I read about 40 or so years ago. They didn’t name denominations, but it was in their data. What was released in their book was generalized, not by religion specifically, but by kind of belief. They gave the traits of religions such as “all male priesthood” and “strong pressure for families to stay together” as in divorce was really frowned upon, and “emphasis on traditional gender rolls.” And then they listed which traits had the strongest correlation to the percentage of child sexual abuse. Those traits were a perfect match to Mormonism. All male priesthood. Strong emphasis on families staying together. Traditional gender rolls. And the clenched— history of strange sexual practices like polygamy. It wasn’t even current strange sexual practices, but the history of it. Weird. You would think they were singling out Mormons, mainstream the Brigham Young branch. The whole point of this post is saying our good ol boy all male priesthood is set up to take the male abuser’s side against the female victim. And poor delusional Jack thinks we have less sexual abuse? No, Jack, your church (I don’t really claim it anymore) is one of the worst for sexually abusing children.
All abuse is awful and especially that of a child. The evidence is clear that over the years the LDS church as well as other institutions have failed with leaders excusing predator behavior and not holding individuals accountable for their gross transgressions. Predators are a problem, especially because the real ones can be so deceiving and manipulative.
What also is a problem is liars and lying and dishonesty and a culture that enables witch hunts that destroy innocent people.
A case was just settled at Northwestern University with the former football coach Pat Fitzgerald. In 2023 Fitzgerald was fired with the university saying he was responsible for hazing activity involving the players. Fitzgerald sued and this past week a settlement was reached with University officials acknowledging: “While the litigation brought to light highly inappropriate conduct in the football program and the harm it caused, the evidence uncovered during extensive discovery did not establish that any player reported hazing to Coach Fitzgerald or that Coach Fitzgerald condoned or directed any hazing.” In other words, the coach was not responsible for what happened and it was incorrect to claim he “allowed it to happen.”
Coach Fitzgerald is just one of several coaches in the past dozen years who have been wrongfully blamed and fired for inaccurate allegations.
On this very forum we see conflicted arguments. On the one hand leaders are supposed to be fully aware of bad things that happen in their organization. On the other hand, leaders are not supposed to pry and delve into personal, especially, sexual behaviors, of the people in their organization. How do you reconcile this? Do you want bishops who are actively pursuing knowledge of any questionable activity of members in the ward? I don’t. That would be creepy. Yet that means there will be creepy things going on in a church congregation that will probably not come to the attention of the bishop until damage has been done.
Of course, once a bishop becomes aware of harmful behaviors he should act quickly, decisively and accurately! Yet accuracy can be difficult because people lie and misrepresent and distort. So again, what is the fair way to handle claims of abuse? How do institutions and society handle these cases so as to not destroy the reputation and careers of innocent people? I hope members of this forum care that innocent people are not wrongfully accused. For as much as we hate predators getting away with abuse we should also hate the idea of innocent people paying dearly because they are wrongfully prosecuted.
A Disciple, it’s really simple. Believe the victim. Every time. If a claim is proven false, then there are many paths from there.
All too often the victim’s claims are brushed aside. Because the abuser is a leader in the church, or community. Because they know the abuser and he “wouldn’t do that.” Or “children make things up all the time.”
If a claim is falsely made, the truth will be revealed.
Until then, believe the victim.
Anna,
I can certainly believe that the descriptions you provide could apply to such groups like the FLDS–but not the church. No way. Yes, abuse happens in the church unfortunately–but not nearly at that kind of frequency. And, if I may say, Anna, it can not be overstated how highly divorce correlates with abuse.
And I have to say that I’m a bit befuddled by such protestations coming from a group that seems to be OK with sending their children to public school for 6-7 hours a day 5 days a week.
Jack, a two-for-one classic: 1. yes/but and 2. throw public schools under the bus. Sounds like the Utah legislature, where public teachers, under threat of being fired, are required to report child abuse, and LDS Bishops are exempt.
AdamL,
“Always believe the victim” has destroyed the reputation of many innocent people. In which case, who is the victim? The one lying or the ones impugned by the lies?
It is easy to play armchair quarterback on this issue if it is not you or person close to you being railroaded. But it is still immoral to support the persecution of innocent people on the pretense that the allegations are so awful. And saying “oops, we got it wrong” after the fact doesn’t compensate for the injustice.
The desire and objective should be to get judgment and justice right.
Ignore a dozen claims by the powerless and marginalized before you risk wrongly impugning a man, right A Disciple?
And the “Oops we got it wrong,” or “he said he was sorry,” or “he wouldn’t do such a thing” that protects the abuser?
Personal experience. Uncle abused not only me but my older siblings. When my siblings were finally brave enough to tell our father, he went to uncle’s bishop, hoping to prevent further abuses and to seek counsel on what to do next. Bishop replied that it wasn’t possible that uncle had committed any abuse. He was a righteous priesthood holder and attended the temple frequently.
I sympathize strongly with anyone falsely accused. It is damaging.
Unfortunately, the way things have stood and stand now, church leaders actively protect abusers. Some will even give them callings where they have a fresh pool of victims.
The bigger problem the Mormon Church has is that it has a (very lightly trained, but quite trusted) lay clergy that turns over every 4-7 years. When you have tens of thousands of average and below average guys as bishops, it’s a certainty that their decisions won’t all be great. Additionally, they have to fill roles with men to run the wards (women don’t actually matter in staffing the ward, and neither do minor children), and these local male leaders also have actual full time jobs, so just where exactly is their bread buttered? Who makes their job easier and who makes it harder? Other men and the church itself are their only real constituents. Women and children are only potential liabilities, especially if women aren’t earning their own money and contributing via tithing. They matter less. They are a distraction or a time suck. That’s just simple organizational dynamics. Bishops are motivated to believe the ones who make it possible for them to succeed (men), not those who take up their time with complaints of abuse (mostly women & minors). The Church’s response (hushing things up) is not unique, but it’s exacerbated by the fact that every single adult male in the church is first class and everyone else is second class or less.
I’ve heard too many stories. And the church seems to do nothing. At the very least make it so at least to adults have to be present for youth interviews.
