Exponent II's Blog, page 259

Guest Post: Built for Women #MormonMeToo

[image error]

Natalie Ware Gowen

There are three things I can’t do:

Cook in someone else’s kitchen.

Run to someone else’s playlist.

Navigate someone else’s church.

My mother-in-law is a gem, but she keeps the measuring spoons in the most obscure place. If mixing up a gooey batch of my famous brownies takes 15 minutes in my kitchen, it takes 20 in hers. All because it’s set for her, not me.

Before we shared music in the cloud, I’d occasionally borrow my husband’s MP3 player to take on a run. It was okay but I always ran slower to his music. He doesn’t listen to the songs that light a fire under my feet. His tunes are curated to his tastes, not mine.

The more I navigate my LDS faith, the more I feel like I’m cooking in someone else’s kitchen and running to someone else’s playlist. It doesn’t have anything to do with my personal devotion to God. And it’s not for lack of effort. Heaven knows I’ve tried to pray away the discomfort for years.

I’ve managed, but it’s awkward because the church is built for men and not for women.

It’s not built for women when our Individual Worth is tied to our ability to marry and bear children.

It’s not built for women when we miss out on spiritual nourishment during Sunday meetings as we disproportionally spend sacrament meeting in the hall with a kid who needs to nap and then spend the second and third hours serving in our callings.

It’s not built for women when mothers of sons are systematically removed from our children’s spiritual milestones starting at age 12.

It’s not built for women when we have to temper our leadership with sweetness or risk being written off as bossy and controlling.

It’s not built for women when every general church meeting, even the female-only ones, ends with the voice of a male priesthood leader.

It’s not built for women when a husband confesses to pornography use and a wife is counseled into silence.

It’s not built for women when the bishop holds the purse strings to the ward’s fast offerings and has free reign to give counsel that ends in shame and embarrassment for the sisters in need.

It’s not built for women when they are asked to sacrifice their physical and mental safety to preserve a temple marriage.

It’s not built for women when our dear sisters are hurting from abuse and crimes committed against them and are counseled about forgiveness.

It’s not built for women when men, some of whom are perpetrators of abuse, are the only ones with access to hotlines for help.

It’s not built for women when she is disbelieved and dismissed because her abuser is such a “nice guy.”

It’s not built for women when crimes go unreported, pleas for restitution unanswered, and dossiers about the victims are compiled by outside counsel.

What if our Divine Nature was unbound from the fruit of our wombs?

What if we all could gather together in greater numbers for our Sunday meetings?

What if we could stand in the circle of the spiritual milestones of our sons and our daughters?

What if we stopped valuing the reputation of men over the anguish of women?

What if we honored each sister for her individual talents and contributions, regardless of her marital or economic status?

What if we took strong action to protect women from the illegal actions of men in powerful positions?

What if the full potential of LDS women was released into the world?

What if we reshaped the church to work for women too?

What if the church was safe for women?

What if we had a say in making that change?

Like many of you, I’ve felt powerless over the past few weeks as the case involving Joseph Bishop has unfolded. I’ve watched in dismay as the institution circled the wagons to protect itself and sent warning shots signalling they would rather women not speak up.

But they can’t shoot us all.

We need to keep rallying together. We need to continue to share our stories. We need to have hard conversations with our family and friends that raise awareness. We need to talk openly about the deep institutional problems that make the church unsafe for women.

We need to talk about how the 2008 policy on abuse isn’t enough and neither are the recent updates.

If we persist, I believe things can change.

The source of this pain isn’t found within the gospel of Jesus Christ. The flaws are in the institution administering the gospel which was established by men for men.

Let’s remodel. Let’s turn the kitchen into a workspace designed to meet the needs of both genders. Let’s install high-quality speakers and create a his and hers playlist.

Let’s make the kingdom of God role forth in the later days to fill the earth with the light of the gospel that elevates men and women together.

Let’s change for the better.

Natalie runs on roads and trails. During the week she runs a digital marketing agency and on Sundays she runs the dog and pony show known as Singing Time.

