Exponent II's Blog, page 13

What makes someone an anti-Mormon?

Photo by Bailey Burton on Unsplash

A cousin who’s been out of the LDS church since his teens recently contacted me to let me know his family was talking about me leaving the church. He said he tried to defend me to his family, and expressed that he would be there for me if I needed it during this difficult transition. I appreciated his support, but got upset when he also mentioned that his mom said I was “anti-Mormon” now. I was surprised by how hard I took the label, knowing how negatively my aunt would have meant it. Ever since, I’ve been trying to pick that apart.

What exactly makes someone anti-Mormon? It’s a label I definitely applied to people during my active days. I realized I’d been working hard not to become one as I left the church. I didn’t want to portray myself as preaching against the LDS church, trying to pull people away from it, becoming a reverse missionary, if you will. I feel strongly that everyone is allowed to worship how they wish—as long as they aren’t purposefully hurting anyone—and whatever makes them happy is great with me. I only wish my believing friends and family would extend the same courtesy to me. But I’m also fully aware that most of them think they can’t, not without upsetting a whole lot of equilibrium in their brains.

When I first heard about my aunt labeling me as anti-Mormon, I wracked my brain trying to understand what would have even given her that idea. My liberal social media posts? My Exponent blog articles? Most of my posts and views haven’t really changed since I was an active but still nuanced member of the church. Was I also anti-Mormon then? Are the other writers for the Exponent blog who are still attending the LDS church also simultaneously anti-Mormon somehow?

In the end, I know to people like my aunt, any criticism of the church, its history, and its leaders is anti-Mormon. Anything outside of pure conformity and support for every action and every word said or written by the church can only be seen as anti. You’re either with the church one hundred percent, or against it. It’s such black-and-white thinking that creates people who leave the church and feel the need to actively fight it—because it’s either true and the only right way, or its wrong and evil and they must save people from it with the same fervor they once sought to draw people to it. Leaders literally preach this idea, and some people who leave the church still believe them.

Photo by Christopher Sardegna on Unsplash

Despite doing my best not to be one of these people, I can no longer let myself attempt to leave the church “correctly.” No matter how understanding and moderate I think I’m being, it won’t matter to most of my friends and family who have stayed. I simply cannot attempt to curate their viewpoint of me, because it is impossible. I just have to continue as I have been—living my life in the way that feels right, brings me peace, and supports the causes and people that are important to me. To me, none of that is very anti-anything.

Guest Post: What do the young men think?

Guest Post by mhermitmom

(Names withheld to protect the embarrassed. Picture drawn by me.)

 I was doing laundry yesterday, as one does, and as I was changing clothes from washer to dryer, my 19 year old son was passing by and made a semi terrified sound of “AAAH!” 

 As I was shoving my laundry in the dryer, I inquired in our common language, “AAAH?? What AAAAH?”

He replied again, “AAH! Underwear!” Now this was not my white garments-only wash that he saw. It was the colored clothing consisting of my husband’s shirts, pants, and ONE red bra. My only red bra. 

My son has made this kind of reaction before to the red bra. Once, I had all my laundry dumped on my bed as I was preparing to sort and fold it. My son came charging into my bedroom to leap upon the bed with a belly flop, as he sometimes does, and that particular time, as he flopped, he came face to face with my red bra in the pile. He recoiled like it was a rattle snake and bolted from the room with a panicked, loud “AAAAAAAH!” that time.

So this time around, I yelled to my now out of sight son, “IT’S JUST UNDERWEAR!”

He yelled back from the kitchen. “It’s WOMEN’s underwear!”

I said, “What, does the sight of women’s underwear arouse you?”

He said, “No.”

I asked if he had been taught that a man shouldn’t see a woman’s underwear, otherwise men might get aroused? Mind you he decided not to attend church anymore when he was 16 or 17 and now he is 19.

He said not specifically. He recalled a day at high school when he saw a girl getting stopped in the hallway between classes because she had the slightest bit of bra strap showing on her shoulder and she was getting a talking to for it. She got in trouble for it, it kind of reinforced to my son that seeing a woman’s underwear was bad.

I let him know that it was not a woman’s job to police themselves “just in case a man had bad thoughts.” I told him he was responsible for his own thoughts, not women. And not their underwear in the laundry. I think he got it. 

Just full disclosure here, I don’t go around the house parading in my underwear. To my knowledge, my son has never seen me with that particular piece on. My husband, of course, has, and he likes it a lot. I have a hard time finding bras that are comfortable. I don’t like the color myself, but it is fairly comfortable. So it stays in my underwear for occasional use. 

As long as we are doing full disclosure, my son has read most of this, and he said if anyone ever asks if it is him I was talking about, he would deny it. He is grudgingly allowing me to submit it, for what it’s worth. 

My son may be a self-proclaimed atheist, but I think a lot of the values that make up the social mores of the town he has grown up in have stuck in some aspects. I have done my best to keep an amiable relationship with him so he will sometimes let me know what he is thinking. He’ll just have to get used to seeing the occasional flash of red coming out of the dryer. 

mhermitmom is a Gen X, not 100% straight, LDS woman trying to navigate career changes and “failure to launch” offspring.

Ten Ways the LDS Church Is Unsafe for Children

Although the LDS Church has the potential to be a good place for families to worship, its current practices and policies make it unsafe for children in many ways. LDS leaders refuse to implement proven practices that protect children and instead have created a system that leaves children vulnerable to abuse, In the past year, more than 100 claims of sex abuse have been filed against the Church in 6 US states. 

The following are ten ways that make the LDS Church unsafe for children:

1. No child should be required to attend a worthiness interview, yet the LDS church asks children to prove their worthiness twice each year in interviews with their ecclesiastical leaders.  This is a spiritually abusive practice that teaches children they must receive the approval of a priesthood leader to be considered worthy. Too often it has been used to shame, abuse, and manipulate children. Sam Young has compiled over 1,000 accounts of LDS members who suffered serious mistreatment during bishop’s interviews.

Children should instead be taught that they are unconditionally loved by God and their leaders just as they are. If the Church followed best practices to prevent child abuse, it would never allow a child to be alone with an adult leader in a closed room.

No child should ever be interviewed alone by any ecclesiastical leader, yet LDS leaders interview children alone in one-on-one interviews unless they ask for a parent to attend. Thus, the church places the burden for the safety on children,  not on their leaders. If the LDS Church cares about children, it will eliminate all one-on-one interviews with children. In the May 2015 children’s magazine, the article describes a child running into the bishop’s office for an interview while his mother waited outside. This is unacceptable! The LDS Church does not teach children to ask their parents to attend interviews with them when parents should be required to attend.



No child should be taught to strictly obey their leaders in Church classes and through music. In the children’s magazine, the Friend, Elder David Christiansen says, “Children, do what the Lord asks you to do when He asks you to do it. If the bishop asks you to do something, obey. If your Primary teacher asks you to do something, say yes.”

An LDS children’s song, speaking about the bishop, says, “We love him with all our might” and “Let us help him in every way.” LDS children are indoctrinated to blindly obey their church leaders without using their own power of discernment. This is dangerous and wrong. Because children are taught to do anything the bishop asks them to do, it creates a rape culture that gives perpetrators unfettered access to trusting children.

A top LDS leader in General Conference emphasized: “God has chosen His servants,” referring to bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders. No child should ever be taught that God has chosen a pedophile to be their bishop, nor should that person ever meet with the child behind closed door. Although most bishops are good men, some are not, as the plethora of lawsuits against church for sex abuse crimes indicates.

Children should instead be taught to follow their own consciouses and the avoid situations where they feel uncomfortable. They should also be taught critical thinking skills, which include not blindly obeying anyone who may be coercive or abusive.

4.LDS bishops should not be allowed to give perpetrators unfettered access to youth. Because the LDS church teaches that bishops are “common judges in Israel,” they believe bishops have the power to forgive sin. This teaching inspires some bishops to believe that they have the power not only to forgive the sins of sexual offenders but to place them in contact with vulnerable children.

