One Sunday morning, when you came to Church, the bulletin would have an insert. It would contain a message and a wallet card. The message would also be run in the Ensign released at about the same time.
The gist of the message would be that the doctrine of the Church calls for those who sin to confess and make restitution. True confession, in many cases, includes acknowledging crimes to the civil authorities. With a deep understanding of the times when free exercise of religion is a crime in some societies, and a rejection of the State’s right to constrain the conscience, the experience of the Church is that sexual offenders who do not fully acknowledge the depth of their sins are cutting themselves off from repentance.
Any confession of sexual abuse, rape or predation to an ecclesiastical authority in the Church should also be understood to include both an authorization, and a requirement, that the person confessed to will do their best to aid in repentance by contacting the local criminal authorities. The Church understands that in some countries, any contact with the criminal authorities is fraught with significant issues, including loss of acknowledged religious status and the arrest and or torture of the person reporting. However, absent those considerations, reporting should be considered mandatory. [At present that means that this policy is in force for all units within the United States, Europe and Canada. It will be expanded to other jursidictions as review and due consideration are made][Reporting of sexual crimes does/does not include sex acts between adults or sexual or gender status or choices].
In those states or locations where reporting is against the law, please contact the Church authorities so that they can engage legal counsel to challenge local laws. The 1-800- number help line will be able to provide you with more information.
The front of the wallet care would have:
A President Hinckley quote about how anyone guilty of abuse is not worthy of the blessings of the priesthood or the gospel.
If you are a leader at any level who becomes aware of a reasonable likelihood of sexual abuse, call 1-800
If you are the victim, or the caretaker of a victim of sexual abuse, there is a help line, 1-800-
The back of the card would state:
The Church has adopted as a uniform procedure [for all units within the United States, Europe and Canada] the policy of reporting whenever someone becomes aware of a reasonable likelihood of sexual abuse. Perpetrators should be reported to the police and all reasonable efforts to cooperate with investigation and prosecution should be supported. Minimizing an offense, making excuses for it, attempting to protect the perpetrator only serve to enmesh those who do that as facilitators and enablers of the abuse of children and it deprives the abuser of the one chance they have to truly acknowledge the nature of their wrongs and to repent by accepting the full process of the law. It is essential for their ability to repent and seek salvation that they acknowledge their wrongs to the civil authorities. By making a confession to an ecclesiastical authority in the Church, the person confessing both authorizes disclosure to the civil authorities and recognizes that they are required to report the sexual crime.
Now, does this mean any instance of sodomy should be reported to the police? How does it get parsed and divided? Will this have the effect it would have had even ten years ago of resulting in the Church losing official status in countries that require clergy to fit within certain parameters or to be considered illegal cults? I don’t know. That is why this is a blog post and not put somewhere it would end up as a suggestion to Salt Lake.
As far as I know, since no one at the Church headquarters reads blogs like this, I’m not likely to find out the answers to those questions.
But for the areas I’m more familiar with, at least for the United States, that is what I would do.
Still working on:
- How to complain without sounding as if you are mentally ill, scripted or a problem child.
- Implications of Jared Diamond’s Collapse and doctrines of stewardship.
- The utopian elements that go into making Zion closer to us.
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen, heavy stuff. This certainly would clarify and solidify a consistent practice across the US, Canada and Europe, something we do not have today.
It begs several questions:
1. What constitutes abuse?
2. Is reporting mandatory when the abuse is confessed or alleged by a victim? The initial paragraph sugggests the first, but the “back of the card” suggests the second.
3. If we do this for sexual abuse, what other crimes should follow suit? Is there a slope (slippery or not), or is this policy only applicable to sexual abuse?
4. The proviso that sexual crimes do not include acts between adults — does this suggest that there is no abuse between adults?
I am a huge supporter that those who confess illegal activity should also confess to legal authorities; religious absolution does not replace or modify the need for legal action. That is true for any crime, not just sexual ones. At a minimum, a condition of repentance needs to include confession to legal authorities.
Paul,
Agree 100 perecent.
“I am a huge supporter that those who confess illegal activity should also confess to legal authorities; religious absolution does not replace or modify the need for legal action. That is true for any crime, not just sexual ones. At a minimum, a condition of repentance needs to include confession to legal authorities.”