Guest Post: Advocating for Victims in the LDS Church, Part 2 #MormonMeToo

by Ann

One of the first things we learn (and teach) as victim’s advocates is how to identify abuse. The Duluth Model (Pence, Paymar & Lucas, 1993) is well known for its power and control wheel.

According to this model, abusers use power and control to prevent victims from escaping or speaking out.

[image error]This model identifies eight factors that are common for abusers. While physical and sexual abuse are sometimes present, these other factors help to silence the victim and keep victim’s captive. But, the presence of even some of the factors should be a red-light in any relationship.

Abusers use the following tactics to silence and control victims:

1) Intimidation

2) Emotional abuse

3) Isolation

4) Minimizing, Denying and Blaming

5) Use children

6) Use male privilege

7) Use economic abuse

8) Use coercion and threats (Pence et al., 1993)

 

In this case, Joseph L. Bishop used sexual violence. Then, in an attempt to silence the victim, lawyers for the LDS church produced the 5-page dossier to intimidate the victim, minimize and deny the abuse, blame the victim, and use male privilege. The lawyers then became complicit with the abuse by sharing the dossier with the perpetrator. Prominent Criminologist Michael Salter, along with other researchers, have shown that attacking the credibility of a victim is not justified. In other words, it is VERY unlikely that people will lie about physical or sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, this response of victim-blaming is not unique to the LDS church, nor is it uncommon in our patriarchal social structure. For example,  Brock Turner only served 3 months for rape, and the rape was minimized to be seen as “20 minutes of action.”

Clearly, the approach of attacking the victim (by the lawyers representing the LDS church) was a terrible plan of action. In a world that is increasingly transparent, this approach will never look good for the church or for anyone who takes a similar approach.

On the opposite of the “Power and Control Wheel” is the “Equality Wheel.”  This shows how healthy relationships work. There characteristics of a healthy relationship include:[image error]

1)Negotiation and Fairness

2) Non-threatening behavior

3) Respect

4) Trust and Support

5) Honesty and Accountability

6) Responsible parenting

7) Shared Responsibility with a fair distribution of work that is mutually agreed upon

8) Economic Partnership (Pence et al., 1993).

As a researcher, an expert in violence against women, and as a former victim’s advocate, these are the changes I want to see happen:

1) Church leaders – from corporate church down to local wards and branches – need to adopt and use principles from the equality wheel rather than the abuse wheel.

2) Church leaders need to use financial and professional resources to help and protect victims and the vulnerable, not to protect and empower perpetrators, as happened in the Bishop case.

3) Church leaders need to believe and support victims. In a culture where male leaders often have friendships with male perpetrators, it might be difficult to believe your “buddy” is abusive. Believe it. Understand that confirmation bias might make you want to disbelieve the victim.

4) Church publications and teachings need to acknowledge that the “two-deep” leadership in primary, youth, and interviews is to protect possible victims, not to “prevent misunderstandings.” This minimizes and denies abuse, which is in itself abusive. It also places blame on victims for “misunderstanding” rather than on perpetrators for inappropriate and abuse behavior.

5) Just as church members are expected to use legal and professional help in dealing with victimization, church leadership (from the top, down to local leaders) should be expected to complete professional training to help victims and prevent revictimization.

For leaders in Utah, the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition has an excellent website with information and training available.
The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence has put together top-notch online reading material to help faith leaders
There are several other links with useful information and help for faith leaders (LDS and all faith-based leaders) who minister to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. A few that are helpful include:

http://udvc.org/dv-events-news/domestic-violence-training-and-information-resources-now-available
http://www.wcsap.org/faith-community
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm
http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/
http://www.interfaithpartners.org/

 

The Bishop’s hotline to protect the church is NOT the best way to protect victims. Both male and female leaders can – and should – learn about domestic violence so they can better help serve those in their flock who are victims.

The LDS church must never again be complicit in abuse scandals like this.

The LDS church can and should do better.

 

Reference:

Pence, E., Paymar, M., & Lucas, J. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: the Duluth model.

Changes in General Conference: some big, some small, some not at all

[image error]Is your head spinning from all of the changes and announcements made at General Conference last weekend? Elder Holland’s joke about how “some of us have weak hearts!” got a big roar of laughter from the crowd.

