Sources of Reliable Information

(Post #497)

On the way home from the park yesterday, S-Boogie said that she needed to go potty. This was a concern because we were a good twenty or thirty minutes from home, and because at the moment she was sitting on Tolkien Boy's shoulders. At TB's suggestion, he, his brother Bassercussionist, and I took Little Dude and S-Boogie into the first open bookstore to look for a restroom. We took a lightning quick tour of the store (much to the owner's concern), determined there was no restroom, and left. On the way out, though, the cover of this week's Seattle Weekly caught my eye. There was a man (boy?) with his face obscured, dressed in a white shirt and tie, reading the Book of Mormon--which is the thing that caught my eye, because it has a fairly recognizable cover (at least to those of us who have spent much of our lives reading it, carrying it around, and distributing copies in foreign countries). The headline read: "TEMPLE OF DOOM! One Man's Brutal Encounter With Sexual Abuse In the Mormon Church." My curiosity was piqued--more than anything by the blatant sensationalism--and the newspaper was free (which should tell you something about how credible it is as a source of reliable information [and come to think of it, this blog is also free...]), so I picked up a copy.

The article is... interesting. To be clear, the article is not about ritualistic sexual abuse in Mormon temples or even in Mormon churches, as the grandstanding title might lead you to believe. It's about a man who, as a boy, was repeatedly raped by a (Mormon) scoutmaster and is now suing the LDS Church for the role some local leaders played in protecting the scoutmaster from legal consequences for his actions. The article also mentions a handful of other cases where victims were encouraged by LDS bishops to essentially keep quiet about sexual abuse, rape, or assault--usually with the idea that we should forgive those who offend us or something like that.

I'm not sure I'm convinced this is as widespread a problem as the article claims; four or five cases spread out over many years do not make an epidemic. Four or five cases of a problem as appalling as this, though, are cause for concern in and of themselves, and are likely indicative of a larger problem. That problem, I believe, is that LDS bishops are not trained to deal with all the problems they are called on to deal with. Members expect them to be their personal source of divine communication and therefore experts on anything and everything. I know I did when, as a seventeen-year-old, I told my church leaders I was attracted to men. The first nervously laughed it off and suggested I join the football team because that would help me feel more manly (and then he passed on my confidential information without my knowledge or permission), and the second told me with complete confidence and authority that my same-sex attraction was a direct result of my poor relationship with my father and that it would be cured with counseling and faith. In both cases the leader sincerely wanted to help me and believed he was giving me accurate information, but the fact is that neither of them had the expertise to give me the answers I was looking for. Unfortunately, I was naive enough to believe that whatever my church leaders told me must be true.

I imagine this happens not only in the cases of sexual abuse and homosexuality, but in all sorts of issues. There are probably bishops who tell drug addicts that all they need is faith and willpower or abused wives that they just need to be more patient with their husbands. A friend of mine who was at the time an elders quorum president once asked me why a bishop would ever refer someone to a therapist or marriage counselor. "Isn't the Atonement enough to cure any problem?" His question came from a position of faith, which I respect, and naivety, which I understand, so I don't fault him for it. The problem, though, is that this man is just as likely as any other to be called as a bishop. Yes, I allow for divine inspiration overcoming ignorance in many cases, but the fact is there are still bishops and other church leaders who give stupid and even harmful counsel because they don't know any better.

I'm not sure what the best solution is. Giving leaders better training on how to handle reports of abuse is definitely a priority--and perhaps steps have already been taken in this direction--but that still leaves the 999 other problems they need better training to deal with. Heaven knows people in leadership positions in the LDS church already have more training meetings than they have time for. Perhaps that's the solution--give them more time. As much as I love the idea of the church's unpaid clergy, perhaps what the church really needs is some leaders who don't have to split their time between church callings and a full-time job, so they can receive the training they need to better serve their wards and actually meet the heavy expectations placed on them. I wouldn't attempt to tell the church how to run itself, particularly from my current position outside the church, but I think this is a problem that I hope any current or future LDS leaders who happen to read this blog will work to find solutions for.

My primary concern when it comes to the LDS church lately is my children. It's important to FoxyJ to raise them in the church and I have no intention of interfering with that. I don't want to see them get hurt by well-meaning but under-informed members of the church, though. In this particular case I take comfort in the fact that FoxyJ has never subscribed to the kind of naive faith that led me to put more trust in my leaders than in my own conscience. Hopefully her more level-headed approach to faith will rub off on our children.

Oh, and lest I leave you hanging, rest assured that we made it home, ate dinner, and showed Tolkien Boy and Bassercussionist all our toys and drawings and our sleeping bag before S-Boogie decided that it was time to actually go potty. Her panties--and Tolkien Boy's shoulders--remain dry and clean.