Jack, you do not understand incest AT! ALL! The correlation with divorce is that you have a man and woman unhappy in their marriage. The man feels he cannot just pick up some willing woman at a bar or have an affair because he knows that would break up the family. So he turns to his 6 year old daughter, because he can intimidate her into not telling and she “belongs” to him. He isn’t going outside the family for his sick emotional needs and it is more about his emotional needs than sex even. He needs to feel loved, and children are loving, except love to him equals sex, so by abusing his daughter, he feels loved. He is not “breaking up his family” because his daughter is family and she won’t tell because he has her terrified. And in traditional patriarch thinking he owns his family, so the girl is his to do with as he wants. The pressure from the church he belongs to, whether it is evangelical or Mormon is to not break up his family. So, he keeps his emotional needs inside the family. The gender roles being very strict plays in here too. Because often the wife isn’t very affectionate or maybe she has been beaten a few times are really can’t stand for him to touch her, or maybe she is just sick and isn’t functioning as “mother”. The man just can’t stand to not have a wife serving him, sexually, emotionally and waiting on him hand and foot because he is king of the castle. So he turns the oldest daughter into the family’s mother. In all ways, even sexual. Often if the mother is sick or overwhelmed, the mother turns to the oldest daughter for help with household things and plays an active role in turning the oldest daughter into thefamily’s mother and then the father takes the step of turning her further into the adult role of his wife, rather than daughter. The history of strange sexual practices goes straight to polygamy where men married their step daughters or girls who were their wards (foster daughters) as even Joseph Smith did. With the idea that men can “marry” within their legal family, why not his biological family? Or whatever. I do not comprehend the thinking of such men. But polygamy gave men a kind of sexual license and sex abusers take full advantage of that sexual license.
These men can be charming. My dad was. You would have liked my dad…..well, unless he had power over you. He was also quick to take care of widow Jones plumbing problem, even though he refused to fix his own houses plumbing problem. For six GD years. And after widow Jones gushed to the bishop about how great brother abuser is, so of course the bishop isn’t going to believe what his angry bitter wife is saying about what he is doing to their daughter.
You want to project the problem of child sexual abuse off onto FLDS or those other bad people. Not my good friends, no members of MY church are good. People I know and associate with could not be evil child sexual abusers. Which is EXACTLY the thinking of the good bishops who refuse to believe when a five or six year old girl tells her primary teacher something she doesn’t even have words for, then that primary teacher reports to the bishop that this child’s daddy hurt her peepee. And the bishop is SURE that the child is confused because the truth is unthinkable. Just as you are finding it unthinkable that your good LDS church HAS to be better than most, because the alternative is unthinkable. Was for me too at first.
My “at first” was with battered women women. I had worked with battered women outside of Utah first and my clients had no problem turning to their clergy for support and even help in leaving their abuser. Then we moved to Utah and suddenly, I was hearing clients say that their bishop told them they had to stay and forgive. They had their abuser ordained a high priest and put in the bishopric, while the bishop had seen her with bruises or had even visited her in the hospital after such a bad beating she had internal injuries. One woman had put up and “forgiven” years of abuse, until the abusive jerk broke her 14 year old son’s arm. She kicked him out of the house. Guess who took pity on him and welcomed him into his home because poor baby could stand going to a motel? The bishop. Poor man. He was so unjustly kicked out of his own home. One case I knew about in my own ward, this woman had been beaten multiple times. She had a constant relationship with this bishop, cried on his shoulder weekly. The whole ward knew, it was this huge open secret. So, this day in church, sister is sitting in the back with a huge black eye and everyone is gossiping. The abuser is up sitting at the sacrament table and blessed the sacrament. Then a baby he home taught was being blessed and as the HT he was doing the blessing. So, the priesthood holder who gave his wife a very black eye thinks he is worthy to bless the sacrament and bless this baby. After church I went up to the bishop and said what gives? The whole ward knows how sister so&so got the black eye and spouse abuse is grounds for disfellowshipping the jerk. So why was he desecrating his priesthood that way in front of the whole ward.. bishop ducks his head and said, “I didn’t want to embarrass him.” Not embarrassing the man is more important than saying to the whole ward that beating your wife isn’t a good use of priesthood. This is why and how abuse is condoned in the church. Abuse is just fine. Embarrassing a priesthood holder is horrible because it harms a man. So, don’t disfellowship the abuser or hold him accountable in any way. Just let his pregnant wife suffer a another beating because we mustn’t embarrass a man. The guy was elder Q president and so don’t bother any thing that might embarrass his wife who got beaten because he didn’t want another baby and she was such a bad wife for getting pregnant.
So, congrats. You have fallen for the good ol’ boy’s thinking that people you know well wouldn’t ever do something like that.
“Abuse is just fine. Embarrassing a priesthood holder is horrible because it harms a man.” Anna is spot on, and if you haven’t seen it, you’ve fallen for it. When I was a kid, there was a woman in the ward whose husband beat her whenever she did anything he didn’t like (and they had a baby, and she was financially dependent on him). He 100% justified his actions because she was supposed to “obey” him and he had the priesthood. Throughout my mission I encountered women who reached out to us as sister missionaries asking if we could help them get away from abusive husbands, and you know what we were supposed to do? Get the husbands ordained to the priesthood. That’s no solution at all if we care about women’s safety from abuse, but WE DO NOT.
When I taught school I dealt with several cases of child sexual abuse. The most egregious one was uncovered after an assembly about sexual abuse. When it was over certified therapists were on hand to answer students’ specific questions and to provide a safe environment and person to discuss the abuse that students may have experienced. One of my students talked to a therapist about her best friend (also in my class) who was being abused along with her two older sisters by their oldest brother and their father who was 1st counselor in their stake presidency. The dad and brother had told these girls to keep quiet because they were “honoring the Priesthood” in a special way when they were assaulted. The student who was being abused had told her best friend what was going on, and as a result of the information presented at the assembly this best friend realized that her best friend was being sexually abused and wanted to know what she could do to help her friend.