It’s nice to have the progress of the church running at full throttle again. May it be a sign of many more good things to come!

In case you missed it, here is a summary of things our readers may be interested to know:

President Nelson sustained as prophet. In the solemn assembly, Melchizedek Priesthood holders make their sustaining votes first, but Relief Society sisters get to vote before the Aaronic Priesthood holders this time! Young women are the last group to vote.
Two new apostles were called, Elder Gong and Elder Soares. This marks the first time a person of color (or two!) has been ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve apostles.
President Oscarson and her YW general presidency were released and Sister Bonnie Cordon was made the new president. She was serving as a counselor in the Primary General Presidency. (She was a working mom of 3! She has a cool bio!) (Bye, Sister Oscarson! Your Pinterest was awesome.)
High Priests groups are disbanded at the ward level and all Melchizedek Priesthood holders will meet together as one Elder’s Quorum.  (Like RS already does with women of all ages)  A new Elder’s quorum president will be called to lead the group of men as a whole.
The Home and Visiting teaching program has been retired. It’s been revamped and rebranded as “Ministering” with fewer reports, no official message,  and less stringent guidelines about what “counts”
Young women ages 14-18 will be able to serve as ministering sisters, like their male counterparts do as ministering brothers.
Each family will get a set of ministering brothers. Additionally, each woman will get a set of ministering sisters. ( So no changes there. Men get men only. Women get both.)
No more reporting your monthly numbers to a supervisor. The only statistic reported is how often the leaders meet with ministering companionships in interviews to discuss the needs of the members they serve.
Important improvement to the new ministering system: husbands and wives may be assigned to be companionships together, and may report to either Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society leaders.
Three (3!) sisters spoke across the 5 sessions. No women spoke during the Saturday morning or Priesthood sessions.  No women offered prayers.

I noticed improvements in the way women’s roles were referenced by the women speakers:

Sister Oscarson:  “As we consider the roles that our young women will be expected to assume in the near future, we might ask ourselves what kind of experiences we could provide for them now that will help with their preparation to be missionaries, gospel scholars, leaders in the Church auxiliaries, temple workers, wives, mothers, mentors, examples, and friends.”

and

Sister Bingham: “This opportunity to participate in building the kingdom of God will be a tremendous benefit to young women, helping them better prepare to fulfill their roles as leaders in the Church and the community and as contributing partners in their families.”

Sister Aburto: “Girls and boys, young women and young men, sisters and brothers, we are on this journey together.”  (plus she gets extra point for referring to “Heavenly Parents.”)

A great comment about teaching young men consent regarding young women’s bodies:

Brother Durrant (Ponderize!): “Dad looked me in the eyes and said, “You have strong hands, Son. I hope your hands always have the strength to never touch a young lady inappropriately.” He then invited me to stay morally clean and help others do the same.”

A confusing comment about consent with reference to the #metoo movement:

Elder Cook: “During my lifetime, worldly issues and concerns have moved from one extreme to another—from frivolous and trivial pursuits to serious immorality. It is commendable that nonconsensual immorality has been exposed and denounced. Such nonconsensual immorality is against the laws of God and of society. Those who understand God’s plan should also oppose consensual immorality, which is also a sin. The family proclamation to the world warns “that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring [or, for that matter, anyone else] … will one day stand accountable before God.”

Non-consensual immorality? You mean rape and sexual harassment? Perhaps difficult to speak plainly when Primary ears are listening.  To put it right next to “consensual immorality” and cite that as “also” a sin casts some confusion on who is at fault for “non-consensual immorality.”  I really appreciate that he’s trying to address sexual consent in this paragraph, but this one has me scratching my head.

A little bit of pedestalizing:

Elder Holland, describing a bumper sticker: “It read, “If I honk, you’ve been home taught.” Please, please, brethren (the sisters would never be guilty of that—I speak to the brethren of the Church), with these adjustments we want more care and concern, not less.”

