Sexual Abuse and the Church

[Meadowchik]

There is a news story going around about a former bishop being sentenced for molestation. This has had me think again about church and sexual abuse.  Is there some systemic issue, where church structure helps perpetuate abuse? What if anything can be done to eliminate systemic problems?

--The most obvious examples of sexual abuse linked to the church might be polygamous groups breaking off from the church, who pressure young girls into early plural marriage. On its face, this may seem like a repaired issue: the offenders are cast away, polygamy beteeen living members is no longer acceptable, end of story.

Yet, in fact, there are still LDS men who use D&C 132 as a pretense for polygamy and sexual abuse camouflaged with terms like "spiritual wife." One such man was turned over to authorities in the early 2000s by his adult stepchildren, who finally had the courage to report him  after serving missions and starting families of their own. They liberated their sister.

So, even today, D&C 132 helps to camouflage abuse as polygamy.

--There are cases of sexual abuse by men in priesthood positions of authority. Some are immediately reported. Some, however, are protected because of the belief in the Spirit. 

For instance, a child goes to her bishop for help....her Primary teacher has told her that the bishop is her friend and that children can go to him. She recounts the abuse she endures from her father and the bishop gets mad. He is not mad at her father, but at her. Her father is a man he personally chose to be his counselor in the bishopric, he felt inspired to call him, do the little girl must be lying.

So her parents are advised by the bishop to punish her and she is taught to never seek out help again. And she never does until she leaves home as an adult.

So it appears that the concept of the Spirit and Revelation might prevent interventions into abuse.

--Then there are people who abuse, are punished publically, then return to their wards and families. Victims and others express discomfort at their return but are instructed to learn better about forgiveness. 

Forgiveness versus justice and safety can be a terribly difficult and fragile balance. It appears that oversimplified reconciliations of forgiveness/justice/safety can serve to dismiss and delegitimise the pain and comfort of abuse victims.

So at the moment I see three overall systemic issues in the church that can help perpetuate sexual abuse: scriptural passages that continue to legitimise polygamy, belief in revelation when it is prioritised over witness testimony, and unclear management of the understandably difficult subject of forgiveness and justice and safety.

Approaches to these problems:

--Removal or editing of D&C 132 from the Standard Works with a candid explanation.

--Training for bishops and other leaders on dealing with abuse situations. It does seem, anecdotally atleast, that the church is getting better at reporting abuse. That needs to continue, and follow-through is also critical to abuse recovery and prevention.

It needs to be understood that warm and happy feelings can be mistaken if used as judging a person's competency. Also, those feelings also do not necessarily mean that things can go back to normal after abuse, that oftentimes permanent changes must be made to keep people safe.

 

You may start another thread it you leave out comparisons to criminal groups and if you don't rely on anecdotal stories.

[Believing]

Help me understand, are you suggesting the church has a systemic sexual abuse problem? If so, site your evidence (not just isolated evidence). 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Believing said:

Help me understand, are you suggesting the church has a systemic sexual abuse problem? If so, site your evidence (not just isolated evidence). 

The point Meadowchik Is trying to make is that the Church needs to expunge Doctrine and Covenants 132 from the standard works and repudiate the past practice of plural marriage in order to curb the spread of Mormon fundamentalism and reduce the incidence of sexual abuse within the Church. The claim is that sexual preditors within the LDS Church use the past Church practice of polygamy, and the underlying message of D&C 132, as pretexts to justify their abusive sexual behavior. I'm caused to wonder why there are so many examples of sexual abuse in other Churches when the predators in those church's don't have D&C 132 and modern polygamy to exploit as excuses for their abusive behavior? Perhaps the fact is that sexual preditors will do what they want to do, with or without any phony excuses. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Believing said:

Help me understand, are you suggesting the church has a systemic sexual abuse problem? If so, site your evidence (not just isolated evidence). 

I am saying that there seem to be some elements of the church that help perpetuate sexual abuse.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point Meadowchik Is trying to make is that the Church needs to expunge Doctrine and Covenants 132 from the standard works and repudiate the past practice of plural marriage in order to curb the spread of Mormon fundamentalism and reduce the incidence of sexual abuse within the Church. The claim is that sexual preditors within the LDS Church use the past Church practice of polygamy, and the underlying message of D&C 132, as pretexts to justify their abusive sexual behavior. I'm caused to wonder why there are so many examples of sexual abuse in other Churches when the predators in those church's don't have D&C 138 and modern polygamy to exploit as excuses for their abusive behavior? Perhaps the fact is that sexual preditors will do what they want to do, with or without any phony excuses. 

There is sexual abuse everywhere. The point is that as a church we should examine any ways to reduce it within the church.

I would say that many churches may struggle with authoritarian and "divine mantel" beliefs that are easily twisted or exploited by abusers.