A therapist invited this girl to tell her about what she and her sisters were experiencing at the hands of her brother and dad. It was horrific. I actually had to throw up after the therapist shared the details of the abuse to the principal, guidance counselor and me. We were speechless when we discovered that the mother knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. As first responders we called the local police department and reported the abuse.
My student and her sisters were called every horrible name in the book and called liars by neighbors, ward members and the SP and high council. The hate was palpable. Even after the trial when it was proven that these two men had abused other girls all in the name of the Priesthood the hate continued. The mother refused to stand up for her own daughters. Several times each of these girls considered taking their own lives.
Four years later, the dad and brother were released from prison and allowed to move back home. Neighbors and the ward knew that they were no on the sex offenders registry but continued to allow their children to be around these men “because they’d repented”. The roommate of one of the ladies I taught with was assigned to be the parole officer for the father. She’d worked in both the court and prison systems and told us that the father and brother were the worst parolees that she’d ever dealt with and that in prison they’d had to be separated from the general prison population because of their reputation and the threats on their lives. She said that she always felt that she was in the presence of evil when she met with them. Even so, these men were welcomed back with open arms while the girls were once again under serious threat. I was part of a group of concerned adults who were afraid for these girls and petitioned the court to remove them from their home. Our petition was granted and the girls were put into the care of a relative who lived in Texas where they remained until they were 18. It’s no surprise that they all left the church which had done nothing to protect them and had actually acted against their best interests. At the time I was a TBM, and this experience was one of the first times I began to doubt that the church could possibly be of God when the leaders and members seemed so hellbent on supporting the perpetrators while verbally and socially crucifying the innocent victims. Unfortunately, such stories are quite common in the church and in Utah.
While I empathize with those who have been abused by church members — being a victim of such abuse myself — there are some things that we need to remember. There are other dynamics in the church that work very strongly against the patterns that are being set forth in this conversation–one of them being ward and stake boundaries. Another being membership records. Another being two-deep adult leadership for children and female leadership for young women. And yet another being ward councils.
And so, as it relates to abuse happening in the church–there really are a number of good safeguards. The last thing an abuser wants is for an angry father to come knocking on his door–and that’s the outcome that the above safeguards lead to regardless of whatever intervention there might be on the part of the leadership.
As it relates to abuse within a latter-day saint family–that’s a little more complex. The common narrative having to do with the leadership protecting priesthood holders does not take into account the agonizing razor-sharp line that the bishop/stake president must walk between doing what’s best for the victim and doing what’s best for the family. Nor does it take into account the role of civil authorities and other professionals in such situations. Nor, dare I say, does it take into account the spirit of revelation and righteous judgment.
All of that said, of course the wellbeing of the victim comes first–and Jennifer Roach who worked for the church’s hotline will attest to their commitment to that priority. Next comes the wellbeing of the family–and often the only thing that can be done is for extended family, friends, and members of their ward to help bear the family’s burdens as they go through a painful separation. And finally comes the repentance and reformation of the abuser.
There’s a lot that has to be dealt with in these horrific situations–so let’s be careful not to rush to judgment. I think most bishops and stake presidents will find themselves at one time or another watering their pillow as did Nephi for his people.
Anna, et al,
I’m not saying that abuse doesn’t happen in the church or in latter-day saint families–yes it does unfortunately. I’m saying that it doesn’t happen at the frequency that some folks purport. While the anecdotes that I hear are very sad — and believe me I have my own personal anecdotes — they do not amount to the kind of epidemic that some folks believe it to be.
Jack, please provide some source for your claim that abuse doesn’t happen “at the frequency that some folks purport.” Then please go listen to the “Architecture of Abuse” podcast I linked to above and see if that changes your mind at all.
Dot,
See the link I left in my first comment.
Jack, I have already said that unfortunately, at least one study. and the only one I have ever found that looked at how frequent child sexual abuse is among the various denominations, found that sexual abuse among Mormon families was higher than in most other denominations. This is a sad finding and one that we should mourn, not pretend doesn’t exist. In other studies I have seen, all the markers of higher than average abuse are there for Mormons. Rape and child sexual abuse rates are also higher for Utah than average in other states. I can’t avoid thinking that has something to do with the predominant culture. There are other markers of increased rate of child sexual abuse such as purity culture and large families, rates of depression, suicide. All those markers are higher in Utah and all correlate to higher rates of child sexual abuse.
We don’t solve the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist and for things to change male attitudes need to change. By pretending that Mormons are somehow different and it doesn’t happen as much as the rest of the world, we fail to see it when it does happen.
There were so many people around me who knew something was wrong, but, gee, they just couldn’t imagine. They ignored what they saw, because if they admitted what they knew to be going on, then they would have to risk doing something. But nobody ever even asked me *what* was wrong. That is what I am fighting, not to prove all Mormons are evil. But for people to know it happens and to care half as much about the well being of the child as they do about the man. People knew my mother was abused and their attitude was, oh well, tough shit, sucks being you. So, I wasn’t a bit surprised that they just ignored all the signs that something was wrong between me and my father.
I am saddened by every story I have read in this chain.
Hawkgirl says, “…if you haven’t seen it, you’ve fallen for it…” I hope that isn’t true — I haven’t seen it, but I also haven’t fallen for it — my first thought is to believe what I have read with profound sadness for the victims.
But there is one thing I admit that I simply do not understand, and maybe it is because I am a convert — I simply don’t understand why adult members of the church choose to contact their bishops instead of the police (not in addition to, but instead of) when they learn about child abuse in a family setting, or why bishops don’t immediately call the police after learning from a victim or witness. My plea for what might be a needed change in our church culture is please, please, go to the police, not a bishop — one may voluntarily go to a bishop to confess his or her own serious sins, but reports of crimes by victims or witnesses must go to the police. In the story above of an uncle’s abuse of three siblings that was reported by their father to a church bishop, I cannot help but to be pained that the father failed his children by reporting only to a bishop — but I only know what I read in this thread. If anything in our church culture made the father report only to a bishop instead of to the police, we need to change that aspect of our culture.
That said, I appreciate at least somewhat the social stigma that young victims (and older victims, too) may feel, and I am sympathetic to those victims. I realize that an instruction to go to the police is only part of a solution.