Oh, come on. I may not have honked at my Visiting Teacher sister, but I’ve probably counted my facebook or instagram like as her visit for the month. As surely as there are some men who slack off in their activity-formerly-known-as-home-teaching, women have slacked off just the same. No need to make a joke at our expense or poke fun at the men.

We’re reminded not to equivocate Men = Priesthood:

President Oaks:  “We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to “the priesthood and the women.” We should refer to “the holders of the priesthood and the women.”

But then we see an example of it in the form of this gender essentialist doozy:

President Nelson: “Effective ministering efforts are enabled by the innate gifts of the sisters and by the incomparable power of the priesthood.”

Since men are not specifically mentioned, there is a reading of this line that makes it sound like the sisters use the incomparable power of the priesthood, but I think he means for it to refer to the abilities the men bring to the ministering efforts.

Many conversations will yet happen about what the “innate” gifts of sisters are, and whether or not it is fair to ascribe every member of a gender that same gift. What about those of us to whom nurturing or ministering does not come easily, but by grit and determination? Does it make our hard work less important if everyone else can just do it naturally?  What about men who are not ordained? Do they not have innate gifts as well? Or do their gifts only kick in by virtue of their priesthood?   Gifts are individual, not something that can be broadly generalized across a wide demographic.

For those of us who do recognize and cherish our innate gifts, do they really only take 2nd place to the incomparable power of the priesthood found in ordained men?

Hint: to avoid making generalized gender essentialist remarks, remember this format:

Instead of : “All ___________ [sub-demographic of any population)] (Young Women, Women, Young Men, etc) ARE naturally/innately  more _________. (loving, patient, nurturing, hard-working, spiritual, etc.)

try this instead:

“(some)_______[Sub-demographic of population] CAN BE _______, or can develop the ability to ______.”

By large majority in the speakers at this conference, men almost exclusively quoted other men and scripture stories of men. Women quoted more women and used stories of women.

What stood out to you this conference? 

“The Mormon #metoo Moment” on Wheat & Tares

Angela Clayton, LDS blogger at Wheats & Tares, was recently interviewed by Doug Fabrizio of KUER on a panel that included Natasha Helfer Parker and Lindsey Hansen Park on the topic of “Authority, Abuse, and the LDS Church.” This is a link to a follow-up article filled with advice she would give the LDS Church given what has come to light in the #MormonMeToo moment.

Guest Post: Advocating for Victims in the LDS Church, Part 1 #MormonMeToo

[image error]by Ann

It’s been nearly two decades. Yet, I’ll never forget sitting through training to become a victim’s advocate where the trainer pointed out how ridiculous it would be if robbery trials were handled like rape trials.

The trainer explained that in court, you would never hear the victim of a robbery being asked, “What were you wearing? You OBVIOUSLY looked like you had money and a wallet. ANYONE can see you’re just asking to be robbed when you’re dressed like that.” “What were you doing walking down the street with a wallet? AT NIGHT? You must have wanted to be robbed if you were there.” “You’ve given cash to other people before. What’s the big deal? It’s not like this is the first time you’ve shared cash with someone. In fact, 10 years ago, you were giving out money for free, and now you complain about it being taken?”  Yet, in a rape trial we often see victims blamed for what they were wearing, blamed because they were not virgins, or blamed because they did not have a spotless past.

Yet, as absurd as this is, we see the same thing happening in our communities and in our church.  It is happening now with the sexual assault case of Joseph L. Bishop.

In a recent statement, the LDS church said:

“The Church, as a religious organization, does not have the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies. Nor can the Church substitute for the courts in adjudicating legal claims.”

Yet, the church had the resources to pay for lawyers to draft a 5-page dossier about the victim’s past – EVEN when there was at least one other victim of Bishop’s sexual abuse.

The statement later read:

“The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims. “

Yet, the church provided the PERPETRATOR, his son, AND the legal system with 5 pages destroying the victim’s credibility and intimidating her into silence because her past was less than ideal. This is manipulative.

The LDS church evidently had the resources to investigate the victim, but not the perpetrator. What if that effort had instead been put into finding out whether there were other victims, or how many women were taken to the basement MTC office?