      Tim Kosnoff, an attorney who has litigated cases for sexual abuse victims against the LDS Church, says, “We’ve had cases where the perpetrator was excommunicated and then rebaptized back in, in less than six months. So, well, ‘Bishop,… did you insist that he get any kind of sex offender treatment?’ No. Did you make any effort to determine whether he’d continue to offend after he was excommunicated?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you reach out to his probation officer?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did any criminal history or background check before you made the decision to recommend him for rebaptism?’ ‘No.’

     Kosnoff adds, “I mean, these are the kind of questions that, if you ask any other kind of defendant—a school district, a corporation… [but the LDS] Church does nothing.”

Because LDS bishops are allowed to forgive the sins of perpetrators, they sometimes feel that perpetrators can again be placed in a position of trust with children. This is wrong and unacceptable.

5. The LDS Church lacks critical controls and oversight of bishops and church members, which allows predatory church leaders and members to groom and abuse victims without scrutiny. The LDS Church does not carefully monitor if convicted predators are allowed to work with children, which is revealed in the account of Frank Curtis, a convicted pedophile, who had served prison time for his offenses. Wih an extensive criminal record, Curtis joined the LDS Church and then spent years going from ward to ward, preying upon young men in his roles as Sunday School teacher and youth leader. When the youth disclosed their abuse, the LDS Church spent years and millions of dollars attempting to silence the survivors but failed.

6. The LDS Church knowingly refuses to protect children by using the priest/penitent privilege to shield perpetrators from the criminal justice system, when it could instead ask bishops to report all suspected abuse to authorities.

Kosnoff explains that the LDS Church attracts sex abusers because they know the Church lacks accountability. He says, “If rules are permissive, you’re going to have more rule violators, and that’s what you have here. The only thing we don’t have is accountability and the ability to prove what is demonstrably true, which is in LDS communities, because of this system of tolerance.”

     He adds, “If [the Church is] pedophile friendly, you’re going to have more pedophiles, which means you’re going to manufacture more victims. Which is why, as a lawyer representing sex abuse victims and civil cases against the Mormon Church, this is a growth industry in this place because they keep producing victims.”

7. The LDS Church too often silences and blames victims of sexual abuse.  Current Church manuals reference a talk by apostle Richard Scott, who said in General Conference, speaking about sexual abuse survivors, “At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed.” This teaching is wrong and unacceptable.

LDS girls are taught they can influence a young man’s behavior by their choice of clothing, a teaching that tells young men that they are not responsible if they abuse someone. This false teaching also tells girls that they are responsible for any abuse they receive. I have worked with rapists and with rape survivors who believed both false LDS teachings.

8. Too often LDS bishops dismiss or minimize perpetrators’ crimes, which allows perpetrators to continue to abuse vulnerable youth.

In January 2012, two victims of an LDS perpetrator, Michael Jensen, who had moved from Utah to West Virginia, told their mother he had abused them in 2007, and she reported the abuse to the West Virginia State Police. She reported that she had told a bishop in 2008 that her son said he’d been sexually abused Jensen. After reporting the abuse to her bishop, he told her that “her kids were not abused” and that “Michael Jensen is a good kid from a good family.”

Before moving to West Virginia with his family, Michael had been convicted of sexual crimes in Utah. Michael’s former bishop in Utah testified that he had attended Michael’s juvenile hearing for sex offenses. (Apparently, his records were not tagged or the bishop chose to overlook his past history of sexual abuse.)

After the mother reported the abuse to authorities, the church sent Jensen home within about a week from his mission, but church officials again did not report Jensen’s abuse to West Virginia authorities as required by law, In total, Jensen abused at least 20 children and has been sentenced to 35 to 70 years for his crimes.

 At that trial, parents said the Church “did nothing to warn and protect” their children, and instead placed the perpetrator, a convicted sex abuser, in homes where he could harm children. The Church spent $60 million trying to silence the victims and eventually settled the case for $32 million.

Among other things, “Church officials permitted Jensen to give the sacrament, serve as a bishop’s assistant, teach young children in Primary, and begin a church mission, despite being kicked out of his family’s home for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old sibling,” the lawsuit said.

     Kosnoff describes how victims of sexual abuse suffer when Church leaders advise them to remain silent: “But when you turn to your religious community and your religious community tells you not to say anything to anybody and treats it like it’s something we don’t talk about, then that… signals that it’s your fault… [and that] you have been part of something bad…not that they were victimized by someone who did a bad thing to them.”

Because bishops are not trained to identify signs or sexual abuse nor are they typically trained sex abuse therapists, they should send all reports of abuse to authorities for review and investigation.

9. The LDS Church refuses to implement best practices for preventing child sexual abuse, knowing that thousands of LDS children have been sexually abused by LDS leaders and members. Best practices include screening and monitoring all who work with children and youth, using criminal background checks and reference checks. Best practices also include eliminating one-on-one interactions with kids and leaders and having two adults present with youth, installing windows in doors, having a no closed-door policy, and quickly reporting allegations and suspicions of sexual abuse to authorities.

Best practices also include teaching youth “no one has the right to force, trick, or coerce them into sexual situations and that sexual offenders, not their victims, are responsible for their behavior.” Best practices also require updated and intensive training for all who work with youth about how to properly prevent, assess, and report sexual abuse. Best practices ask those who suspect that someone is being sexual abused to contact authorities immediately. Best practices would never allow anyone to hide behind priest/penitent privilege or allow an adult to interrogate a child alone behind closed doors.

10. The Church currently requires all bishops and branch presidents to call a helpline before reporting abuse to authorities. The helpline is designed to protect the Church, not children, for too often, LDS leaders are told not to report abuse. 

Before 1995, LDS bishops were told to immediately report abuse to authorities. The Church needs to return to that policy. If it runs a helpline, it should be to help abuse victims, not to protect the Church’s image. 

An example of the Church’s failure to protect children includes the Paul Adam’s case: Michael Rezendes writes: “When an Arizona bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints learned that a member of his ward was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter, he followed church policy and called the faith’s Abuse Help Line.

“The bishop later told law enforcement that church attorneys in Salt Lake City who staff the help line around the clock said that because he learned of the abuse during a counseling session the church considers a spiritual confession, he was legally bound to keep the abuse secret.

“Paul Douglas Adams, a U.S. Border Patrol employee living with his wife and six children in Bisbee, Ariz., continued abusing his daughter for as many as seven more years, and went on to abuse a second daughter. He finally stopped in 2017 with no help from the church only because he was arrested.”

The abuse these girls suffered is too horrific and too sickening to describe here. It could have been stopped and even prevented if their bishops had reported their abuse to authorities.

                                                                                      ******************************

Until the Church removes every policy that prioritizes confidentiality over the safety of its children, it is not a safe place for children. Its current use of clergy privilege protects predators, not children. It’s practices of victim-blaming and -silencing, one-on-one worthiness interviews, and lack of proper training for Church leaders and workers create a system that is unsafe for children. Its teachings that bishops and leaders should be strictly obeyed is unacceptable because it gives some predators absolute control of children and teaches child to submit to predators’ manipulations. Of course, not all bishops are predatory, but some are. Children deserve protection from them.

The Church can do more to protect its precious children. Their safety and lives matter. Too many children have been abused by LDS leaders and members within Church meetinghouses.  The Church spends millions of dollars on attorney fees and sexual abuse settlements which could be better spent on protecting children from sexual abuse.

 

To better understand these issues, please listen to the podcasts, “Architecture of Abuse” and “Heaven’s Helpline.” Also review the excellent research of Floodlit.org.

Ten Ways the LDS Church Is Unsafe for Childen

Although the LDS Church has the potential to be a good place for families to worship, its current practices and policies make it unsafe for children in many ways. LDS leaders refuse to implement proven practices that protect children and instead have created a system that leaves children vulnerable to abuse, In the past year, more than 100 claims of sex abuse have been filed against the Church in 6 US states. 

The following are ten ways that make the LDS Church unsafe for children:

1. No child should be required to attend a worthiness interview, yet the LDS church asks children to prove their worthiness twice each year in interviews with their ecclesiastical leaders.  This is a spiritually abusive practice that teaches children they must receive the approval of a priesthood leader to be considered worthy. Too often it has been used to shame, abuse, and manipulate children. Sam Young has compiled over 1,000 accounts of LDS members who suffered serious mistreatment during bishop’s interviews.

