- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
For those who are interested, you can hear me on NPR, talking with Doug Fabrizio about this topic: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/authority-abuse-and-lds-church Quote:For those who are interested, you can hear me on NPR, talking with Doug Fabrizio about this topic:
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/authorit … lds-churchAnd now it’s time for a good cry.
On one hand I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Church for the bad behavior of one individual (one bad apple) basically acting on his own in a way that is clearly out of sync with what the Church tries to teach. But on the other hand I think the Church deserves a lot of blame for the way they reacted to this scandal and for creating an environment where situations like this could quite often be ignored and swept under the rug instead of faced and dealt with appropriately. For example, what was the deal with the official response talking about how she was a “former” member and only “briefly” a missionary? As far as I can tell they were mostly trying to discredit the alleged victim and deny her claims like self-serving lawyers typically would. Is that what Jesus would do? I doubt it. And it’s not like this is even a case of “he said, she said” to begin with, he has already been recorded basically admitting that he was out of line with multiple different sister missionaries, not just her. Maybe it’s not enough to convict him of anything illegal but it easily seems like more than enough to not react the way they have so far. It’s just not a good look and to me it gives the impression that they care more about trying to maintain the Church’s reputation and the false expectation that the leaders are always right and should always be trusted than trying to protect their members from being victimized, or else some of them actually believe this false notion too much themselves to the point that they don’t believe the victims in cases like this.
DevilsAdvocate – I am with you on this one on both parts. NO organization will be able to eliminate 100% of abuse of almost any kind. But to me it is crystal clear the church is showing the last few weeks just how much they can be 2-faced and place protection of the good name of the church paramount to victims. The best recap of this was just released yesterday by Radio Free Mormon podcast.
I think the bites to their backside has not reached the climax (pun not intended). It sure feels to me like it is a #MormonMeToo swelling coming up. Even today another person brought up accusations from yet another prominent leader doing so no-no’s and the victims reporting it to GA’s and nothing happening and the perp continued to go onto other prominent callings. I doubt it is the last we will hear.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
On one hand I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Church for the bad behavior of one individual (one bad apple) basically acting on his own in a way that is clearly out of sync with what the Church tries to teach.
I think Food Quality Assurance (or QA of any kind) is a good analogy. Both my wife and I had previous work experience in that department. There will always be “bad apples”. No matter how many highly-effective QA systems you have in place, a bad apple or two is going to get by. HOWEVER, when bad apples do “get by”, the QA department needs to take the time to re-evaluate their process, find their weakness, and make re-adjustments to ensure bad apples are kept to a minimum.
In recent years, in the realm of sexual assault there have been many people vocalized “Blame the perpetrator and not the victim”. And I fully agree, that the perps should take full responsibility for their actions. No one is Pro-Rape. But the truth is, the systems we have in place are VERY ineffective. If someone is placed in a compromising situation because of Church Policy, and that person is victimized, the perp is 100% responsible for their actions, but the Church also shares the blame.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
For those who are interested, you can hear me on NPR, talking with Doug Fabrizio about this topic:http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/authority-abuse-and-lds-church
I listened to the entire discussion, front to back. Some observations:
This case has highlighted the the things I observed in my own challenges with faith. They were by no means as large and distressing as the woman who was the victim of attempted rape by the MTC president, but Natasha, from Sunstone kept hitting on thoughts that have occurred to me many times…
1. The church doesn’t’ apologize. Yes, I get it — they are a corporation and corporations lose money when they apologize (in the face of lawsuits) . But I think she or Angela or Natasha on the call also made the point that they claim to be divinely led. With this comes a higher expectation, I think from most of us. They SHOULD apologize. We are given all the “R”‘s or repentence, and one is to make restitution — should we not expect the same from the church too??? Should it, as an organization, lead with example?
I have suffered from ill treatment by leaders in government and secular organizations, but it seems to roll off my back faster than when it happens in the church. Why? Because there are no claims to divine leadership and inspiration in these situations.
If you are going to claim a divine commission, then there is a need to act like it. You can’t have it both ways — divine when it suits you, and temporal when it’s inconvenient or expensive to do the right thing.