I hope this discussion in this setting is helpful to both the culture and also to individuals. I know nothing about numbers or rates (and I hope they are low), but individuals should be able to tell their stories. Sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant.
Jack: “Jennifer Roach who worked for the church’s hotline will attest to their commitment to that priority” LOL. Jennifer Roach is a well-meaning convert from Evangelical christianity who says that things are much worse over there. OK, fine, and possibly true, but that doesn’t mean they are a bed of roses over here. She cherry picks quite a lot and was not raised LDS; plus, she’s very invested in seeing the positives here that justify her conversion.
Ji,
I believe you that as a guy and convert you may not have seen it, because it is the air we breathe. And abuse is kind of hidden. Not many women are as open about their being abused as that one lady. She shocked me in how open she was about how she got the black eye. 99.9% of women lie about it to protect their abuser and because they are embarrassed and to some extent think it is their fault. Same with child sexual abuse. When I was a teenager and fully understood that dad could go to prison and that I would be placed in a foster home or even the lock up for juvenile delinquents (because back then that was where they placed sexually abused girls, not because they were guilty but because they didn’t have a better place to keep them safe) I lied. One person said something about anger at my father and I never spoke to them again. So, victims hide it, more from men than other women. And unless you are aware that abuse happened and believe the victim, unlike Disciple, you see the reaction as protect the poor guy who has been lied about. Or you don’t even see the reaction because it is hidden. When the church settles with a victim, they make them sign a nondisclosure agreement to never talk about it. That right there is a cover up. Why shouldn’t she be able to get the support of friends and family instead of being gagged? I was told by bishops that I never confided in to stop talking about it. I was making him feel uncomfortable because one of my friends wanted me to get the spiritual questions I had answered and he didn’t have answers. So, instead of trying to reassure me that God loved me even when the church coddled my father instead f holding him accountable. Oh, technically, he was held accountable, but the stake president apologized to him over it. See, he was excommunicated with APOLOGIES from his stake president because the stake president felt he had to follow what the handbook said, but really didn’t think it was so bad he should be excommunicated. It was sort of a “terribly sorry we have to slap your hand for child rape, but that is what the rules say.”
But, see, you wouldn’t have seen any of that unless you were in his church court or read his letter to me saying what happened. And even most of the men in his court probably didn’t really see it because he minimized what happened, probably told them I was willing and all the other excuses and never admitted to abusing my sister. And he was such a charming guy. He really was. He could wrap people around his little finger, but really he was a manipulative jerk. But people fell for his sweet guy act.
But even if you follow what has been in the news, you see it if you know what you are looking at. Take the Joseph Bishop case. Look it up if you have to. But the church dug up every bit of dirt they could on the victim. I mean, they had private detectives dig through things like adoption records to find everything they could to make her look like a liar. They did a pretty good job of dragging her through the mud. Never understanding that abuse by someone who represents God will really mess with a person’s brain. Of COURSE she was half crazy, she was seduced by her mission president. If she wasn’t half crazy she would have killed herself. But people refuse to see the broken person as reacting in a normal way to damaging abuse. No, they see the crazy behavior that *results* from the abuse as proof that it is all her fault somehow. The girl abused from the time she was three who is currently 15 and has slept with 18 guys is just a slut who must of seduced her father just like he says. People see the damage as proof that it was her fault or that she is lying. Look for that. Go back up and read Disciple’s post or Jack’s insistent that it just can’t be as common as 1 out of 3 girls in Utah are sexually abused by an adult somehow before age 18. It might just be a forced kiss, or groping on the bus, but some unwanted sexual touching by an adult. So, that leaves out date rape and unwanted touching by peers, because that question was limited to touching by adults. It also leaves out verbal sexual harassment by adults, like one gross school teacher that the boys thought was SO funny because of comments about girls boobs in class. (That would not be ignored today like it was then in 1960s.) once you know what to look for, you will see it. Denial, blame, ignoring are all visible even in the news about how the church handles sexual abuse claims.
One other thought that we haven’t talked about here is purity culture. In purity culture, like the Old Testament, it doesn’t matter if the girl was taped or seduced the guy, once she had had sex, she is a licked cupcake. But we in the LDS church don’t teach the girls things like once they get so much as kissed, they are a licked cupcake. No, just ask Jack, we are better than telling our girls they are worthless trash if they get touched sexually. But, no I am not angry. I just assume whoever wrote lessons like that is in the deepest corner of hell.
Anyway, purity culture doesn’t ever talk about consent, yet what is “most precious and dear” is a girls virginity. Consent doesn’t matter. Only purity. The baby box has to be kept perfectly clean or it is forever worthless, because even the atonement won’t make a girl clean again if she is soiled by sex. This attitude goes into not protecting girls from sexual abuse, because the girl is supposed to defend her virtue to death. Society isn’t responsible for protecting innocent children who don’t even know what sex is. They are somehow supposed to protect their honor, even when kept totally in the dark about anything sexual. Even knowing about sex dims the girl’s purity, or didn’t you understand why icky call themselves Christian are so against sex education in school. Girls are supposed to be totally innocent and ignorant until their wedding night because that is purity. Makes the wedding night traumatic, but her problem.
So, purity puts the responsibility staying pure on the girl with no difference between rape and consent. Then it makes the impure girl worthless. So, why doesn’t the church care more about victims? Because once abused, they are worthless. Why doesn’t the church do a better job protecting children? Because that is the children’s job, or maybe their parents, but then the parents can’t all go to primary and protect their children, so really it falls on children to protect themselves and our culture doesn’t want to give those children the knowledge they need to do so, because denial= not in our church.
When I was in a YSA ward after college a special needs girl in my ward was raped near the bus stop a block away from her home. The poor girl’s parents had neglected to give her anything beyond the most basic instructions about sex, so she had a difficult time explaining to the police what had happened to her. Of course, she was traumatized beyond belief. Fortunately, a driver coming home from a night shift saw her after the rape and got a good look at the perpetrator. The rapist was caught. It turned out that he was a serial rapist in the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley.