Children should instead be taught that they are unconditionally loved by God and their leaders just as they are. If the Church followed best practices to prevent child abuse, it would never allow a child to be alone with an adult leader in a closed room.

No child should ever be interviewed alone by any ecclesiastical leader, yet LDS leaders interview children alone in one-on-one interviews unless they ask for a parent to attend. Thus, the church places the burden for the safety on children,  not on their leaders. If the LDS Church cares about children, it will eliminate all one-on-one interviews with children. In the May 2015 children’s magazine, the article describes a child running into the bishop’s office for an interview while his mother waited outside. This is unacceptable! The LDS Church does not teach children to ask their parents to attend interviews with them when parents should be required to attend.



No child should be taught to strictly obey their leaders in Church classes and through music. In the children’s magazine, the Friend, Elder David Christiansen says, “Children, do what the Lord asks you to do when He asks you to do it. If the bishop asks you to do something, obey. If your Primary teacher asks you to do something, say yes.”

An LDS children’s song, speaking about the bishop says, “We love him with all our might” and “Let us help him in every way.” LDS children are indoctrinated to blindly obey their church leaders without using their own power of discernment. This is dangerous and wrong. Because children are taught to do anything the bishop asks them to do, it creates a rape culture that gives perpetrators unfettered access to trusting children.

A top LDS leader in General Conference emphasized: “God has chosen His servants,” referring to bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders. No child should ever be taught that God has chosen a pedophile to be their bishop, nor should that person ever meet with the child behind closed door. Although most bishops are good men, some are not, as the plethora of lawsuits against church for sex abuse crimes indicates.

Children should instead be taught to follow their own consciouses and the avoid situations where they feel uncomfortable. They should also be taught critical thinking skills, which include not blindly obeying anyone who may be coercive or abusive.

4.LDS bishops should not be allowed to give perpetrators unfettered access to youth. Because LDS church teaches that bishops are “common judges in Israel,” they believe bishops have the power to forgive sin. This teaching inspires some bishops to believe that they have the power not only to forgive the sins of sexual offenders but to place them in contact with vulnerable children.

      Tim Kosnoff, an attorney who has litigated cases for sexual abuse victims against the LDS Church, says, “We’ve had cases where the perpetrator was excommunicated and then rebaptized back in, in less than six months. So, well, ‘Bishop,… did you insist that he get any kind of sex offender treatment?’ No. Did you make any effort to determine whether he’d continue to offend after he was excommunicated?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you reach out to his probation officer?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did any criminal history or background check before you made the decision to recommend him for rebaptism?’ ‘No.’

     Kosnoff adds, “I mean, these are the kind of questions that, if you ask any other kind of defendant—a school district, a corporation… [but the LDS] Church does nothing.”

Because LDS bishops are allowed to forgive the sins of perpetrators, they sometimes feel that perpetrators can again be placed in a position of trust with children. This is wrong and unacceptable.

5. The LDS Church lack critical controls and oversight of bishops and church members, which allows predatory church leaders and members to groom and abuse victims without scrutiny. The LDS Church does not carefully monitor if convicted predators are allowed to work with children, which is revealed in the account of Frank Curtis, a convicted pedophile, who had served prison time for his offenses. Wih an extensive criminal record, Curtis joined the LDS Church and then spent years going from ward to ward, preying upon young men in his roles as Sunday School teacher and youth leader. When the youth disclosed their abuse, the LDS Church spent years and millions of dollars attempting to silence the survivors but failed.

6. The LDS Church knowingly refuses to protect children by using the priest/penitent privilege to shield perpetrators from the criminal justice system, when it could instead ask bishops to report all suspected abuse to authorities.

Kosnoff explains that the LDS Church attracts sex abusers because they know the Church lacks accountability. He says, “If rules are permissive, you’re going to have more rule violators, and that’s what you have here. The only thing we don’t have is accountability and the ability to prove what is demonstrably true, which is: in LDS communities, because of this system of tolerance.”

     He adds, “If [the Church is] pedophile friendly, you’re going to have more pedophiles, which means you’re going to manufacture more victims. Which is why, as a lawyer representing sex abuse victims and civil cases against the Mormon Church, this is a growth industry in this place because they keep producing victims.”

7. The LDS Church too often silences and blames victims of sexual abuse.  Current Church manuals reference a talk by apostle Richard Scott, who said in General Conference, speaking about sexual abuse survivors, “At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed.” This teaching is wrong and unacceptable.

LDS girls are taught they can influence a young man’s behavior by their choice of clothing, a teaching that tells young men may not be responsible if they abuse someone. This false teaching also tells girls that they are responsible for any abuse they receive. I have worked with rapists and with rape survivors who believed both false beliefs.

8. Too often LDS bishops dismiss or minimize perpetrators’ crimes, which allows perpetrators to continue to abuse vulnerable youth.

In January 2012, two victims of an LDS perpetrator, Michael Jensen, who had moved from Utah to West Virginia, told their mother he had abused them in 2007, and she reported the abuse to the West Virginia State Police. She reported that she had told a bishop in 2008 that her son said he’d been sexually abused Jensen. After reporting the abuse to her bishop, he told her that “her kids were not abused” and that “Michael Jensen is a good kid from a good family.”

Before moving to West Virginia with his family Michael had been convicted of sexual crimes in Utah. Michael’s former bishop in Utah testified that he had attended Michael’s juvenile hearing for sex offenses. (Apparently, his records were not tagged or the bishop chose to overlook his past history of sexual abuse.)

After the mother reported the abuse to authorities, the church sent Jensen home within about a week from his mission, but church officials again did not report Jensen’s abuse to West Virginia authorities as required by law, In total, Jensen abused at least 20 children and has been sentenced to 35 to 70 years for his crimes.

 At that trial, parents said the Church “did nothing to warn and protect” their children, and instead placed the perpetrator, a convicted sex abuser, in homes where he could harm children. The Church spent $60 million trying to silence the victims and eventually settled the case for $32 million.

Among other things, “Church officials permitted Jensen to give the sacrament, serve as a bishop’s assistant, teach young children in Primary, and begin a church mission, despite being kicked out of his family’s home for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old sibling,” the lawsuit said.

     Kosnoff describes how victims of sexual abuse suffer when Church leaders advise them to remain silent: “But when you turn to your religious community and your religious community tells you not to say anything to anybody and treats it like it’s something we don’t talk about, then that… signals that it’s your fault… [and that] you have been part of something bad…not that they were victimized by someone who did a bad thing to them.”

Because bishops are not trained to identify signs or sexual abuse nor are they typically trained sex abuse therapists, they should send all reports of abuse to authorities for review and investigation.

9. The LDS Church refuses to implement best practices for preventing child sexual abuse, knowing that thousands of LDS children have been sexually abused by LDS leaders and members. Best practices include screening and monitoring all who work with children and youth, including criminal background checks and reference checks. Best practices also include eliminating one-on-one interactions with kids and leaders and having two adults present with youth, installing windows in doors and having a no closed-door policy, and quickly reporting allegations and suspicions of sexual abuse to authorities.

Best practices include teaching youth “no one has the right to force, trick, or coerce them into sexual situations and that sexual offenders, not their victims, are responsible for their behavior.” Best practices also updated and intensive training for all who work with youth about how to properly prevent, assess, and report sexual abuse. Best practices also requires everyone who suspects that someone is being sexual abused to contact authorities immediately. Best practices would never allow anyone to hide behind priest/penitent privilege or allow an adult to interrogate a child alone behind closed doors.

10. The Church currently requires all bishops and branch presidents to call a helpline before reporting abuse to authorities. The helpline is designed to protect the Church, not children, for too often, LDS leaders are told not to report abuse. 

Before 1995, LDS bishops were told to immediately report abuse to authorities. The Church needs to return to that policy. If it runs a helpline, it should be to help abuse victims, not to protect the Church’s image. 

An example of the Church’s failure to protect children includes the Paul Adam’s case: Michael Rezendes writes: “When an Arizona bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints learned that a member of his ward was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter, he followed church policy and called the faith’s Abuse Help Line.