2. It’s OK for the church not to be perfect!!! Now, we don’t want people to suffer abuse, or to sanction it, but as Natasha or Lindsay pointed out, the church is afraid to admit wrong doing because they are afraid it will lessen their claims to being the one and only true church. That it will hurt the faith of the members.
My answer is their lack of apologizing and humility is one of the reasons people like me aren’t nearly as committed as I once was.
3. We were once “wronged” in an adoption and got an “apology letter”. It was weak as get out — their efforts to bring us some closure were framed as part of their quest for continuous improvement.
The other thought I had was that I routinely get people saying “why are you worrying about this now, it happened X years ago????”. I feel the fact that this woman brought this up decades later (the attempted rape), shows that for some people events stick with them forever. And when it involves sexual abuse by church leaders — in an organization where there should be safety from such problems — the effects never go away. That closure helps. That sometimes closure doesn’t help, but is necessary to ease the lingering pain and to shore up the confidence of others who are watching.
Overall, a good podcast, insightful comments.
My takeaway is similar to my emerging conclusions over the yeas. it’s an uphill battle to get the church to admit wrongdoing, to apologize, or to make things right after there has been a wrong. bishops and SPs are not qualified to do many of the things they are required to do. Paid clergy would do much better to serve the members. The church has resources to help members, but doesn’t commit them (such as in counseling through LDS Social Services, whose services have contracted recently).
Also, that I am glad my partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (the events that pushed me over the edge a few years ago) have let me to this point. I have no desire to be a leader in the LDS church. I don’t feel qualified to handle the problems of abuse that might cross my desk. As the women in the podcast pointed out, the men are often poorly led by the handbook of instructions. A lay ministry is great for cutting costs, but it doesn’t lead to great service to members, that is for sure.
I am much more content working in the community where I feel I can be a leader who lives up to the claims of what our organization(s) can do for its members and society as a whole.
I wish the church would:
a) Apologize
b) Allocate funds to showing corporate character, and that means paying out when the people they put in place to lead us “via inspiration” don’t deliver and cause harm to others. Budget for it.
c) Stop relying on this hard-to-sustain image of perfection to get the members to follow leaders. Find a new model that encourages people to be faithful to the church as it really is. Full of warts, and also goodness. The two can coexist.
d) Stop the organizational egocentricism and leader worship.
I think one means of accomplishing this is to get away from the gerontocracy Angela mentioned, and to remove life terms for senior leaders. This makes old policies stay when they are no longer with the times. It makes old, worn out programs stay forever. And it limits the churches ability to respond to cases like these effectively.
So I sort of took exception to the woman’s comment about this being like the Catholic abuse scandals. I really don’t think it’s the same thing. It’s not good, but there are important differences here. In her situation, for example, it was a case of an adult woman being abused and told to stay in her marriage. That’s not the same as a bunch of paid professional supposedly-celibate clergy diddling kids while high-ranking people protect them to continue to do it for years, literally covering it up for them. I don’t think it’s clear whether Joseph Bishop was protected by anyone high ranking other than them just not believing the victims (the victim on tape has apparently been talking about it since it happened, but since she had previously been a assaulted and had mental trauma, and OBVIOUSLY left the church after this happened, she didn’t come across as credible).
To me, that’s a whole different ball game. It’s bad that our leaders give terrible advice, but it’s advice that was the norm in the 1950s and 1960s, and even into the 1970s and early 1980s. It’s just outdated big time, and they are operating from a very old script, one that is not only harmful to women but has a fundamental disconnect with the realities of living in 2018. And that’s not just an issue with the big red chairs. That’s an issue because so many in the church believe in the idea that women “shouldn’t” work outside the home, which has all these terrible downstream impacts. Once you don’t work outside the home, you pretty much can’t re-enter the workforce later. A degree doesn’t matter with no relevant experience. That means women who don’t work have a very hard time leaving an abusive marriage, and they sometimes lack the confidence to deal with these things. They may not seem credible to male leaders who are used to seeing them as domestic only, not equals, breeders.
^I agree with every word Hawk. Well said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.