About a month later this young woman discovered that she was pregnant. She didn’t know how babies were made, so this was a shock. According to the church handbook a woman can get an abortion in the case of rape and sexual abuse/incest. However, her parents refused to let her get an abortion. They blamed her for the rape and the pregnancy. Our bishop and SP spoke with the parents who would not relent on their decision that she would have to carry the baby to full term. They explained that she was an innocent victim and that the Lord would understand her terminating the pregnancy because she was intellectually challenged and couldn’t totally comprehend what had happened to her let alone have the ability to raise a baby in her condition. The parents stood firm.
Our Relief Society decided that with parents like hers she was going to need all of the love and support that we could give her. The bishop and his wife supported us in our endeavors. When the parents notified the bishop that their daughter was going to raise the baby on her own because this was part of her “penance” for being assaulted and becoming pregnant he was livid. They were heaping scorn and shame upon her for something that wasn’t her fault.
The bishop and his wife came to RS to have a candid discussion with us about rape, consent and other pertinent topics. Believe it or not we had women in the ward who were completely clueless about basic sex because their mothers hadn’t addressed the topic other than to how it related to puberty and had counted the maturation talk girls get in 5th grade as all of the instruction their daughters needed. I would’ve been in that group too if a woman in the ward I grew up in who was my honorary mom hadn’t given me all of the pertinent information I needed which I then passed on to my sis who was 2 years younger than me. Our mom couldn’t even say the word “sex” without practically strangling the word to sound like “shect”.
Our bishop’s wife had a nurse come speak to us in RS about basic human sexuality and answer our questions. We also had a counselor from the Rape Crisis Center talk to us about consent, what constituted sexual assault, reporting assault, etc. The guys in the ward got “the talk” the following week.
I agree with Anna that purity culture causes so many problems in the church. Many Mormon parents abdicate their responsibility to adequately instruct their children about human sexuality as well as consent. I know because I ended up having to give some of my 5th grade girls “the talk” because their mothers hadn’t done so and they were concerned when puberty suddenly happened and they thought that they had cancer and were dying. The church spends so much time preaching about covering up “porn shoulders” or telling the girls that they are responsible if the boys and men have sexual thoughts about them regardless of how they are dressed. Its approach to human sexuality is full of shame and condemnation. This ought not to be. Period.
I’m traveling as I often do. I attended a local branch for sacrament meeting today in a rented hall. In the elders quorum, we had (in alphabetical order) American, Australian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, New Zealander, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese. Several were investigators. A host country translator translated to/from English; the foreign attendees spoke English. Topic was priesthood duties, authority, offices, and so forth. There was no hint or discussion of presiding or unrighteous dominion, but only serving and helping others. Maybe from time to time, there is some therapeutic value in small meetings outside the U.S. with only gospel simplicities and without cultural baggage. There is good in the Church.
Anna – as with so many of your comments, you are spot on and put words to important concepts. I wanted to highlight this: ” But people refuse to see the broken person as reacting in a normal way to damaging abuse. No, they see the crazy behavior that *results* from the abuse as proof that it is all her fault somehow.” Yeah. Yeah, the crazy, obnoxious accuser is acting that way because of the abuse. Thanks for saying that so clearly.
Janey, as one of those crazy accusers that got the blame dumped on me, I was talking about myself.
The idea of purity culture is in Poor Wayfaring Stranger’s story about the special needs girl. Purity culture says if it was sex then the female is guilty and irreparably damaged. But purity culture is down right hateful. First of all, if nobody taught her about sex, then she cannot be held responsible because if you don’t know about a “sin” then the people who didn’t teach you are at fault. So, what about the parents being guilty of not teaching their children? Then if she is too intellectually impaired to understand, she is like a below 8 child and cannot be held accountable any way. But in purity culture, if her vagina got touched, she is dirty and guilty no matter the circumstances. So that was exactly how her parents were taking it. She HAD to be at fault because *sex*. No matter even that it was a known rapist and he was caught and probably prosecuted. Nope, it was sex so she needs to be punished.
Yup, that story makes me furious.
As an add-on, Tia Levings’ memoir “A Well-Trained Wife – My Escape from Christian Patriarchy” (2024), addresses a common reality in the Evangelical world: women, especially wives, are responsible for the moral failings of their husbands/men. They are at fault when their husbands are abusive because if women were righteous enough, their men wouldn’t act this way. So, if he acts this way, it is because SHE is not sufficiently righteous to reform him, and he gets off free.
@Jack
Here is another good example that just happened. The church actively discourages reporting to save face with the public. I can’t think of any other valid reason why reporting would be discouraged. Out of safety for children, you’d think the mindset would be to over report just so that no one slips through the cracks. It’s really easy to say that you don’t think it’s happening as much as everyone thinks it is, but how would you know that when the mechanism for measuring that is being actively suppressed? The common pattern I’ve noticed is that abusers are really good at keeping up appearances and fooling everyone around them. I personally don’t find it useful to try and pick apart which church has better numbers, because that orients us in the wrong direction–that being the preservation of the institution. Institutions with lots of money tend to stay a round a long time. Rather, we should be prioritizing the lives of children as they only have one. Additionally, why in the world do you feel it so necessary to defend the church? They have all the power, the money and lawyers in this dynamic. They can defend themselves and it is stuff like this that destroys trust. It seems your voice would be better put to use by calling for change within the institution.
chrisdrobison,
We have to remember that even the DCFS decides not to pursue 50% of referrals after screening. So there’s a lot more going on than meets the eye in these judgments–and for reasons that the general public often doesn’t understand very well.
Jack, considering your own past, I would appreciate more empathy and “mourning with those who mourn.” When I see you write that abuse isn’t happening as often as it is purported to occur, what that tells me is that my story, my past, and my pain don’t matter to you. Because, according to you, it’s a rare occurrence.
Click to access publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
Only 12% of child sexual abuse gets reported. What that tells me is that for every twelve children who get listened to and whose abuse gets reported, there are 88 that who don’t.
It’s happening, and happening more often than you would like to admit.
https://www.abc4.com/news/crimes-against-children/orem-man-released-on-bond-csam/
41 counts of CSAM. Forty. One. And members wanted him released, writing letters of support. Including a Dean at BYU. To me, that speaks of willfully ignoring the victims.