“The bishop later told law enforcement that church attorneys in Salt Lake City who staff the help line around the clock said that because he learned of the abuse during a counseling session the church considers a spiritual confession, he was legally bound to keep the abuse secret.

“Paul Douglas Adams, a U.S. Border Patrol employee living with his wife and six children in Bisbee, Ariz., continued abusing his daughter for as many as seven more years, and went on to abuse a second daughter. He finally stopped in 2017 with no help from the church only because he was arrested.”

The abuse these girls suffered is too horrific and sickening to describe here. It could have been stopped and even prevented if their bishops had reported their abuse to authorities.

                                                                                      ******************************

Until the Church removes every policy that prioritizes confidentiality over the safety of its children, it is not a safe place for children. Its current use of clergy privilege protects predators, not children. It’s practices of victim-blaming and -silencing, one-on-one worthiness interviews, and lack of proper training for Church leaders and workers create a system that is unsafe for children. Its teachings that bishops and leaders should be strictly obeyed is unacceptable because it gives some predators absolute control of children and teaches child to submit to predators’ manipulations. Of course, not all bishops are predatory, but some are. Children deserve protection from them.

The Church can do more to protect its precious children. Their safety and lives matter. Too many children have been abused by LDS leaders and members within Church meetinghouses.  The Church spends millions of dollars in attorney fees and sexual abuse settlements which could be better spent in protecting children from sexual abuse.

 

To better understand these issues, please listen to the podcasts, “Architecture of Abuse” and “Heaven’s Helpline.” Also,  review the excellent research of Floodlit.org.

Rest: A key pillar of mortality

I would like to bear my testimony about the critical importance of rest.

Of a good nap, of sleeping in, of taking a mental health day from work or church or other responsibilities because your body is tired, and it needs a break. This is not a sign of weakness or a way your body is letting you down. Rather, it is an opportunity for self-care, for prioritizing your own needs—it is you following Jesus to the mountains to be away from crowds and simply laying your head down, closing your eyes and listening to your body. I know these things to be true.

We all know this. But sometimes we don’t know it. I learned it for real this summer—the summer that I planned to spend hiking and traveling and playing soccer and going to the lake in a two-piece swimsuit with a boy. Instead, I spent it with chronic tonsillitis. Since the last week of May, I’ve been on four increasingly strong antibiotics, I’ve taken more sick time than ever before, I’ve popped dozens of pills and, though I got better, I never fully healed. By Sunday night most weeks, I was doing OK—well enough to go to the gym on Monday morning, able to be a little social, ready for work the next day.

By Tuesday every week I was sick again. I’ve hardly worked a full week all summer because I had to take the last few hours of the week off. I was rundown, I was achy, I was lethargic. After the final go-round of antibiotics, I returned to the ENT to talk about a tonsillectomy. Despite having zero problems with my tonsils for four decades, in seven weeks they’d destroyed themselves and my summer. They were coming out. I just had to make it about 10 days from my final antibiotic to the surgery. The healthier I was when I went into surgery, the easier (relatively) my recovery would be.

In my mind, healthy came from my routine—getting up early, going to the gym, running, biking, making sure I had a balanced diet. So I did that for a time, including going to my soccer game the weekend before surgery. And I had a great time. But I felt the pattern repeating—after a good weekend, I immediately started feeling sick again.

It was three days before surgery that everything clicked. The reason I felt better over the weekend and started feeling sick again every Monday afternoon was because over the weekend, I slept. I went to bed early, I didn’t set my alarm and I got a lot of sleep. On Monday, eager to get back to normal because I felt good, I set my alarm, I got up early to work out, I pushed myself.

Well, this Tuesday I woke up, got dressed, put on an ankle brace (because I’d recently rolled my ankle playing soccer but that also didn’t stop me from exercising) and walked into the living room to find my keys and go to the gym. And in that moment, I realized I was tired. I was sick. I didn’t need 45 minutes on the bike. I needed to sleep. And I turned around and went back to bed. And you know what? I had a pretty good day. I repeated the next couple of days. And I felt better.

This is a hard adjustment for me—I know the health benefits of exercise, and I actually like working out, and I worry about getting fatter if I don’t exercise. (Two of those are valid points to take into consideration.) But in this situation, where my body was struggling with its regular routine because of illness, it didn’t need exercise. It just needed rest. It took me so long to see that.

It has, quite frankly, taken so long to understand this concept in so many aspects of my life. In my experience observing Mormons and being Mormon, rest is not something at which we excel. My seminary classes started at 5:55 a.m. I was tired every day in high school; falling asleep in class was not unusual. I think about my mission, when I actually did sleep close to eight hours a night, but because there is no time for rest during the day, I was still constantly exhausted. I remember dozing off once during a lesson. And a mission isn’t just physically tiring; as an introvert, never being alone meant that my social battery was constantly drained and I never had the chance to recharge. Every part of me was bone-tired. That is a feature of missions, I will note, not a bug.

Outside of those examples, there’s just always work to be done, people to be served, callings that you’re supposed to say yes to. I’ve been to dozens of meetings that started at 6 or 7 a.m. on a Sunday. I’ve agreed to meetings or picked people up to run errands when I was sick. And I’m not even a parent! How much more exhausting is life when you’re getting up with babies, shuttling children around to various activities, never putting yourself first because the sacrifice is motherhood is considered sacrosanct. How many hours—days—years of sleep have women sacrificed for their families, for their spouses, for the church? And what has that netted any of us? When we are taught that sacrifice is one of the highest and holiest of God’s teachings, we understand, both implicitly and explicitly, that there is always someone else to put first. That self-care is selfish.

Rest is resistance, according to Tricia Hersey, who started the Nap Ministry. It’s a radical act of self-love, of self-care, of declaring that you are important, that your needs matter. It’s an act of self-trust—it shows your body that you are listening, that you hear what it’s asking for, that you know how important your own needs are. It is an act of sanctification and healing for your body. And I believe it matters just as much to God as reading scriptures, praying, preparing lessons or fulfilling callings.

A nap isn’t always the answer. It’s not what healed me—that was surgery. (At least, I hope it did the trick. I’m still in the constant-pain-and-discomfort part of recovery.) It rarely fixes the problem with which I’m wrestling. But I always feel better after. The problem is smaller, more manageable when I am well-rested. I feel better, I am in less pain, my brain is more focused and my body knows it can trust me to put it first.

Photo by Vladislav Muslakov on Unsplash

John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints finally released John Taylor’s 1886 revelation. After years of denying its existence and insisting that nothing like it was found in its archives, the Brigimite sect silently uploaded the original document for the public to see.

The history of this document is quite interesting. For those who don’t know, John Taylor’s son found this revelation in his father’s desk after he had passed away. Speaking in the revelatory language of the Lord, John Taylor’s writings insist that the new and everlasting covenant (polygamy) was an eternal covenant that could never be taken away.

This was the beginning of the Mormon fundamentalist movement. These faithful latter-day saints believed that the Brigimite sect was in apostasy for ending the practice of polygamy. So they broke off and began their own sects.

How can we blame them? Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, among other church leaders, insisted that this practice should never go away; that it was necessary for eternal salvation.

John Taylor’s revelation, along with uncorroborated claims that he was visited by Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith and later tasked specific priesthood leaders to keep polygamy alive, lit the flame beneath the fundamentalist movements, whose followers continue to practice polygamy today.

Yet the church claimed that this revelation was “pretended.” John Taylor’s son was later excommunicated, along with many other church leaders who continued the practice.

What does this all mean for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Members may have to wrestle with the reality that a prophet did in fact write this revelation. Was John Taylor wrong? Was he right? What could that mean for us?

Some argue that he never presented the revelation in General Conference, therefore, it was never voted upon and cannot be considered as binding upon the church.

But it is important to mention that John Taylor was in hiding for the last years of his life due to the practice of polygamy. He didn’t make public appearances or speak in General Conference because the government was hunting him down. He hid in safe houses, hopping from place to place, keeping his whereabouts largely unknown.

Even if he wanted to, he couldn’t present it to the apostles or to the church for a sustaining vote.

Some say the revelation doesn’t matter because Wilford Woodruff, the subsequent prophet, gained direction from the Lord to stop the practice. More current prophets trump older ones, I suppose. Though the contradictions between Taylor’s 1886 revelation and Woodruff’s Manifesto are so vast, it is difficult to believe that both came from the same God.

