SL Tribune: Church not handling sexual assault well for missionaries

I could say a lot about the article. I’ll bore everyone piecemeal over multiple posts.

Do we create a false sense of security in the mission field?

I picture says a thousand words. Here’s two thousand words that illustrate (pun) a mindset:

I think it’s an extension of the prosperity gospel. If we’re being righteous (and what could be more righteous than serving a mission?) god will protect us. One thought that occurs to me, without that false sense of security it would probably be that much harder for LDS moms (and dads) to send their children to some places.

I’ll relate this point back to the article, promise:

This is one of my soap box issues but I think a negative fruit of having a lay clergy is that it creates a competition of sorts. Some callings are more prestigious (for lack of a better word than others) and I think there’s this culture where if person A is more obedient than person B, person A will land the prestigious calling. It leads to outward manifestations of righteousness, which as humans we’re prone to anyway.

At 22, Junca had graduated from Brigham Young University. She had a good job as a recruiter for a Provo company. But she felt lacking in one major area: as a member of the church.

It hadn’t been a core part of her life as she was growing up near Detroit. In her student ward, or congregation, in Provo, while others were asked to fill leadership or spiritual roles, her most recent calling was to the waffle committee.

She decided to volunteer as a missionary and was excited to be called to serve out of the country, in an expansive, two-state region of Mexico known as the Cuernavaca Mission.

I do not, repeat, I do not want to put words in this person’s mouth. This is me reading between the lines and injecting a specific mindset into the situation, one that she probably did not share. This is for the sake of argument alone. If we’re called to the waffle committee do we feel lacking at church when we see others filling leadership roles? Do we feel like we have to serve missions to be accepted by the community? That answer may be different for YM and YW in the church.

There’s pressure to do and that pressure can put us in harm’s way in some circumstances. I’ve got to litter this with disclaimers, I’m not saying this person would have been safe/better off if they didn’t serve a mission. From the article:

In December 2015, a general authority visited their mission and spoke about the importance of the “golden hour” — between 8 and 9 at night, when fathers are home. At the time, missionaries in Bolivia were instructed to return to their homes at 8 to eat dinner, study and be in bed by 10:30 p.m. But the authority promised them if they worked until 9 p.m., they would be blessed and find more families.

This is a lead up to a personal story. Jeez I hate starting sentences off this way but… on my mission the country would regularly have huelgas, like a nationwide strike over political issues. Things always got dicey for several days during those strikes. We were instructed to stay inside our apartments those days. There were always missionaries that would go out on those days. They were proving their faithfulness and righteousness… and maybe gunning for a promotion in the mission leadership hierarchy. IDK. The point is that risk taking can become another badge of loyalty.

And I’ll come right out and say it. In the “golden hour” story I don’t think safety even crossed the GAs mind. That’s not necessarily negative criticism, what I’m saying is that he probably didn’t think, “This could be dangerous but I’m willing to risk it.” He probably stopped thinking after, “Most people are home at that hour.” But at the end of the day a church leader put the needs of the church, finding people to teach, ahead of the safety of the members. I’m not sure where I’m going with this point, but it crossed my mind.

And I’m also not saying that they would have been safe if they were home by a certain hour. Nothing guarantees safety in this life. Nothing. Which is kind of the point.

I have a lot of opinions on this. First of all, let me just say that when I was a missionary, I was as guilty as anyone for being cavalier about my safety or thinking I would be protected. I think part of that is just being young, feeling invincible. Young people often feel they are safer than they are because they don’t have life experience yet. I was also in a relatively safe place, the Canary Islands, which is basically the Hawaii of Europe. The only things that happened to me were:

1) two companions who were robbed, neither involving weapons, although both were physically assaulted by their attackers.

2) many instances of frottage on public transportation

3) being flashed by a guy who asked me “What do you think of that?” (indicating his penis). My response was “It looks like a penis, only smaller.”

There was one area I worked, with pretty strong success, that was full of heroin addicts. That was the place my comp got robbed (the first time), but I never felt unsafe there. My parents came at the end of my mission, and when we walked through that area to see some of my families, I absolutely for the first time saw that place as a civilian and did not feel that it was a safe area for them, as we gingerly stepped over discarded needles.

The elders in my mission were definitely in worse places than we were, consistently. The article seems to overlook the danger to the men, instead focusing solely on the risks of sexual assault that are more of an issue for sisters on the whole.

I’m encouraged about Gary Crittenden’s role. I didn’t know he was in the missionary dept. He was one of our execs at Amex, and very well regarded. In general, I’d trust former leaders I had there to understand how to make good people decisions and understand risks well. I suspect he will make wise decisions.