Maybe your life is so blessed that you don’t, or can’t, see the vast problem. In some small way I’m jealous. However, I’d much rather pay attention to the pain happening around me, mourn with and help those who are suffering any way that I can.
AdamL,
I’ve admitted that abuse happens in the church and in latter-day saint families. And I’m sympathetic to all–including you my friend–who have suffered from such offenses. What I’m against is the narrative that’s being produced — mostly from anecdotes and studies having to do with patterns (rather than real data) — that suggests that the church has an especially egregious problem with abuse.
Take a look at the link I left in my first comment. Jennifer Roach does an excellent job presenting real data that works against the narrative constructed by the AP and other content creators.
Jack: I’m not saying the church is worse than everywhere else. I’m saying that the church has a problem and that there are way too many instances of the abuser being allowed back into a situation where he can abuse again.
I have a Masters in Library and Information Science. I learned as part of my coursework how to evaluate information in order to better help researchers find appropriate sources for the purposes of their research.
As I read through Jennifer’s presentation, the only source I noticed that she cited was the BSA’s “p-file”. So, the best data-specific information she provided was drawn from 80 plus years of Boy Scouts records. And that data showed that the church didn’t have the most numerous cases of abuse of scouts. Great.
In contrast, if you follow my first link, you not only get the information laid out in a list, easy to read and understand, you also get a list of the sources they used to compile the information. If you went to those sources, you would have some combination of research done through surveys or clinical fieldwork and reading drawn from sources that have also done the research.
Beyond this evidence of where the information comes from, your FAIR source also has the problem that Jennifer is making a presentation to say that any accusations are not accurate and that suggestions to better help protect children won’t actually help.
I wouldn’t trust an article that doesn’t show where the claims are coming from and I would certainly not suggest it to my patrons. And helping find information is what I do professionally.
Again, I’m not saying the church is worse or better than other organizations. I’m saying there’s a very real, all-too-common problem that exists within the church. There are also too many cases where the abuser has been allowed back into situations where he could harm others for these cases to be dismissed as insignificant. And in this case, with “too many” I mean more than I can tick off my fingers.
But from what I’ve read of your comments here I doubt that anything I write will cause any shift or twinge in your manner of thinking. Your comments generally express the idea that you are right while everyone else is wrong, confused, or misguided.
I am here to learn from my fellow commenters. I am here to occasionally share relevant personal experiences. I’ve shared my professional analysis of the link you provided. There are many, many more victims than get reported. I worry about them more than I worry about the reputation of the church.
I wish you shared that worry.
Just wanted to add that this link https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf , which is the same I provided before, is from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, a national non-profit dedicated to providing information and tools to prevent and respond to sexual violence. They are not content creators.
Adam, I appreciate you’re expertise in gather information. And I know you don’t come at this topic lightly–as a professional or as a victim. Even so, I think Roach’s findings about abuse in the BSA is clear evidence of a trend that is wildly counterintuitive to the standard narrative of critics of the church. It shows that there was something significantly different about the latter-day saint troops relative to the topic at hand. What accounts for the difference? And here’s another bit of counterintuitive evidence that shows the same sort of difference I’m talking about:
https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/social-justice/byu-method-model-preventing-reducing-campus-sexual-assault/
These differences in numbers–as compared to general trends–are very significant. That said, I’d like to see a study that digs a little deeper into latter-day saint life at home–and get some clarification there. Even so, based upon the studies that have been done thus far–studies that show real numbers–I think we should be more optimistic about the church in general and not be too quick to jump on the negative bandwagon.
Jack,
I do not think you understand what actually constitutes real, verifiable, unbiased data. A single article citing BYU as exemplary without actually acknowledging the valid reasons why the data is skewed low does not actually support your position. If BYU did not have the “honor code” and all of its attendant issues that actually drive under reporting, then using the BYUs reporting data would be valid, but the honor code and legitimate fear of reprisal is what makes the Y’s reported cases of sexual assault so low. The article you reference does not even address this – they seem to assume that because all reporting is low, then with all things considered equal the instance of reported assault at the BYUs would show an overall lower instance of sexual assault…but all things are not equal due to the legutimate fear students have of their report negatively impacting them. The tell for me was that LGBTQ student reports were a quarter of the national rate….but just admitting you are LGBTQ at BYU Provo and Idaho would have negative outcomes, so those numbers are already suspect.
AdamL, if you have not had much interaction with Jack, then please understand that nothing you say will dissuade him. His stated purpose in coming and commenting is to protect the fragile testimonies of members who come to this site and are faced with opinions, facts, and representations that do not follow what he feels is a faith-promoting narrative. As stated by others who have responded to him, he will not address any valid questions without sidestepping or resorting to his own testimony or pleas to consider those with fragile testimonies and how the information is harming them. His intent is not to actually engage in dialogue, it is to protect those he sees as vulnerable, which, in his own mind, gives him an unimpeachable moral position that does not need to be persuaded, nor can he be dissuaded because to do so would result in the destruction of souls. This is what he does to do his part in defending the institutions he values, without ever acknowledging the fallibilty of those institutions or validity of any data that does not promote his view of those institutions. It is exhausting to engage with him, so my advice is to simply address the audience he is is truly addressing in his own mind, and let it go. Unlike Jack, I believe adults can and will make up their own minds using the agency they fought for ( and are still fighting for if they are coming to this site). The commentors do a commendable job of not allowing him to have the last word…until it has been made very obvious that having the literal last word is his only objective…which is the point this thread has reached.
Jack quoting fairlds and publicsquare (of all places) and not accepting other, more accurate and hard facts is peak Jack. He cares for nothing, even truth, if he considers it as harming the church, and has been unable ever on the bloggernacle to realize that dishonesty, misinformation, etc. actually harm the church more than the truth he keeps refusing.
I don’t care about defending myself–but just for clarity’s sake I want to point out that, so far as I’m able to tell, most if not all the information that has been shared on this thread vis-a-vis abuse in the church has been anecdotal.