So.. where does that leave us? Is this revelation legit? I guess that’s for each person to decide for themselves.

I’m more interested in what this says about our church – the Brigimite sect.

The church, having known of the revelations existence since 1933, lied. For 92 years.

They gaslit the entire fundamentalist movement, insisting that their desire to continue the practice of polygamy was baseless.

They excommunicated and punished loyal and obedient members through the perpetuation of this lie.

I actually don’t find it problematic when church leaders make mistakes. They are flawed men, after all.

But, if they are going to lie and make mistakes, then may I suggest that the church stop doing a few things.

Stop teaching that the prophet will never lead us astray.

Please.. stop. This teaching is nonsense. Primary kids sing this on repeat when the evidence largely points to the contrary.

To be blunt: Prophets get things wrong.

They lie. They deceive. They teach doctrine that is later rescinded.

Stop pretending that this is not so.

We teach that prophets are fallible, yet we act as if they are infallible.

Normalize their humanity. Make known their mistakes. And, most importantly..

Let members disagree with the prophet.

It’s as if someone has said a curse word if they were to say that they disagree with the prophet of the church.

Why?

Why do we kick out our own people, excommunicate our best and brightest spiritual minds, because they simply disagree with a flawed and fallible man?

Why have we created a culture where members can’t be authentic? Where we can’t express our doubts and concerns without fear of punishment? Where our eternal salvation depends on us following an imperfect man?

I applaud the LDS church for making strides in transparency. Yet I’m disappointed that it was done so in silence. The leaders are letting their own people, the members that they are meant to guide, to fumble about, wondering what this revelation means to us. Members are left to scour other resources or rely on social media influencers to determine what this means because the leaders are completely and utterly silent.

Not to mention that there was no acknowledgment of the harm that has been caused by this 93 year old lie. No accountability or apology to be seen.

Just a digital upload made in deafening quiet.

I can’t say this isn’t surprising. Just.. disappointing.

Source: https://www.kuer.org/race-religion-social-justice/2025-06-26/an-1880s-lds-polygamy-revelation-raises-awkward-questions-today-says-historian?_amp=true

Photo by Kevin Woblick on Unsplash

A Response to LDS Church Attorney’s Talk at FAIR Conference on August 7, 2025

 

 

On August, 7, 2025, Randy Austin, LDS Church attorney for the legal firm, Kirton and McConkie, spoke about the church abuse hotline at the FAIR Conference. 

Austin made a number of claims that merit a response:

He said, “Far more abuse gets reported when the bishop calls the helpline than if we didn’t have one.”

 Before the helpline was instituted, bishops were told to report all abuse to authorities. Now bishops are too often told not to report abuse. For example, in Arizona a girl was being horrifically abused by her father, Paul Adams. Attorneys on the LDS hotline told two bishops not to report the abuse to police. The father proceeded to horribly abuse his infant daughter because the violence was not reported. The father would have continued to abuse his baby if his videos of the abuse on pornographic websites had not been reported to authorities.

The Church used priest/penitent privilege to claim they shouldn’t have reported the abuse to authorities, even though any church can report abuse to authorities if they choose.

In Austin’s presentation he and Kerri Nielsen, a licensed clinical social worker for LDS Family Services “reiterated several times the church’s position that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.”

How can the Church claim that abuse is not tolerated in any form when bishops are told not to report abuse? Recently, a relative who serves as an LDS bishop called the Church hotline to report abuse as is required of all bishops. He was told by a Church attorney not to report it to the police. When he urged the Church attorney to allow him to report the abuse, he was forbidden from reporting it. Floodlit has documented over 100 cases where LDS leaders failed to report sexual abuse of children. Many more have not appeared in newspaper headlines.

“Children and families are safer” because of the help line, Austin said.

How can children and families be safer when LDS bishops are told not to report abuse and when the Church hides behind priest/penitent privilege in the court systems? Attorneys for the Adam’s children ask, “How do you explain to young victims that a rapist’s religious beliefs are more important than their right to be free from rape?”

Austin said, “Local church leaders can call the line to learn their responsibility for reporting abuse to civil officials. The help line staff monitors clergy privilege laws in all fifty states and in countries around the world local church leaders.”

Before the line was established, local church leaders were told to report all abuse to authorities. Now they are told they cannot report abuse until they call the helpline, whose main purpose is to protect the Church, not to protect victims. If the Church genuinely cares about victims of abuse, they will have a helpline that abuse victims could call, not a line for leaders.

Austin said, “While police need time to investigate, bishops can provide immediate action to help.”

If bishops do not report abuse to police, immediate action cannot be taken to protect victims of abuse.  Delaying or eliminating the reporting of abuse by clergy protects the perpetrators but does not provide relief for the victim of abuse. 

Austin and Nielsen said that part of the help line process is to remind bishops that the church’s policy is to report abuse allegations to legal authorities.

  If the church’s policy is to report abuse allegations to legal authorities, why do they require bishops to call the help line before reporting abuse?

Next, Austin describes the priest/penitent privilege or clergy privilege available in 37 US states that the Church uses to exempt bishops from reporting abuse when they learn about it in a confessional with the abuser. He says more abuse is reported because of this privilege.

Austin fails to say that while more abuse may be reported to clergy because of the clergy privilege, less is reported to authorities when churches use the privilege to tell their priests and bishops not to report abuse.

Austin admits that “his team regularly presents to law enforcement officers and asks them if they ever have had an abuser stop them to confess their abuse. The officers always say no.” Why should the Church expect or ask abusers to report their abuse to police when they already know that the abuse will not be reported? This is one of the most compelling reasons that churches should not hide behind priest/penitent privilege.

Nielsen then outlines safety procedures that the Church has implemented to protect children. First, she said that ‘two adults are required to be present for any child or youth activity, and leaders in those situations must complete training on abuse prevention.”

Although two adults may be present, because the Church does not background all who work with youth, it is possible that they may be abusers. (Read “The Sins of Brother Curtis” to better understand this scenario.)

Leaders are encouraged to complete minimal and insufficient training on abuse, but follow-through is not always done to ensure leaders have completed the training.

Next, Nielsen says that if a church member commits abuse, their membership records are annotated in a way that bars them from serving with children and youth.

As the mother of a child who was sexually abused, I receive updates if a convicted sex offender moves into my neighborhood. A few years ago, one moved into our ward. Our bishop placed him in calling serving youth and when asked, replied that he knew that the man was no longer a threat to anyone because God had forgiven Him.

Nielsen said, “Background checks are increasingly a part of screening adults for working with children and youth. (“The church was very supportive of the new Utah law requiring sex offender registry checks for those serving with children and youth.)”

If the LDS Church genuinely cares about protecting children and youth, it would require background checks on anyone working with vulnerable people.

A few LDS members worked hard to urge the LDS Church to require background checks on LDS folks working with vulnerable people in the United Kingdom. They sent letters to bishops, reminding them that in the U.K.,  “they might be considered legally liable if they had recommended an individual to work with children in the church and that person turned out to have a DBS record.”

Eventually, U.K. Church leaders relented and now require background checks, but it didn’t happen until members spent thousands of hours and personal money educating leaders and pleading for action.

Nielsen said, “Church members can invite others into interviews with a church leader. Youth can bring their parents.”

If the Church genuinely cares about protecting its children, it will stop one-on-one worthiness interviews with children, where some predatory bishops can groom youth. This happened to my best friend, and it has caused unspeakable suffering for her. The Church should not place the burden on youth to bring their parents with them to interviews, an opportunity that many may not know exists.

“The Lord expects us to do all we can to prevent abuse and protect those who have been victims of abuse,” Nielsen said.

I agree. If the Lord expects us to do all we can to protect abuse victims, why does the LDS Church ask bishops to call a hotline before reporting abuse? Why does the LDS Church hide behind the clergy privilege in not reporting abuse? Why do LDS leaders allow bishops to have one-on-one interviews with children? Why doesn’t the Church require mandatory background checks on anyone working with vulnerable people? Why doesn’t it tag records of sexual perpetrators for life so that they are no longer allowed to work with children and youth? Why doesn’t it tell every church leader to report all incidents of abuse to authorities?