Amen. Perfectly said.
I would add less will confess if they know they will be turned in rather than encouraged to turn themselves in. This means they will wallow in their crimes for a longer period of time.
I thought about the point you made in your last paragraph, Will, about fewer confessions if the confessions lead to legal entanglement. It would be interesting to see if that assertion could be modeled in some way, because I’m not sure.
If a person believes that confessing to a cleric will absolve him of guilt and responsibility, then I suppose he might be more likely to confess if there’s no threat of legal action, but I can’t imagine that most who confess to a bishop (based on my own observation from the bishop’s side of the table) aren’t already in significant pain before they see the bishop. Almost everyone I saw in that capacity would have done anything to restore peace to their lives. That said, I never had anyone confess the kinds of crimes that are discussed here.
Anyone (including an ecclesiastical leader) knowing that the possibility of a crime has taken place, especially against an innocent individual unlikely to report it, should give the perp an ultimatum. Either you turn your self in or I will report you. No exceptions.
I’m with Jeff. There is no excuse for any ecclesiastical leader keeping a crime hidden from civil prosecution. The coverup tends to be worse than the crime.
Stephen, I think that your suggestions are a step in the right direction. I would suggest that the victim’s hotline be a connection to a secular or well known religious charity and not run by the church. After my overall experience with the church after my daughter was molested in our church building, I would not trust the institutional church to handle or influence any counseling / advice giving. I think the church would not be able to resist the temptation to be self serving in order to try to lower its liability risks and bad publicity risks, rather than doing what is best for the victim. I know this sounds cynical. Their victims program (to the extent that there is one) is used as a legal tool to lower risks to the church and you can tell that by who runs it and where their professional responsibilities and obligations lie.
Paul and Will, I think confession takes place in a small minority of cases, so the confession policy is not as important as empowering victims and victims families to do the reporting themselves to civil authorities rather than checking with the bishop first. Of the 5 offenses I know about in my ward within the past 5 years, none were discovered by confession. So I don’t think that perfecting the confession policy would have as much impact as better training for victims and the families of victims. Of these five cases, reporting of 2 was handled properly by non-members, and 3 were handled improperly–there the cast was all-Mormon. Just a few data points. Who knows what the big picture is.
Anon,
I’m sorry for your daughter’s experience. I think the distrust of the institutional church is reasonable, especially recognizing that lay leaders simply lack the legal and psychological training to do the right thing in these matters.
As for the confession system, I also agree that for this kind of crime, it sesems the perpetrator isn’t seeking peace through confession. For that reason, I was a little unclear on Stephen’s proposal which at one point seems linked to confession, and another point linked to a victim’s accusation.
Empowering victims is always the best thing, but as Jeff rightly points out, some victims will not report. I don’t know enough about the law to understand liability issues in such cases, so crystal clear instructions to ecclesiastical leaders is very important.
Paul/Jeff:
Paul,
I think you are probably right, there would be very little change between those that would come to a Bishop to confess and turn themselves in and those that would come knowing they would be turned it. It reminded me of Macbeth who was tortured by the murder:
“Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain,
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?”
Not that I disagree with your post…
But dude, are you hijacking Mike S’s thread? I think Mike S has a TM on the “If I Where In Charge” moniker.
— Either you turn your self in or I will report you —
No. Reporting is done regardless of whether someone turns themselves in or not.
— victim’s hotline be a connection to a secular or well known religious charity and not run by the church —
Traditionally, such hot lines are set up to use outside contractors, for many of the reasons you bring up.
— Paul — I obviously was not clear. Whenever there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse or a confession, reporting should occur.
And, you make excellent points in your first comment. The area is rife with issues.
Though, just because there are issues does not mean we should not engage them.
I think the real issue is that ecclesiastical leaders should notify authorities in support of victims. That doesn’t mean all victim reports are accurate or that the accused are automatically guilty, but any victim report should be investigated by those responsible for criminal investigation. Let the legal system work. There is a big gap in the training of lay leaders and Anon’s experience are the norm. The church officially considers its own liability first and only.