I’ve provided links to two studies that have real numbers. Now maybe some folks here have a distrust of the sites where these studies are found–that’s fair (no pun intended). Even so, they are chock full of information from reliable sources. Give ’em a gander!
Jack: As my last interaction, I wish you could understand the very real harm your comments and stance cause. They have harmed me. When presented with information that there is a problem with the church protecting predators, you have dismissed it. “Is not as bad as its made out to be.”
Healing, and repentance, cannot begin until the problem is recognized and admitted. Your dismissal of information, whether anecdotal (which includes personal, painful accounts) or statistics-based, protects the predators.
The church gains nothing from your defense of it. The people whose pain you dismiss find fresh openings in wounds they are trying to heal.
You don’t have to make these comments. Your words are what we’ve heard before when reaching out for support from other members and leaders in the church. And each refusal to acknowledge the very real and present problem is a blow that makes it harder to get out of bed, to continue caring, to continue fighting so that more young children aren’t abused by those who should be most invested in protecting them.
Isn’t it ironic that Jack is here defending the church whole cloth under the guise that it’s to show support to brand new members of the church. Well, if I was a brand new member of a church and I saw a member sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming la la la la la when people share evidence of abuse, I would run, not walk, away from an organization with members that put institutional fealty over actual human beings.
Alanis Morrissette could write another verse based on Jack’s comments.
Maybe the church is better than other institutions. We will never know because the church is not transparent. But it’s obvious the church is not perfect and contrary to Elder Oaks does not have the gold standard. As someone who served in primary and YM a lot during my active days, yes there were two deep policies in place and no they were not at all enforced. I’m not even sure I’d call that the bronze standard.
Chadwick: “Maybe the church is better than other institutions.” The church is better than other institutions like Trump is about to be drafted into the NFL. Self-reporting is the key. 80% of people claim their dream weight on their driver’s license because nobody at the DMV is checking.
AdamL,
Just little info about me personally: I’m a child of three divorces and I was sexually abused by at least two different predators. I met my biological father when I was 41 years old–after which my whole world came crashing down. I hit the wall of depression and I’ve not recovered after these 20+ years. I live with major depression, anxiety, OCD, PTSD, and suicidal ideation. I rarely venture out of my house–the young men from my ward bring the sacrament to my home. I had to retire early–when I was 53. I live like a hermit in my little cave–I hardly groom. I have long hair down my back and a long beard down my front.
The reason I share these details with you is so that you can be assured that I empathize with victims of abuse. And hopefully, having that assurance, you’ll believe me when I tell you that I have found profound meaning in two things: my family and the Kingdom–and they really amount to one thing in the eternal scheme of things. And they are the very things that enable the many suicidal men like me–30 thousand of whom take their lives every year–to walk themselves back from the edge of the cliff.
All too often these conversations amount to little more than pointing out–as a matter of theory–how helpless the individual is against the power of a corporate giant. And sadly, what goes unsaid are the redeeming virtues of the institution (the church) and how they actually *protect* individuals. We take for granted the many safeguards the church has in place–ward boundaries, trackable membership records, official callings, public sustainings, two-deep leadership, ward councils, four-deep presidencies (including secretaries) and so forth. As far as church’s go, at least, there is no other organization that comes close to having as many safeguards.
All of that said–can we do better? Yes! And we must–especially if we claim to be disciples of Christ. But even so, to insinuate that the church has an especially egregious problem with abuse is just as untrue as saying it doesn’t have any problem with it at all.
Jack,
It pains me to read your personal experience. Sounds like you have experienced a lot of trauma and that trauma has caused some very deep wounds that remain unhealed. I truly hope you are able to get the professional help you need to heal. Surely we can all agree that when it comes to abuse, a single case of abuse is one too many, that we should err on the side of safety for the child in every case.
As for your comment: “As far as church’s go, at least, there is no other organization that comes close to having as many safeguards”–that is demonstrably incorrect. Yes, we do have some safeguards, yet other religious orgs have moved way beyond some of our practices out of a sense of safety for children. In fact, I can’t remember the details, but there was a gentlemen in England that pushed the church to change interview or some other related policies with children in the 2015-2016 time frame. Other orgs in the country had already changed, but ours remained a relic. He pushed so hard, he eventually got ex’d, but the church was eventually forced to change the policy to what he was prescribing. The problem is, trying to argue “the church isn’t as bad” or “DCFS decides not pursue….” or anything else that downplays stuff–is that those positions abdicate responsibility to change. They give up. They say, “oh there is nothing we can do to completely stop this so why keep pushing it” or “well, this is close enough, a few cases will slip through, but that’s acceptable.”
The whole point of this post is to highlight that despite all these safeguards you’ve mentioned, abuse is STILL happening and there is NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF ABUSE. Jack, no one here wants what happened to you to happen to ANYONE–not one person! If the cases in the church get to zero, then you can tout all the safeguards in place. But the fact that people have to go on to Mormon stories or other platforms right now to cajole the church into policy change is not a sign of an org taking children’s safety as seriously as they should. In that case I linked to, that church lawyer should never have told that seminary teacher to not report–ever. If the DCFS decided after that to not take the case, that is on them–at least we are doing everything we can to ensure a child is protected so they can be spared the experience you went through. You brought up BYU, I went to BYU and got two degrees. I know lots of alumni and employees. I can attest that the honor code may sound great, but the biggest thing it does well is hobble honesty. Since continued participation is 100% dependent on ascent to Mormon creed and ecclesiastical approval of such ascent, if testimonies change, mistakes are made, etc. the threat to the future of employment, scholarship, and life isn’t worth the honesty. So everyone, from students to employees keep things to themselves because of the threat. That is not the sign of a healthy organization.
This has nothing to do with being disciples of Christ, this is everything to do with just being a decent human being.
Jesus talked about leaving the 99 and going to find the 1. Use that to rethink your defense of the church. The church is the 99, it needs no defense. The one that is lost (and you’ve experienced this), that is the person, the child, the wounded, that needs our greatest focus.
I thought that at one point Jack was limited to two comments per post. Moderators, why don’t you enforce this? Nobody needs to keep reading his repetitious remarks that either rely on falsified evidence or make appeals to “poor me.”