In a past blog I wrote: “Although the LDS Church claims to be the “gold standard” for dealing with child abuse, it disregards the best practices for protecting its children and members. It is time for the Church to care more about its children than it does about protecting its good name. The Church spends millions of dollars on attorney fees and sexual abuse settlements which could be better spent on protecting members from sexual abuse. Since the LDS Church claims to be the only true Church, it should set the standard for protecting its members from sexual abuse and holding perpetrators accountable.”

Although not all abuse can be prevented in the Church, much could be avoided by implementing proven policies and practices that protect children and youth from sexual abuse. The Church needs to decide how much they value the safety and welfare of their children. Its decisions regarding clergy privilege, background checks, ensuring that convicted sex offenders never work with youth in the Church, and eliminating one-on-one interviews with youth will show if it cares about children–or if it doesn’t.

 

*1st Photo from WikiMedia Commons: Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Governor Tom Wolf, First Lady Frances Wolf, Legislators, Victims and Advocates Rally for Reforms Recommended by Grand Jury on Child Sex Abuse in the Church, Author Tom Wolf.

*2nd Photo from WikiMedia Commons: Lorie Shaull from St Paul, United States

Confronting the Abusive LDS Doctrine of Eternal Polygamy

During the past few months, the LDS Church has worked to make polygamy more palatable to children and adults. First, it created a series of children’s picture slides that made sexual grooming and abuse appear acceptable:

 

After much online criticism, the disturbing pictures suddenly disappeared.

Then, the Church released the controversial John Taylor revelation in which Taylor declares that God said: “My everlasting covenants [of polygamy] cannot be abrogated nor done away with.” All who wish to enter into God’s highest glory “must and shall obey my law.”

Today Mormon polygamist groups use this revelation as one of main reasons they practice the “principle.”

Then, Dallin Oaks told Belgium members that there are “Mothers” in Heaven, which infers that Heavenly Father has many wives birthing trillions of spirit children.

The new temple endowment ceremony mentions the “new and everlasting covenant,” a clear reference to D&C Section 132, which tells women they will be destroyed if they don’t practice polygamy.

The top two leaders of the LDS Church are sealed to two women whom they assume will be their wives for eternity in the hereafter. Oaks even referred to polygamy in a conference address, when he said:

“A letter I received some time ago introduces the subject of my talk. The writer was contemplating a temple marriage to a man whose eternal companion had died. She would be a second wife. She asked this question: Would she be able to have her own house in the next life, or would she have to live with her husband and his first wife? [Laughter from the audience.] I just told her to trust the Lord. [More laughter.]

Fourteen of my direct ancestors practiced polygamy, and I have read the awful accounts of the women, who were left to fend for themselves and whose children seldom saw their fathers. All were coerced to practice polygamy by LDS leaders, who told them it was the only way to achieve eternal salvation. This practice included the sexual trafficking of vulnerable young female converts who came to Nauvoo and Utah from other countries, unaware that some would be snatched up as the property of powerful old men.

My mother was terrified of dying. As a second wife sealed to her husband, she told me she would rather be eternally single than live in a second-wife status. I am conflicted about how this will work out in the hereafter, since I love both of my parents dearly. Although my dad said his first marriage was awful and that he hope his spouse finds another husband, part of me is scared that I won’t be part of a forever family in eternity. Thank you, LDS Church, for this awful doctrine!

I will save for a later post the link between polygamy, the dehumanization of women, sex abuse, and domestic violence in the LDS culture, but research shows there is a statistical correlation in high-demand religions.

My faith crisis began with researching Joseph Smith on FamilySearch and seeing the 30 women they he “married” during his life. I already knew about Joseph’s polygamy, but I suddenly felt the suffering of these women and was  overwhelmed with feelings of grief, sorrow, and anger. I realized that these women, some of whom were little girls or already married, were victims of sexual abuse.

Hundreds more women were sealed to Joseph posthumously, including my great-grandmother. That sealing was ratified in 1966 by President Howard W. Hunter. So, technically, Joseph is my great-grandfather.

I have a few questions to ask Joseph:

Why did you practice polygamy?

How did it work out for the women in polygamous “marriages”?

 Why did you repeatedly lie to Emma?

Why did you choose to marry so many women if you loved Emma?

What are your views about polygamy now?

To all the polygamy deniers out there, I say,”I hear you. I don’t want to believe it, either, but facts show otherwise.”

To all those who say it will work out in the afterlife, I say, “I prefer to be married to one man only. I can’t see that strong feeling ever changing for me and many women I know?

The LDS church must eventually grapple with these issues:

About an equal number of men and women have been born. Where are all the polygamous wives coming from in heaven? Does this leave many men eternally single?
How do exalted Goddesses of flesh and bone produce spirits who do not have bodies?
Why would a loving God require people to enter into marriages that by their very nature create jealousy, loneliness, and even abuse?

The LDS Church must also confront current societal contempt for men like Warren Jeffs who groomed  and married multiple women, some of them very young.  The Church must decide if polygamy is good?  true? loving? equitable? kind?

For those still questioning whether or not polygamy is a fulfilling relationship for women, I would recommend former polygamists’ books, Carolyn Jessop’s, “”Escape: A Memoir,” and Elissa Wall’s, “Stolen Innocence,” and Ann Eliza Young’s, “Wife No. 19: Or he Story of a Life in Bondage.” Carol Lynn Pearson’s book, “The Ghost of  Eternal Polygamy” is a must read for anyone wants to better understand the subject. There are many, many books that document the abuses inherent in polygamy. Also, take a careful look at the difficult, dehumanized lives of women and chldren in Biblical poligamy, including Hagar, Leah, Bathsheba, and others.

The fruits of polygamy are bitter indeed.

I don’t know about you, but if polygamy is required in the highest part of the celestial kingdom, I would rather be somewhere else.

To Hold a Temple Recommend or Not: That is the Question

By Anonymous

This summer I went to the temple at the invitation of my visiting parents-in-law.

My husband and I haven’t gone frequently in recent years. The last time I went was about ten months ago I went to support a friend who was going to try to decide whether to continue to pay tithing and to renew her temple recommend. This time I came to the temple facing the same kind of dilemma myself.

Over the past few years, my once good feelings about paying tithing and attending recommend interviews have gradually run dry. Now, my body tenses and shudders when I think of continuing to do these things indefinitely. What caused this? My children have had negative experiences at Church. They aren’t queer, though current policies regarding queer folks have certainly contributed to the repellent vibes. They just don’t feel loved there or like it’s a place they can belong. Church is not functioning well as a place to explore spiritual things. They understandably don’t like being told exactly what to believe or do. I can see how decisions made in recent years by GAs have contributed to their disappointing experience.

The whole experience of trying to raise them to be Latter-day Saints has left me feeling unheard, unimportant and betrayed as a “mother in Zion.” I was always told my role was so important, but I am treated like someone whose wisdom and insight is consistently off, and who actually doesn’t matter much at all. Local leaders haven’t listened to my input (and have sometimes chastened me for it), and the institution in general acts as if it is not responsible to reciprocate my decades of devotion.

I no longer feel good about putting personal trust in Church leaders or giving them money. I disapprove of the ways tithing is being stored, invested, and used. The resources are not coming back to help people around me or causes I care about nearly enough for me to feel committed to paying it at this point. While I still believe in the restoration of the priesthood, it seems to me this priesthood has long been exercised unrighteously, and the Church consistently fails to acknowledge or deal with this shadow side of itself. To echo a recent woman who submitted a voicemail to ALSSI, in some ways I feel like we’re being asked to live Satan’s plan, not God’s.

It was unpleasant facing such thoughts while attending an endowment session with my in-laws, to whom the temple is very important and helpful. I haven’t told them the extent to which my experiences have eaten away at my desire to be “all in.” They struggle to understand what I’m going through, partly because their children grew up loving the Church community and the gospel. Even though some of their adult children differentiated later, at least they had a decent chance to belong in the community and to learn the gospel in a way that worked reasonably well for youth during that era.