Mr. Attorney,
Did I give a timeframe as to when the person must turn themselves in or would be reported?
Why would you not want the person to turn themselves in first? Does it not make it easier to get that person out of circulation quicker?
That doesn’t mean all victim reports are accurate or that the accused are automatically guilty, but any victim report should be investigated by those responsible for criminal investigation. Let the legal system work.
Yes.
Joe — they did not have an “If I were in charge” thread this week, so I thought I would fill in the gap. I’ll go back to my other posting soon enough.
Jeff. In many jurisdictions if the lay clergy member does not make a report, regardless of what the person does, the lay clergy member has committed either a misdemeanor or a felony. The “Mr. Attorney” is probably unnecessary, you can refer to me as Mr. Marsh, Esq. should you need to toss in titles 😉 (Esq. is ever more so pretentious).
I was obviously too terse.
Re: #6 “so the confession policy is not as important as empowering victims and victims families to do the reporting themselves to civil authorities rather than checking with the bishop first.”
I absolutely agree. Victims protection should be our highest priority I also believe in protecting individuals from false accusations as best we can, since that is another way in which the innocent can sometimes be victimized. Balancing those two seems to conflict at times however.
I don’t want to be a thread-jacker, but wanted to share a relevant news story about one family who did “check with the bishop first”, unfortunately. Here in the Phoenix area, we have seen a sex scandal emerge over the last year evolving an LDS women named Susan Brock, the wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, their adult daughter Rachel, and a 14 year old boy in their Ward or Stake (I’m not sure which). The Church has come under scrutiny because although the Brock family and the victim and his parents met with their Bishop at least twice regarding suspected abuse, authorities were never contacted buy the Church. The sexual abuse continued for 1 year after the first meeting with a Bishop. Here is a link to one of many many articles about the subject.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/susan_brock_sex_scandal_chandl.php#more
A policy like the one set forth in this post could have helped in this particular situation. I’m for it.
Stephan,
“Jeff. In many jurisdictions if the lay clergy member does not make a report, regardless of what the person does, the lay clergy member has committed either a misdemeanor or a felony. The “Mr. Attorney” is probably unnecessary, you can refer to me as Mr. Marsh, Esq. should you need to toss in titles (Esq. is ever more so pretentious).”
OK, I understand that and I actually very much agree with it. It seems to me it is better for the person to turn themselves in and be put in jail rather than a report that might just trigger and investigation.
I was, just playing with you, BTW.
Beansdude,
I’m just guessing but I bet the genesis of Stephen’s post is the incident which you refer to in Arizona. (what is it with Arizonan Mormons and controversies!?!?!??!)
The other value of a public notice like the one you describe, Stephen, is that victims who come forward are also aware that their bishops will report. I wonder if there are instances where a victim asks the bishop not to inform others. I have no data, but would be interested to know if others did.
Actually, the genesis of the article was listening to one of the lead attorneys for the LDS Church give a presentation to a group of LDS attorneys.
He started with the premise that the number one thing that we should be telling local leaders is to protect the victim first.
There was some sort of discussion about a possible “Miranda warning” card that could be handed out to everyone, and all the related issues and possibilities. There are a lot of issues for something that starts looking so simple.
I’d missed the Arizona issue, I’ll have to look at it later.
Hmm… so what happens when a bishop also happens to be a mandated reporter in his career? If I were a bishop I would HAVE to report cases of abuse or neglect of children, elderly, or those who are developmentally disabled. I also have to report intent to harm self or someone else. Do bishops who are also psychologists or teachers who are mandated reporters have an exemption? That seems a little off…
Shenpa, under my proposal, since they would have to report anyway, they wouldn’t get an exemption that no one else got.
We also need a hotline for Church members to call when the abuser IS the bishop or stake president. When people who hold positions of authority in the Church are abusers (especially if they have close friends who are GA’s), reports of abuse are usually dismissed by Church leaders. I know. My brother was an abuser and a branch president. He destroyed the lives of many young girls and because his friends and neighbors were high Church officials, nothing was done about it.
Strangely enough as part of my job as a Teachers Union Representative, I got involved in a case of non-consentual incest involving a 17 year old male church member and his 16 year old sister. The Counselor who origanally reported this to the authorities approached me to get access to an attorney through the Union as the situation turned hinky.