I’m not at all encouraged by the nonsensical and harmful statement Nelson is quoted as making in the article. Perhaps it’s cherry picked, but maybe not. His comment is only too prevalent among church leaders and members, that if missionaries are obedient they will be protected. That’s how we end up with victim blaming. It’s not about obedience, like–at all. God doesn’t say “You didn’t read your scriptures today so you will be sexually assaulted.” And yet, that’s the attitude too many have. We have this magical mindset that missionaries are going to be physically safe in dangerous situations if they do completely unrelated things (likewise so many teach that if you are “obedient” you’ll have baptisms when baptisms are really dependent on other people’s decisions, not your unrelated actions).

I do believe you can feel spiritual warnings to avoid situations or get out of a place, but that doesn’t mean nothing will ever happen to you or that you are at fault if something does. It doesn’t mean you are disobedient or a bad missionary, or that those who aren’t assaulted are somehow better. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The church needs to:

1) quit telling missionaries not to talk to family members about safety concerns (although, let’s be honest, some parents can’t handle the truth or are culturally unaware or would like to encase their children in bubble wrap)

2) require more oversight of dangerous areas–maybe force MPs to justify their decisions of where to put missionaries.

3) revert to age 19 for elders (I totally believe 18 is just too young)

4) involve EXPERTS more in creating procedures and provide EXPERT counseling

5) let missionaries make the decisions about whether they will go home

6) provide far better information about risks–to the missionaries–in areas missionaries are assigned to

7) involve women with expertise in assault in the creation of procedures and training materials as well as mission governance.

missions should have an assigned counselor who is local to assist with missionary mental health issues including trauma, but also anxiety.

9) we should lift the restrictions on calling home. Allow contact with home.

Things always got dicey for several days during those strikes. We were instructed to stay inside our apartments those days. There were always missionaries that would go out on those days. They were proving their faithfulness and righteousness… and maybe gunning for a promotion in the mission leadership hierarchy. IDK. The point is that risk taking can become another badge of loyalty.

I think this largely ties with three things.

First, in Christianity and especially the Church, martyrdom is just so gosh darn popular! If you die for the Church, or on your mission, you automatically make it to the celestial kingdom. You’re a hero, glory and praises. Your family will weep over you, “Such a faithful missionary”, and yet be comforted knowing you’ve made it to godhood.

Second, like you mentioned, missionaries are often told that angels are walking over them and God will protect them. Of course, this all ties in with faith. The more faith you have, the better the miracles. Hence, those missionaries going out preaching in dangerous areas will be protected from knives and bullets, and come home with quite a few stories to tell. Because lets face it, one of the greatest benefits from serving a mission, is having those blow-you-away stories to share, over the pulpit, in Sunday School, on dates, and with your children.

Third, we stick the absolute burden of the salvation of souls in an area, on the missionaries. If missionaries don’t do their absolute, 110% very best, the blood and sins of the people be upon their garments. It really makes some go above and beyond. Not to mention, if you’re not constantly teaching and baptizing, you feel like crap.

I’m reminded of mission prep class at BYU. The teacher posed some interesting questions to the class.

“Would you be willing to go on a mission, if you knew you were going to be killed or murdered?”

“Yeah!” “Totally”

“Would you go if you knew you were going to be raped?”

“Um. No.”

And from my experience, some Sisters really are eager to jump into murdery neighborhoods, trusting God will protect them from rape.

I have heard that the statistical likelihood of bad things happening to missionaries was less than the statistical likelihood of bad thing happening to other young people of a similar age group.

In considering this, I feel that the church cannot have missionaries and prevent all such from happening. However, there may be some additional precautions that can and should be taken.

Perhaps the bigger failing was how this was handled after the fact. As a church (as the organization, the individual members, and the culture) we have much baggage with sexual assualt.

Perhaps the bigger failing was how this was handled after the fact. As a church (as the organization, the individual members, and the culture) we have much baggage with sexual assualt.

Agreed about the baggage associated with sexual assault.

Here are a few failings I saw in the story she shared:

1) MP didn’t take the US govt warnings of the area seriously enough, esp since the local police were complicit in the crimes (working with the drug cartels). AA shares in this complicity.

2) MP pressured missionaries to work longer hours to have more success, even when locals considered this unsafe.

After the fact:

1) the MP just sent her home without consulting her wishes

2) MP didn’t offer counseling.

3) MP didn’t direct them to fill out a police report.

4) MP sent TWO MORE SISTERS into this exact same area after the last pair were sexually assaulted. WTF???

5) MP didn’t think to encourage talking to parents or support network at home or lift the moratorium on phone calls as a means to help them feel mentally supported.

Generally:

1) MP wife has no official role, so any caring she does in these cases is extra and certainly depends on her abilities.

Basically, the MP dealt with physical needs–only. He did call her at home a few days later, so it’s not that he wasn’t concerned. People without expertise (both men & women) and who haven’t been through trauma are probably eager to believe all is well.