During the endowment session, I was troubled by the thought What would my in-laws think if they knew my bleak and cynical thoughts during the endowment session? 

I felt more mindful than ever of how the ritual revolves around male creators and Adam. Even after all the recent changes to the endowment, so little is given to Eve in terms of words or blessings. She functions as an appendage to Adam’s story, who is to be exalted higher in higher proximity to God as a male priest. Adam covenants with God, and Eve covenants with the new and everlasting covenant, which Exponent bloggers have taught me includes eternal plural marriage. Yuck!

I sensed Russell M. Nelson’s characteristic thinking in the assertion made in the temple narration that each of us can be convinced of the power and truthfulness of temple covenants through prayer. In recent years, I’ve had the opposite experience. Opening up more to our Heavenly Parents has led to spiritual growth and revelations that have challenged the idea that the temple provides the one essential spiritual practice or path to God’s presence.

Another line in the current endowment that was probably recently added by Nelson promises that obedience to covenants will yield spiritual progress. Does obeying and giving our all to the church actually foster the spiritual growth God intends for us? Certainly God’s commandments and the gospel do help us grow and live good lives, but many of us hit a point when the growth made possible by delegating the spiritual authority in our lives to the Church is spent. Continuous sacrifice and following leaders can start to do the opposite, leaving us stagnant, complacent, or stuck. If we want to continue to progress spiritually, we need to face life’s changes and transitions without leaning on someone else telling us what to think or do.

I’m confused why we need the endowment at all. I don’t think I need extra covenants beyond baptism to be committed to sexual morality, Christ’s gospel, or prudent, honest living. And while I resonate with the idea of consecration as a solution to the world’s problems, this is not at all what we actually practice in the Church. The wealth we sacrifice is not redispersed, the Church takes and takes while the funds largely sit there. Last year I spent a couple hundred dollars on my calling because the ward didn’t have any budget to provide for my calling area.

Other covenants are downright questionable, even cultish. I no longer consent to the covenant to give all my time, talents, and everything I possess to the Church, let alone my life.

Much of the content of the endowment was unhelpful or dissonant to me. As I went through the veil, I grieved for the peace I once enjoyed in the temple, and for the times I found the content more interesting.

In the celestial room, I prayed: God, help me know what to do. Should I keep coming here for the sake of my relationships? 

Faith in Heavenly Parents, Jesus, and the hope of healing for all God’s children mean a lot to me. I believe in the restoration; I love many of the messages of the Book of Mormon. The problem is how the Church happens to have turned out (due largely to what I see as chance foibles of human history). The particular version of the Church we have violates my moral conscience and can’t support me well at this point. It could have been much better. 

Something happened to me in the celestial room that usually doesn’t: God showed up. I felt the spirit as I prayed. Should I keep going just for the possibility of moments like these? 

After I prayed, I sat on a couch in the celestial room with my husband. He hugged me tight and told me he loved me. This brought back vivid memories of our newly wed days that brought me to tears. I fear what I could lose going forward. Should I stay all in with my practices for the chance at moments like these that tie us back to our first months together? I’m scared of losing his love and approval, even though I know it would be unfair for him to withdraw this if I make different religious choices than him.

Some nuanced LDS men seem to have an easier time than women like me at continuing to be “all in” without feeling too much resentment. Men’s garments are easier and cause fewer issues. And they sometimes have a very different relationship with money; they tend to earn more and some of them value paying tithing because it helps them detach from money. The temple is generally less oppressive to them. It can be hard for men to really understand women’s pain or to support their instincts to set firm boundaries with the institution.

I looked over at his parents. Only a handful of their children and grandchildren are temple goers at this point. I feel immense pressure to stay all in. Every time someone has had a faith transition it has caused them a lot of grief. How could I inflict this on them all over again? Family and the temple are everything to them. How would it change our relationship? Could my actions negatively impact their mental health or spirituality during their final years? 

My dilemma is not at all about what people at Church think. Just today, my bishop gave a talk about how it is time for the many slackers in our ward to pay their tithing and renew their recommends. Why should I listen to Church leaders if they won’t make any real space for women to have power or authority? Frankly, I just don’t give a d**** anymore. I know the leadership in my ward senses I’m one of the natural spiritual leaders in the community–one of the people who many look to as a role model and whose voice and spiritual support to others does a great deal to make our gatherings worth attending. I know they wouldn’t like me moving to the edge and might be angry or puzzled about it, but if I make the move to the edge, let it be a sign to them that they and the institution are failing to retain the continued loyalty of women like me.

My personal question and crisis all hangs on family. My family loves, appreciates and supports me so much more and better than the Church does. For me, family love is the great sacred experience of life. My in-laws’ visit was a highlight this year, a time my mental health was recharged by their loving encouragement and care. I don’t want my choices to hurt the people I love most. These are the folks I’d do just about anything to encourage, support and stay close to.

And their spiritual views and hopes are sincere. They deserve a better, more inclusive, ethical, and caring Church– one that our family members would actually stay connected to. One that would include our family members who have differentiated at weddings and rituals that are meant to strengthen us as families like the endowment. The broken and divisive temple entrance system is not the fault of anyone in my family, we didn’t create it, but we have become its victims. We don’t deserve to be hurt in this way.

People could say it’s not a big deal either way: Just bite the bullet, and make a choice. Or that the choice should be easy and obvious, but it isn’t to me. My heart feels anguish stepping to the edge due to how it might pain and strain my family relationships. And my body rejects the continuing to be all in because of the way it requires me to submit to controlling and unrighteous traditions. It’s a catch-22. Both feel like some kind of spiritual or emotional suicide: betrayal and division within myself or in my family.

There are a lot of vexing decisions to make as a member of the Church today, but whether to maintain a recommend might be the most difficult. The temple recommend system demands that we choose a side– in or out. Which side of our families will we stand on? This alone makes the temple recommend system spiritually and emotionally abusive. I hold the Church responsible and guilty for such unreasonable conditions.

There are so many questions I’m asking myself. Will setting boundaries with the Church prove necessary for me to forgive it and to heal such that this is the only healthy or viable option? Is my dilemma actually that important– are my expectations too high or idealistic? Is the urge to be a liminal member a selfish cop-out or a courageous, values-based instinct?

I’m genuinely not sure what path I’ll take.

Temple photos are from lds.org

LOVE THIS POST? LOVE THIS BLOG? WE’D LOVE TO HAVE YOU DONATE AS PART OF OUR CURRENT FUNDRAISER TO HELP US KEEP WRITING TECH PROBLEM AND AD FREE.

Guest Post: How to Support a Childless Friend or Family Member

Guest Post by Erin N. Price

Image by Natalia Lavrinenko from Pixabay

Note: This is a companion piece to “On Being Childless in a Family-Centered Church,” published in the summer edition of the Exponent II Magazine. Look for that in your mailbox in a few weeks.

For most of my life, I didn’t understand why some people turned away from the Church or cut off relationships from family or friends because they were offended. Why couldn’t they realize these people are human and choose not to be offended?

When going through infertility, miscarriage, and childlessness, however, my perspective changed. I was taken aback by some of the thoughtless actions, comments, and inaction by family members and friends who had always been a huge support system in the past. My previous mantra to “just choose not to be offended” was not working any longer, as I experienced deep pain from some of these situations.

Still, I clung to my conviction that it was not anyone’s fault. People who hadn’t experienced my same challenges, at least not to the same degree I had, seemed to be at a loss to know how to support me. Because they felt their own pain about watching me go through pain, they tried to employ strategies to dismiss their pain, which only caused more hurt for me.

While I still believe we need to give people grace and realize that they are trying their best, I also think we can all do a better job at supporting people going through deep anguish by following Christ’s example to bear one another’s burdens. 

When someone was in deep pain, Christ did not lecture them, judge them, or ignore them. He did not blame them as the cause of their own pain or give them quick fix solutions. Most importantly of all, He did not dismiss their pain. He healed them, wept for them, and felt compassion for them. 

When Lazarus died, Christ felt the pain of his loss and wept with Lazarus’s sisters, even though He knew He had the power to raise him from the dead. 

When a woman was taken in adultery, He told her He did not condemn her but that she should “go, and sin no more.” 