First, several local church leaders advised the young lady not to pursue the case (I am not exactly sure who they were or what was meant by not pursue). The reason being that Mormon boys would not want to marry her if they found about the the incest. In addition the words of Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness about Rape were quoted to her and contrasted with her behavior.
Because he was a juvinile, whatever happened legally to him was sealed. We do know he never spent time in the Juvinile Justice Program but had to take counseling (which the Church paid for). She turned down Church counseling because the Stake had used that psychologist to speak on girls being responsible by their dress and actions for the bad behavior of boys. She did not want to have to deal with blame also. The Counselor was able to get her help with various public and private agencies.
Two simple addendas:
1. When the law says that you report, you report. We had an immediate problem when the California law on teachers reporting suspected abuse. A number of principals said that the school rule was for teachers to report such information to the principal and he or she would handle it. We had to inform teachers that such actions did not absolve them from liability and criminal charges. We did add, however, that they should also report it to their principal.
2. One of the huge problems people have is that child molesters and the like often choose victims that have no support system or who people dismiss or not believe. The perpetrators also tend to be master liars as well as work very hard to appear as pillars of the community This I know caused many problems for teachers and I assume also for Bishops
Heavy, heavy stuff…absolute shame that the subject is even necessary to discuss (but let’s not be naive)
My experience is with a full-time missionary having done something questionable to a family member about twenty years ago. When the matter was brought up to the mission president, said MP became angry with me, threatening to make trouble both within the Church and with my employer if we pressed charges. My then bishop, however, about had the proverbial conniption fit and ensured the transfer of both the missionaries (we received sisters for some time), as well as asked the members of our ward not to receive any missionaries in the home. In the end, it was decided that going to the police would do more harm than good.
It’s amazing how often the immediate reaction of those with a fair degree of authority, as they suppose that they have, is to “protect the Church”, especially its reputation, rather than the victim.
Bishops, Stake Presidents, and other Church leaders should be explicitly trained on their legal, ethical, and spiritual responsibilities insofar as child and/or elder abuse (where most jurisdictions have reporting requirements but they vary). The foremost reason is that, frankly, it seems that most men serving in these lay positions, though diligent and intelligent, as well as having the help of the Lord in fulfilling their callings, are still often woefully lacking in experience in how to deal with these unfortunate matters. The priorities ought to be (1) assisting the victim, (2) protecting other members from further predations by the perpetrator; (3) bringing the offender to repentance which may and often does incur serious legal consequences, and (4) THEN protect the so-called “name of the Church’. Reasonable folks understand that in any large organisation, and we LDS are no exception, you’re going to have criminals and nut cases. The Church’s reputation is not necessarily harmed by the existence of these cretins, rather, it can be either harmed or helped depending on how the leadership deals with its miscreants.
That having been said, I am wary of “mandatory reporting” laws that would compel any clergy to rat out a confessor. That is not to say, in a hypothetical case, that were a member to confess molesting a child in the ward family, that the bishop couldn’t bring it to the attention of the victim’s family and encourage them to contact law enforcement. The net effect of mandated reporting is to likely drive these creeps underground..ergo, the intent is laudable, but the result would likely be counter-productive. Were I a bishop and subject to mandatory reporting laws, I’d either be on the horn to law enforcement whenever something questionable occurred, or else I’d resign. It’s not that I have a problem with throwing molesters in the clink (where some leave in a body bag), but how easily the spectre of sexual abuse can be turned into a witch hunt. It has been well demonstrated that sexual abuse allegations are almost a ritual of bitter divorces where either custody and/or support issues of young children are at issue. No, I say that any cleric has to have a degree of qualified immunity to encourage openness. Of course, it’s easy to intellectualise, when my gut reaction to dealing with a molester would be much the same questionably attributed to Hermann Goring hearing of “culture” (release the safety catch on my Browning automatic pistol).
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
My natural inclination to dealing with molesters and like filth would be the “laying on of hands”, fists, baseball bats…I’d truly need the mantle of my Priesthood office AND a mega-dose of the Holy Spirit to not utterly ‘lose it’.