Of course abuse is not exclusive to churches, but the added element of divine authority, when misused or misunderstood, may complicate and worsen efforts to prevent abuse. ANY organisation involving children should take steps to examine child safety and options available to help prevent abuse, and many do.

Like every other group on the planet could say about outsiders' problems, "not my circus, not my monkeys." By the same token, each group should look within and try to improve safety for their membership, especially children.

[Duncan]

I've told this story before but i'll share it again. We had a guy in our stake 25 ish years ago molest his daughter and was abusive to his wife. He later became my YSA Branch Pres. His wife complained to the Stake but got told that he wouldn't do those things because he is such a good man. So after his time as BP he got put into a Temple Presidency, wife told somebody but again got shut down. He is dead now and he escaped everybody but the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine. I am a firm believer that when any abuse of any kind happens, go to the Police first and then the Church

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

There is sexual abuse everywhere. The point is that as a church we should examine any ways to reduce it within the church.

I would say that many churches may struggle with authoritarian and "divine mantel" beliefs that are easily twisted or exploited by abusers.

Of course abuse is not exclusive to churches, but the added element of divine authority, when misused or misunderstood, may complicate and worsen efforts to prevent abuse. ANY organisation involving children should take steps to examine child safety and options available to help prevent abuse, and many do.

Like every other group on the planet could say about outsiders' problems, "not my circus, not my monkeys." By the same token, each group should look within and try to improve safety for their membership, especially children.

I couldn't agree more with the above. But wasn't the central point of your first post the possible need to repudiate the former Church practice of plural marriage and then alter or totally eliminate D&C 132 from the Standard Works in order to prevent the self-justification of predators within the Church?

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I couldn't agree more with the above. But wasn't the central point of your first post the possible need to repudiate the former Church practice of plural marriage and then alter or totally eliminate D&C 132 from the Standard Works in order to prevent the self-justification of predators within the Church?

It was one of three main points, denoted by the first three double dashes "--"

I know a few family members in the first anecdote I related, so it was quite clear to me the link between 132 and the abuser's persuasiveness.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am saying that there seem to be some elements of the church that help perpetuate sexual abuse.

My daughter is turning 12 soon and my husband and I talked to our Bishop about the interviews she'll start having.  We're friends with our Bishop and had a great discussion.   He told us that almost half of the youth interviews he conducts now includes one of the parents being there.  I think we'll opt for this too and our Bishop takes no offense to this whatsoever (he brought it up so maybe he prefers this for his own protection too?).

I know the great majority of Bishops are completely trustworthy but a young girl (or young boy) being alone with an adult male who may be asking sexual questions would never be allowed by most LDS parents in any other setting.  We just believe it's smart to error on the side of caution here.  We'll decide as we go along if this will always be how we feel about the interviews.

Edited April 16, 2017 by JulieM

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am saying that there seem to be some elements of the church that help perpetuate sexual abuse.

Non Sequitur. That some people take a lovely Scripture and pervert it into something ugly is nothing new.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point Meadowchik Is trying to make is that the Church needs to expunge Doctrine and Covenants 132 from the standard works and repudiate the past practice of plural marriage in order to curb the spread of Mormon fundamentalism and reduce the incidence of sexual abuse within the Church. The claim is that sexual preditors within the LDS Church use the past Church practice of polygamy, and the underlying message of D&C 132, as pretexts to justify their abusive sexual behavior. I'm caused to wonder why there are so many examples of sexual abuse in other Churches when the predators in those church's don't have D&C 132 and modern polygamy to exploit as excuses for their abusive behavior? Perhaps the fact is that sexual preditors will do what they want to do, with or without any phony excuses. 

And we'd need to expunge some scripture in the Bible, and I'm fine with that! https://www.bustle.com/articles/104161-7-wonderful-jimmy-carter-quotes-on-womens-rights-that-will-make-him-your-new-favorite-feminist And this is a good eye opening listen: https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_carter_why_i_believe_the_mistreatment_of_women_is_the_number_one_human_rights_abuse

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

The Bible is a guide as to not what to do as it is a guide as to what to do.

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Non Sequitur. That some people take a lovely Scripture and pervert it into something ugly is nothing new.

I don't see the non sequitor. The importance is to not facilitate abuse when we can avoid it. There is simply too much appearance of what we now call evil in the way polygamy was practiced in the early LDS church, thus a person who studies that along with the persistance of D&C 132 can very easily conclude and even convince themselves to almost replicate the behavior.