When He was asked whose fault it was that a man was born blind, He said it was no one’s fault, but that the works of God could be made manifest in the man. 

When His apostles did not help watch with Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, but instead fell asleep, He told them to rest; He knew that they too would be affected by the events to come.

So how can we support someone going through a deep challenge such as infertility, miscarriage, or childlessness without adding to their pain? How can we help them feel loved and supported rather than alienated or misunderstood?

Things Not to Say and Do

The following types of comments can be hurtful or triggering to someone who is going through the painful challenge of infertility.

Dismissive comments: You just need to have more faith. / Just relax and it will happen. [This is discounting the struggle and pain and blaming them for something they can’t control.]Hopeless comments: Maybe you just need to accept that you won’t have children. / Are you sure you should be doing these invasive infertility treatments? [This takes away someone’s ability to have hope. You don’t have a right to judge their path or the revelation they’ve received.]Comparison comments: So-and-so dealt with infertility, and now she has seven kids! / Most women have a miscarriage at some point. / So-and-so struggled to get pregnant, then went on vacation, and voila, she was pregnant! [Comparisons aren’t helpful. Pain is individual. Just because others got lucky doesn’t mean everyone will—some people will continue to struggle with infertility for years at no fault of their own.]Suggestion comments: Why haven’t you tried acupuncture, the Mediterranean diet, such and such supplement, enter other solution here? [Chances are they’ve tried many things. There is no magic bullet for infertility. Only bring up ideas if they are actively seeking them.]Adoption comments: Why haven’t you considered adoption? / Why don’t you just adopt? [It’s okay to ask this in the right time and way, but recognize that people need to seek their own revelation on what’s right for their family, and they have most likely already considered adoption. Adoption is not easy and not for everyone at every time in their lives.]“Just accept your life” comments: But you’re still an aunt/sister/daughter! / You’re already a mother in eternity. / You’ll raise children in the next life. / You are still a mother or have experienced aspects of motherhood, so you should be content with that. [Your friend knows this, but saying this doesn’t change the broken dreams and loneliness that are happening right now. If there is still hope that your friend will raise children in this life, comments like these make it seem like you’ve lost hope it will happen.]Miscarriage comments: Well, at least you were able to get pregnant. / Miscarriage is not a  big deal; it will work next time around. [This is not comforting when you lost a child you desperately wanted. The pain of loss cannot be overcome by these kinds of statements.]Judgmental comments: Why don’t you have kids yet? / Young people these days are delaying having kids. [Not helpful to say to anyone when you don’t know their story.]

I know this sounds like a lot, and there are probably even more ways to offend someone, depending on their personal pain points and where they are in their infertility journey. To summarize, I would avoid statements that compare, judge, dismiss pain, take away hope, or try to problem solve.

For me, I think the hardest thing to take is when family members or friends question whether I’m going against God’s will. Quite the opposite. If it was up to me, I would be done with fertility treatments, but I’ve felt inspired to keep going, and hopefully they can trust that. I’m the one who has to live with my decisions, so what I need from them is their support, not their judgment.

Another form of hurt comes when people get so worried that they will say or do the wrong thing that they do nothing at all. Whether your friend is going through a rough patch or not, don’t hesitate to reach out, but let them take the lead on talking about their infertility. You might say something like, “I’ve been thinking about you and hope your treatments are going okay. No pressure to talk about it if you’re not ready.” Then let your friend decide how much they want to talk about it. Sometimes they may not want to talk about it at all, but other times, they might feel alone and be so glad you asked.

Also, remember that infertility is not the only thing about this person. Sometimes when I see relatives or acquaintances I haven’t seen in a while, all they say to me is something like, “I’m so sorry about your situation. We’re praying for you.” I wish people would try to include me more, to ask about my job or hobbies or anything else, to not see me as some poor wounded soul on the outskirts of family life. 

If an acquaintance you don’t know well is childless and you wonder why, don’t say anything about it at first. Resist the urge to ask about what is probably their deepest pain. If you truly want to get to know them, they may share their story once they trust you. Otherwise, the only reason to dig into the information is to satisfy your own curiosity or ego, and that’s incredibly hurtful. Only seek out the story if you are committed to being their friend and standing beside them as they go through this journey.

Things to Say and Do

If you have said something hurtful, I wouldn’t beat yourself up; you probably didn’t intend to hurt anyone. But next time, maybe try something like the following, if you’re talking with a friend going through one of the rough stages of infertility; I know these types of comments really helped me:

I’m so sorry you’re hurting. I wish I could take your pain away.I don’t understand exactly what you’re going through, but I know what it’s like to lose a dream. Whenever you’re ready to talk, I’m here to listen.Even though my experience is different from yours, I’ve also experienced infertility and miscarriage, and I know how difficult it is. Life can be so unfair.I know life is hard for you right now. I would like to pray for you. Is there anything specific you want me to pray for?What would be most helpful to you right now? Would you like me to bring you dinner, go on a walk with you, or anything else?

Notice that most of the above are questions. You are acknowledging their pain, reaching out, and inviting the suffering person to respond how they feel most comfortable. When in doubt, “I’m so sorry; this is so hard,” is all you really need to say.

The following actions can also be very helpful when needed:

Listening to them without interruptingSitting and crying with themGiving them a hugGiving them a thoughtful and meaningful giftOffering to do something with them, such as going to lunch or having a movie night (anticipating that they might say no if they’re not ready)Offering to go to the temple with themIf you are a Priesthood holder, offering a Priesthood blessing

Sending an inspiring scripture or quote can be helpful at times, but be careful about this. For example, if your friend is in deep mourning after a recent loss, it might not be the best time to send a quote about choosing to be joyful or grateful.

If your friend doesn’t accept your offer at this time, or even reacts negatively, give them some space, but try again in a few days. Don’t abandon them when they might need you the most.

Truly bearing another’s burdens can be uncomfortable because it involves acknowledging someone’s pain, then, rather than trying to make that pain go away, learning to sit with them in their pain. In Hebrews 13:3, it says, “Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.” While we can’t feel the exact pain someone else is going through, we can expand ourselves to try to understand their pain so we can know how to comfort them. With the right time, sensitivity, and encouragement, we can help our friend turn to the Savior to receive relief from the greatest Bearer of Burdens, whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.

Example of Bearing Burdens

An example in my life of someone who helped bear my burdens is my friend Rachelle, who was my ministering sister and Relief Society president. 

My husband and I have wanted children for over 10 years, but due to health concerns and infertility, that has not yet happened. Over the past couple years, I went through many painful infertility procedures. We were thrilled when I became pregnant—we thought we had finally gotten our miracle. We went to the temple to thank God for this long-awaited blessing. Shortly after, I lost that pregnancy. I was so angry that this blessing was taken away. It seemed like cruel irony that this happened right after going to the temple to thank God, so I wasn’t sure if I could go back to the temple and be forced to relive those terrible memories.

Rachelle was there to listen. We went on walks and went to lunch. We talked about spiritual things, but she didn’t tell me what to do or dismiss my pain. She felt that she should invite me to go back to the temple with her, but she also felt that I wasn’t ready yet and that she shouldn’t push the issue. 

Finally, she felt like it was the right time to invite me, and I accepted. She gave me a ride to the temple and we were able to do initiatories, where I felt comforted by the wonderful healing blessings in that ordinance. This gave me the courage to go back to the temple. Eventually, I began to see that maybe having the miscarriage after going to the temple was actually a tender mercy from Heavenly Father, because I had just a little more spiritual power and perspective before going through a difficult challenge.

Rachelle continued to be there when I needed to talk. I set a goal to do a 5k so I could try to get my broken body back in shape, and she agreed to do it with me. Even though she is no longer my ministering sister, we still keep in touch. This is what bearing burdens looks like.

Bearing burdens can be messy in practice, but it is a crucial part of keeping our covenants and living a Christlike life. I hope that we all can do a little better about bearing the burdens of those who are childless, as well as others who feel like they are outside the norms of traditional Church or family life. By doing this, we can all get a little closer to building a Zion-like atmosphere in our wards and communities.

Erin P. works in publishing rights and permissions and writes young adult novels on the side. She lives in Virginia with her husband. Follow her work at https://erinpricewrites.netlify.app/