Douglas, Anyone who has been involved in church discipline knows that the stated purposes of the discipline are to protect innocents, help individuals repent, and to protect the good name of the church. These purposes are not explicitly prioritized, so someone reading the manual could rationally conclude that all three are equally important. Then if a proposed action accomplishes two of the three, hey its not so bad, even if it goes against protecting victims. I am just trying to understand how these cases can be mishandled so often. Maybe the manual needs to explicitly state what the top priority is, even though it is obvious to me and most leaders.
Anon – it’s the very ‘mishandling’ that concerns me. In today’s age of the Internet and teleconferencing, I see no reason that local leaders cannot have expert advice on tap 24/7/365 from Church HQ. The phrase “with the guidance of the Spirit”, or effectively same, seems to be a euphemism for fail to manage.
Attorneys, medical practitioners, and clerics have to deal with confidential situations as part of their professional duties. When the state micromanages those relationships, even in the name of “protecting the children”, the result will be counter-productive.
“We also need a hotline for Church members to call when the abuser IS the bishop or stake president.”
It’s called 911
Jeff, of course, call 911 and report abuse to authorities. Sadly, when abusers are bishops or stake presidents, when their spouses report abuse to Church leaders, their reports are often dismissed and THEIR SPOUSES are persecuted and ridiculed by Church members, neighbors and friends. I have seen this happen A LOT is the Salt Lake area. It is a huge problem. We need someone is the Church whom these women can call and report their abuse and and report documentation of it.
My son-in-law is a physician and he sees A LOT of abuse by people holding high positions in the Church. Some of these men are so psychologically and/or phycially abusive, that their wives are in terrible shape. Unless you have seen this problem first-hand, I doubt you have any idea how horrific it is.
My thanks to everyone for their rational and civilized comments and discussion.
Chris,
“Sadly, when abusers are bishops or stake presidents, when their spouses report abuse to Church leaders, their reports are often dismissed and THEIR SPOUSES are persecuted and ridiculed by Church members, neighbors and friends. I have seen this happen A LOT is the Salt Lake area.”
I find this very disturbing. Being in the “mission field” i was always taught that leaders are held to a higher standard and what might happen to a lay member could be less than a leader. So I am aghast that in SLC leaders would be given a pass for heinous activities which are clearly against the law of the land and even more so against God’s own laws.
I can’t say I am surprised, but sincerely disappointed.
#27,#29 – Keep in mind two things:
(1) Not saying that these unfortunate incidents aren’t real, but the info is anecdotal, not factual. Many in UT would likely take offence that the Church glosses over misdeeds of leadership. Where are the cases, statistics, etc?
(My spell checker keeps insisting on the UK version, wonder why…)
(2) Unless we’re talking about physical abuse (e.g., domestic violence), if it’s the husband “merely” exercising “unrighteous dominion”, then it’s not a law enforcement issue. That’s what I thought the thread is about. Now, if we have reliable information that the Church is discouraging women from calling law enforcement when the victim of a crime perpetrated by their husbands and/or fathers, that’s something else, and it needs to be brought out. However, everything I’ve heard in GC (esp. Priesthood session) would indicate that the GAs are mostly severely “down” on abusiveness in marriage.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been some “doozies” that have served as bishops and/or SPs. I recall a story, well-corroborated, of a man that got his rocks off urinating on his wife as part of “foreplay” (ugh, and sick, sick, sick…). She didn’t like it and was actually told to “put up with it” as they had seven kids. Once the kids were grown, she was out of there, and good riddance to the bad rubbish that was her mate. Now, I’m not one to restrict what a married couple does in the privacy of their bedroom, but when one (most often the wife) is degraded by perversions, I find it hard to understand how any PH leader worth his calling wouldn’t call him to repentance (and likely needed psychological counselling). I’d likely contribute some “laying on the hands”, but that’s probably why I’m not serving in a bishopric at this time. Here’s to those that do, and keep their cool!
#30 — I agree with your analysis of #27 Chris’ concern. Jeff, for my part I’m not only disappointed, but I’m surprised if legally prosecutable abuse is covered up in any way. That clearly opposes the published guidelines of the church and the training that all ward councils have received.