NYAnn,
Yes, I was asked to limit my comments to three–if I can–and I think I’ve done better overall. But sometimes I get a lot of thoughtful direct responses–and it’s hard for me not to respond in turn.
chrisdrobison,
I appreciate your heartfelt concern. I have an excellent support network–and so I’m doing pretty-well in spite of the mental challenges.
“The problem is, trying to argue “the church isn’t as bad” or “DCFS decides not pursue….” or anything else that downplays stuff–is that those positions abdicate responsibility to change.”
I think you may be correct in principle–but I don’t see the church getting lax on this issue. I see it continuing to push for better measures of safety and understanding regarding abuse and mental health.
“The whole point of this post is to highlight that despite all these safeguards you’ve mentioned, abuse is STILL happening and there is NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF ABUSE.”
I certainly agree with zero tolerance when it comes to abuse. But on the other hand I’m not going to tell my friends and family to stay away from Orem, UT (where I live) because there were two murders here last year. Yes two murders is two too many–but it isn’t Chicago. So too with the church–if we convey a sense that there are predators in every corner just waiting to pounce on your children–who will want to join? Now if that were the true state of affairs I’d want the Lord to come out of his hiding place and cleanse the church–but it isn’t true.
And so we have to be very careful not to send those false signals out into the world about the Kingdom. Because if we do–and we become the means of turning people away at the gate; people who are in desperate need of what the gospel has to offer–then wo unto us! Especially if we’ve done it out of a sense of spite without being truly aware of what’s happening in the church.
And as a side note: I must say–we’re not likely to get the real pulse of the church on any issue from Mormon Stories. John Dehlin has expertly designed his podcast to get the narrative that he wants. He is a false narrative builder extraordinaire.
“Since continued participation is 100% dependent on ascent to Mormon creed and ecclesiastical approval of such ascent, if testimonies change, mistakes are made, etc. the threat to the future of employment, scholarship, and life isn’t worth the honesty. So everyone, from students to employees keep things to themselves because of the threat. That is not the sign of a healthy organization.”
Come now, my friend. The vast majority of students at BYU go there precisely because of its gospel focus and church standards. The majority *don’t* lose their testimonies and they willingly live by the honor code–and so they’ve got nothing to keep to themselves. And we have to remember–it isn’t just that there’s an honor code looming over them. The majority of students are active members of the church who report to their ecclesiastical leaders regularly. And so there’s a whole spiritual dimension to keeping them on track.
Of course, I must agree that not every indiscretion gets reported. That’s a sad fact of life–especially when we’re talking about sexual assault. But there’s no way that sexual assaults are happening left and right–and people are just keeping quite about it. As a father of five daughters I can say, no way. There’s a point of negative returns where you just can’t keep a lid on that kind of behavior. BYU has been stone cold sober for it’s entire history–and it has also been one of the safest campuses in the country with respect to sexual assault–not perfect mind you, but one of the best.
“Jesus talked about leaving the 99 and going to find the 1. Use that to rethink your defense of the church. The church is the 99, it needs no defense.”
I’m think of the one who refuses to come into the Kingdom because of false reports she’s heard vis-a-vis high levels of abuse in the church.
Name one false report Jack.
The AP article on the abuse case in Bisbee, AZ.
Jack
I knew you were capable of lying and misdirecting and being intentionally obtuse and loose with the truth but this is truly disgusting.
This comment is not for Jack. It’s to share facts. First. Jack posted no AP article above. He posted links to apologetic magazines that do not employ journalists. Second. There was no false abuse. The abuser self reported as the victims were too young to report. The abuser did not recant his statement before he died. A google search of the actual AP article supports this.
Truth matters.
I told myself there was no need to read the fair Mormon link. I guess I couldn’t help myself.
In that article, it is stated as fact that both bishops knew of a past one time event. So is one event of abuse enough to do something or isn’t it? In that article, not once is it stated that the abuser self reporting turned out to be false.
Chadwick,
What is false about the AP article is the way it makes the church look complicit in the poor child being abused for 7+ years–that both bishops were aware of the ongoing abuse and did nothing about it–or were told to do nothing about by the helpline. That’s false–they didn’t know. The only thing they were aware of was a supposed “one time” incident that the father admitted to–and we don’t know what that incident was nor how reliable the father’s confession was. But even so, with only that half-baked confession to go on, the first bishop encouraged the wife to go to the proper government agency–and he was even successful in getting the father to move out of the house for a time–if I remember correctly .
Also, the implication that the church’s helpline was aware of the full history of the abuse is false. And so building a narrative on this particular case that the church’s main concern is to protect itself at the expense of the victim is pure fabrication.
Another falsehood was the idea that Mr. Adams was a committed member of the church–he wasn’t. He rarely attended church, held no callings, hadn’t received the Melchizedek priesthood, etc. And so the notion that the bishops must’ve had regular contact with him is false.
Adams was not only a sexual predator he was a pathological liar. He kept the abuse hidden–and he forced his poor wife stay silent through the whole ordeal. And if memory serves me correctly–the only reason the first bishop became aware of the “one time” incident from the past is because the wife let some information slip when he was interviewing the both of them together.
There is more that could be said about how misleading the AP article is–but I think the “three strikes” I’ve shown here should enough to get my point across.
Chadwick,
Upon further thought, I’m beginning to wonder if we’re talking past each other. You seem to be talking about abuse that’s reported directly to ecclesiastical or government authorities. I’m talking about what is said about the church on social media and other outlets. And if so, I apologize for the confusion.
Jack, if I’ve counted correctly you’ve made 14 comments on this post, most either repeating the same thing over and over or supporting false data. Please stop.
There could be a reader on here who is unaware of floodlit dot org
It lists abuse within the lds church. And provides links to news articles and court records. And numbers.
Heartening to find the Deseret News has recently reported on sexual abuse by one of its former Faith section editors (and longtime writer of his column, ValueSpeak), a BYU baseball pitcher, and, a BYU football player.
Or, intended abuse, bc the70yo former Faith editor was communicating with a Layton Utah police detective posing as a 14yo girl.