But I was not merely referring to scripture when I made the statement you quoted, but also epistemology and  church authorities weighting their good feelings against allegations of abuse. And I was also referring to follow-up.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

My daughter is turning 12 soon and my husband and I talked to our Bishop about the interviews she'll start having.  We're friends with our Bishop and had a great discussion.   He told us that almost half of the youth interviews he conducts now includes one of the parents being there.  I think we'll opt for this too and our Bishop takes no offense to this whatsoever (he brought it up so maybe he prefers this for his own protection too?).

I know the great majority of Bishops are completely trustworthy but a young girl (or young boy) being alone with an adult male who may be asking sexual questions would never be allowed by most LDS parents in any other setting.  We just believe it's smart to error on the side of caution here.  We'll decide as we go along if this will always be how we feel about the interviews.

That is good, it is encouraging to hear that that is becoming more common in your area. We might be the first family in our ward to use this policy!

Thank you for sharing your personal example.

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And we'd need to expunge some scripture in the Bible, and I'm fine with that! https://www.bustle.com/articles/104161-7-wonderful-jimmy-carter-quotes-on-womens-rights-that-will-make-him-your-new-favorite-feminist And this is a good eye opening listen: https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_carter_why_i_believe_the_mistreatment_of_women_is_the_number_one_human_rights_abuse

 

I kinda wanted to rep your comment Tacenda, but I can't agree with expunging the Adam and Eve story. Expunging Eve would expunge the Church.  Interpreting the story to fault Eve for "original sin" is the problem - not the scripture itself. I was surprised to read that Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention, however. Although I was raised Sothern Baptist, and like many things about the Baptist Church, it was this denomination that was particularly responsible for importing slavery to the US. There are other denominations of Baptists, such as American Baptists, which avoided such poor interpretations of scripture. 

[Gray]

I think another issue we might have is one shared by Catholics - a strong notion of the vital importance and authority of the organization itself, and a desire to protect its good name

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see the non sequitor. The importance is to not facilitate abuse when we can avoid it. There is simply too much appearance of what we now call evil in the way polygamy was practiced in the early LDS church, thus a person who studies that along with the persistance of D&C 132 can very easily conclude and even convince themselves to almost replicate the behavior.

But I was not merely referring to scripture when I made the statement you quoted, but also epistemology and  church authorities weighting their good feelings against allegations of abuse. And I was also referring to follow-up.

DC 132 doesn't facilitate abuse any more than the biblical injunction to loving our neighbor facilitates adultery. A classic Non Sequitur. Along with that study I would recommend OD 1. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1

That some people will use Scripture for their own purposes is nothing new. We excommunicate all who are found in polygamous marriages. What God asks of us in the next life is up to him.

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Non Sequitur. That some people take a lovely Scripture and pervert it into something ugly is nothing new.

D&C 132 really isn't lovely in context. To make use of it today we have to prooftext the heck out of it.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

D&C 132 really isn't lovely in context. To make use of it today we have to prooftext the heck out of it.

DC 132 is the basis for Temple Marriage. My marriage in the Oakland Temple was indeed a lovely thing.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There is a news story going around about a former bishop being sentenced for molestation. This has had me think again about church and sexual abuse.  Is there some systemic issue, where church structure helps perpetuate abuse? What if anything can be done to eliminate systemic problems?

--The most obvious examples of sexual abuse linked to the church might be polygamous groups breaking off from the church, who pressure young girls into early plural marriage. On its face, this may seem like a repaired issue: the offenders are cast away, polygamy beteeen living members is no longer acceptable, end of story.

Yet, in fact, there are still LDS men who use D&C 132 as a pretense for polygamy and sexual abuse camouflaged with terms like "spiritual wife." One such man was turned over to authorities in the early 2000s by his adult stepchildren, who finally had the courage to report him  after serving missions and starting families of their own. They liberated their sister.

So, even today, D&C 132 helps to camouflage abuse as polygamy.

--There are cases of sexual abuse by men in priesthood positions of authority. Some are immediately reported. Some, however, are protected because of the belief in the Spirit. 

For instance, a child goes to her bishop for help....her Primary teacher has told her that the bishop is her friend and that children can go to him. She recounts the abuse she endures from her father and the bishop gets mad. He is not mad at her father, but at her. Her father is a man he personally chose to be his counselor in the bishopric, he felt inspired to call him, do the little girl must be lying.

So her parents are advised by the bishop to punish her and she is taught to never seek out help again. And she never does until she leaves home as an adult.

So it appears that the concept of the Spirit and Revelation might prevent interventions into abuse.

--Then there are people who abuse, are punished publically, then return to their wards and families. Victims and others express discomfort at their return but are instructed to learn better about forgiveness. 

Forgiveness versus justice and safety can be a terribly difficult and fragile balance. It appears that oversimplified reconciliations of forgiveness/justice/safety can serve to dismiss and delegitimise the pain and comfort of abuse victims.