But it’s why I asked the first question in the first comment — what is abuse? Pretty easy to tell if it’s an adult engaging in sexual activity with a child. Not so clear if it’s one spouses verbal expression of anger in a heated discussion with the other. I don’t condone the latter, but recognize that the definition of abuse in that context is not so clear.
Unfortunately, words like abuse, racism, and syndrome are thrown around pretty easily these days whether they are true or not. Which is sad because it can mask a real problem due to “crying wolf” where a real problem may not exist.
One experience I have had is that a victim is often only willing to speak to a minister who they trust, but only if they think the “secret” will not be exposed to higher administrative authorities (church or state) whom they do NOT yet trust.
An abuser can almost always succeed in so transferring shame to the victim that the victim feels it is his/her fault. (If that didn’t happen, the victim would more likely be able to escape or retaliate legally in the first place.)
So there is also a need for guidance in how to bring the victim to a point of being willing to seek more help — without making protection of the reputation of the church the first priority there, too.
The lack of trust can be engendered by mere ignorance on the part of the church. I know of a case where a sexual abuser who used to threaten his victims with eternal damnation if they told was actually called to a very high office in the RLDS while this activity was going on. When the church found out years later, they promptly got him out of any church role, but the ignorance in the original call was psychologically devastating to the victims.
These comments I refer to are no anecdotal reports. They are women and men I have known. One is my brother, a sexual perpetrator. He molested a number of young women, including my best friend, during his tenure as branch president in a resort. Some of these girls became pregnant and bore children. He never paid one dime of child support. My best friend excommunicated for over two years. My brother, after his sins were finally known, was excommunicated for nine months. He is very close friends with a current apostle.
Another incident: A woman I know well was battered and beaten by her husband, a bishop, who also had several affairs. Her husband has never had any Church action taken against him. (He again is very close friends with some GA’s). Those who reported the abuse, including my friend, my husand and I, were all threatened with excommunication for reporting it, although we had police reports, doctor’s reports of injuries, and had witnessed her bruises and injuries first hand.
I could write pages. Lavina Fielding Anderson documented ecclesiastical abuse and she was excommunicated. Please know that in the Salt Lake valley, it is a very serious problem.
#34 – And I could contribute a lamentable tale wherein, IMHO, the Church “let down” someone very dear to me by not doing anything about her abuser (and she wasn’t this creep’s only victim). Yet, in retrospect, what COULD the Church do, absent a confession or corroborating evidence? The onus is on the perpetrator to make good.
Chris, it is quite unfortunate, assuming that your version of the events is accurate, and it doesn’t speak well for the GA “involved”, if he not only used his influence to go easy on the wife-beating bishop, but also threatening the membership status of those that defended themselves and/or loved ones. Owing to my own pugnacious attitude, I’d have raised “heck” with the top dawgs, and exposed the GA for his hypocrisy, and screw how it’d make the Church “look” (like, we’re real human beings with real faults?). But I wasn’t there, and I don’t know the situation for you and your family, so I certainly can’t judge, nor “woulda, coulda, shoulda”. You have my sympathies for being let down by the so-called “Lord’s anointed”.
I also know of a sister, now a member for about two years, who’d married a member whose dad was a SP and then an Area Rep. When they had marital troubles, not only did this father-in-law block her baptism into the Church (she was set to be baptised with her then daughter turning eight), but being also a county supervisor dealing with several large contracts that her employer had, saw to it that she was effectively run out of that firm. Nice Church leader, on a personal vendetta against the mother of his grandchildren…
It just proves that though the Church may be “perfect” (in that it belongs to Christ), those that officiate therein so often prove to be far less than perfect. As do I in mine own way…I’m a “practicing” Mormon, and with enough practice, I might just get it right someday…
Chris — could you give me names and dates? I’d like to follow-up on the matter.
Hijacking Mike S’s series title?
That is not cool at all.
You should apologize to Mike S (after you change the title of this post, that is.)
Stephen, I appreciate your desire to follow up on this matter. We have tried. We contacted an Area Authority and presented the evidence to him. He contacted the SP of my friend and asked him to review the matter. The angry SP then made an appointment with our SP and told us if we lived in his stake, we would be excommunicated. We were ordered by the Area Authority to no longer have any contact with our friend nor to speak about her situation.