So at the moment I see three overall systemic issues in the church that can help perpetuate sexual abuse: scriptural passages that continue to legitimise polygamy, belief in revelation when it is prioritised over witness testimony, and unclear management of the understandably difficult subject of forgiveness and justice and safety.

Approaches to these problems:

--Removal or editing of D&C 132 from the Standard Works with a candid explanation.

--Training for bishops and other leaders on dealing with abuse situations. It does seem, anecdotally atleast, that the church is getting better at reporting abuse. That needs to continue, and follow-through is also critical to abuse recovery and prevention.

It needs to be understood that warm and happy feelings can be mistaken if used as judging a person's competency. Also, those feelings also do not necessarily mean that things can go back to normal after abuse, that oftentimes permanent changes must be made to keep people safe.

Hi Meadowchik - I just wanted to weigh in a little. Although I do feel that certain aspects of the Church have been used by abusers, I honestly feel the impact of Sec 132 is virtually nil. I believe I have told you previously a little about my wife's story. In her case a woman stood up and objected to the calling of a priesthood leader. She was later taken aside and essentially told that God had called so and so, and she just needed to accept that and be quiet - although the language was substantially stronger according to my wife who became privy to it. I believe this kind of thing is a much worse issue with regard to potential abuse within the Church. D&C is clear that objectors have a right to object to callings of leaders. Instead of this woman getting berated, they should have asked why she objected. Members need to stick to their guns if they know something about someone being called, and go over their heads to the stake level or higher, if no one will listen. This is especially true in the day and age of pornography usage. I believe members need to hold their leaders accountable. I have seen essentially no evidence that D&C 132 plays any part in this. I'm not saying it doesn't, but I haven't seen it.

[William Jones]

I think there is abuse everywhere.  I don't think the church doctrine, teachings or organization somehow promote abuse.  However, the Provo Judge's comments at sentencing show the real problem with the church and abuse: that is of covering up abuse and thinking that there is a necessity to defend the church from damage to reputation at all costs.  Leaders can fall like King David and E. Poelman's stake president brother back in the day.  People make mistakes and we need to deal with that properly, especially when the abuser is a leader.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I kinda wanted to rep your comment Tacenda, but I can't agree with expunging the Adam and Eve story. Expunging Eve would expunge the Church.  Interpreting the story to fault Eve for "original sin" is the problem - not the scripture itself. I was surprised to read that Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention, however. Although I was raised Sothern Baptist, and like many things about the Baptist Church, it was this denomination that was particularly responsible for importing slavery to the US. There are other denominations of Baptists, such as American Baptists, which avoided such poor interpretations of scripture. 

Yeah, I see where expunging Eve would be a problem, and in the LDS church Eve is looked at in a much better light!!

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

DC 132 is the basis for Temple Marriage. My marriage in the Oakland Temple was indeed a lovely thing.

It requires a very selective and out of context reading to make it apply to modern temple marriage

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, William Jones said:

I think there is abuse everywhere.  I don't think the church doctrine, teachings or organization somehow promote abuse.  However, the Provo Judge's comments at sentencing show the real problem with the church and abuse: that is of covering up abuse and thinking that there is a necessity to defend the church from damage to reputation at all costs.  Leaders can fall like King David and E. Poelman's stake president brother back in the day.  People make mistakes and we need to deal with that properly, especially when the abuser is a leader.

Yes, there is a huge problem with sexual abuse being covered up to keep their loved ones out of jail/prison. And there is a problem with repetitive abuse that needs to be stopped.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Meadowchik - I just wanted to weigh in a little. Although I do feel that certain aspects of the Church have been used by abusers, I honestly feel the impact of Sec 132 is virtually nil. I believe I have told you previously a little about my wife's story. In her case a woman stood up and objected to the calling of a priesthood leader. She was later taken aside and essentially told that God had called so and so, and she just needed to accept that and be quiet - although the language was substantially stronger according to my wife who became privy to it. I believe this kind of thing is a much worse issue with regard to potential abuse within the Church. D&C is clear that objectors have a right to object to callings of leaders. Instead of this woman getting berated, they should have asked why she objected. Members need to stick to their guns if they know something about someone being called, and go over their heads to the stake level or higher, if no one will listen. This is especially true in the day and age of pornography usage. I believe members need to hold their leaders accountable. I have seen essentially no evidence that D&C 132 plays any part in this. I'm not saying it doesn't, but I haven't seen it.

Awhile back we had a discussion about polygamy, shock of all shock ;), and when I mentioned that we don't discuss section 132 much when it's the year for D & C, I got the response that they don't want to discuss it much because some members might believe polygamy needs to be lived now, and some may take off and live it. Which indeed has happened. I wish the church could tweek it, like other scriptures have been tweeked, such as the white and delightsome one.