FYI, I was serving as stake RS president at the time. My husband had served as bishop with my friend’s husband, and then our stake was divided. I am grateful that happened or my husband and I would have lost our Church privileges.
Like I said, my friend’s ex-husband is close friends with a powerful GA, who has refused to believe that his friend could be an adulterer and physically and psychologically abusive.
I have advanced degrees in education and counseling and guidance. Please know that the psychological abuse these women experience is often worse than the physical abuse. My son-in-law, a bishop and distinguished physician in the SL valley, treats a number of women in the same situation as my friend. He commented to me that these women are often very depressed and sometimes suicidal because of their abuse.
Women in the Church need to know that if their BP or SP husband in abusing them, they need to document the abuse, obtain doctor’s and police reports whenever possible, and get to a safe shelter ASAP. I have not seen one instance where the Church has helped these women. I have spoken with Sheri Dew about these matters and she is aware of the problem. I have also spoken with a BYU professor who specialized in abuse, and she, too, acknowledges that the Church has a serious problem with abuse perpetrated by ecclesiastical leaders. She commented that those who are abused must seek legal help for this is a legal matter.
#39 – you leave an impression of having a personal axe to grind, thereby eliminating objectivity.
ANY woman (wife of a bishop, SP, or simply run-of-the-mill member) who is being abused needs to stick up for herself, including pursuing legal remedies, including pressing charges wherein a crime has been committed. Absent that, there is little that a self-appointed crusader can do to remedy the sad situation.
Douglas, I respect your opinion and hope that you never see a close friend, daughter, sister, or loved one experience abuse at the hands of a BP or SP. Perhaps that experience would give you greater insight and compassion for those who experience not only physical and/or sexual abuse but also ecclesiastical abuse as well.
One of the biggest challenges for abused spouses of men who hold positions of responsibility in the Church or who have friends in high places in the Church is this: When these women seek counsel from Church leaders (as they are told to do), they are advised to remain silent and to stay in the marriage. There is a culture of tolerance in the Church when the abusers are Church leaders or have friends who are GAs even though the Church states . That is the serious concern about which the BYU prof and Sheri Dew, a friend of mine, are aware.
The Church in practice does not adhere to the teachings in the pamphlet, “Responding to Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders” which states, “Abuse in any form is tragic and in opposition to the teachings of the Savior. Abuse is the physical, emotional, sexual, or spiritual mistreatment of others. It may not only harm the body, but it can deeply affect the mind and spirit, destroying faith and causing confusion, doubt, mistrust, guilt, and fear.” Any member of the LDS Church who abuses children or others is not a “member in good standing in this Church. The abuse of one’s spouse and children is a most serious offense before God,” (see “Abuse” at Mormon.org).
Many confirmed abusers are holding positions of responsibility even when hard evidence has been presented to Church officials. I believe this issue deserves attention and scrutiny by members and Church officials. Too many women’s lives are being destroyed because GA’s refuse to believe their friends could be perpetrators and ignore hard evidence that proves that they are.
#41 – unfortunately I’ve seen both men and women’s lives ruined at the hands of abusive and/or vindictive spouses. Far worse than anything that I’ve ‘endured’. It’s terrible that one doesn’t have to leave the friendly confines of home to experience tragedy.
$42 – certainly it wouldn’t be surprising if a GA was human and disbelieving that a lifelong chum could be guilty of THAT. However, the system does NOT rely upon personal intervention of GAs to work (the Church is too large and unwieldy for that). But is the problem, over some 350 stakes and 2000 wards along the Wasatch Front, that WIDESPREAD? Granted, how can I, 650 miles away in Northern CA, know either way, but it seems incredulous. There are too many that snipe at everything LDS in UT for such a scandal to be easily swept under the rug.
This is a pretty weighty topic, but important.
I think we would be better served if ALL churches (including our own) had a policy like this. If even a single person was helped by this policy, it would be well worth it. And if it caused a single leader to reconsider their actions, it would also be well worth it.
Thank you for this post.