To the lawyers who drafted the dossier, I would say, SHAME ON YOU!  Shame on you for blaming the victim. As a former victim’s advocate, I can tell you that victims don’t always have a perfect past. Being a victim can lead to poor life choices down the road. It’s a result of the trauma. Perpetrators often prey on victims who don’t have ideal life circumstances. A victim is still a victim. A perpetrator is still a perpetrator. No matter the past history of the victim, it never excuses or justifies the abuse committed by the perpetrator. There is NO excuse for abuse!!

There is nothing noble, honorable, or Christ-like about trying to destroy the credibility of character of a victim while trying to protect the perpetrator. This puts other victims at risk. It silences victims who see the intimidation and bullying. It puts the victim on trial rather than the perpetrator.  By protecting the perpetrator while simultaneously trying to destroy and silence the victim, the church has become complicit in the abuse.

The victim is NEVER to be blamed. As a society, we must hold perpetrators accountable.

Ann lives in the Northwest, and enjoys advocating for social justice, teaching, and spending time with her family.

Call for Subscriptions – Exponent II Spring Issue 2018

[image error] The following is the letter from the editor for the Spring 2018 issue of Exponent II, which will go to print at the end of April. If you would like to read this issue, the deadline for subscribing is April 20 . You can subscribe here.  The Cover Art is by Beth Allen.

I have to remind myself to sit still and just listen. Someone is sharing an experience that for them feels so immediate and overwhelmingly specific and I want step in and wrap their uncertainty with my certainty that everything will be fine. I know this story, I have lived it, the ending is mixed but there is eventual meaning and new insight, I promise. I want to say: you are part of a human pattern that connects all of us, it is your pain but ours too. But it is not time for this. It is not the right thing to say in their now. In this moment, I feel old.

A close friend was coming over after weeks of traveling. I had missed her and was so excited to see her again. I went to the store to buy “treats” for her visit and came home with bags of candy, cupcakes, fruit, cheese, crackers, chips, soda, enough party food for many people and many days. We spread it all out on the table and could not stop laughing. It was as if someone had given a credit card to a hungry seven year old. In this moment, I am still young.

Then day to day, going from meeting to meeting, having to recall and speak to a wide range of topics from minutiae to strategy. I concentrate on what is in front of me, the meeting before is filed away, the next one not started. In this moment, I must stay completely present.

I am fifty-five years old. Squarely in middle age, moving toward older. I try to control the aging process with hair dye, refreshed wardrobes, and just released music. But at some point the jig is up. I have to consider what to do with the accumulating memory and unknown time ahead. As I turn from obvious markers to an inward timeline, I sense a definite vantage point. Often, it feels like a kind of tennis match, looking backwards and forward, at where I have come from and where I may be headed, gambling that I have enough time to make sense of it all.

I remember holding my newborn baby many years ago and seeing a vision of our family tree, now with a new box below mine. My place had shifted, no longer the culmination but a link in something bigger. I had become part of a path, a stepping stone charting one generation to the next.

I try and hold on to this image of purpose. I often say that I love my birthday because I was an awkward, self-conscious young woman and every year I care a little less about what others think. But that isn’t the full truth. I still care, and worry, and regret, and fuss over what I am not yet. The difference as I get older is that what I am “not yet” seems more attainable. I have seen myself evolve and iterate over time. Who I was has led me here, but as I turn my attention forward more than back, is who I want to be in reach? Are my expectations changing? or am I just beginning to understand my capacity? As birthdays go by, my identity continues to reveal itself, stable and mutable, backwards and forwards, old and young and present.

This Spring issue presents stories from women at all stages in their life, looking backwards and forwards to find themselves and their people, to understand their place and their path. In Shadows, an essay by Annie Wiederhold, tells the story of a woman in conversation with her current life, her 8-year-old self, and her desire to understand what it means to cast her own shadow independent of others in her life.  A young woman at the beginning of her life grapples with a start that was not what she planned in A Place Of Love and Beauty. Ash Mae Hoiland and Julianna C. Hansen look to the women in their family for connection and clues on how to navigate their own experiences. Ash Mae writes about discovering her grandmother in Gleaning and Julianna finds insight from her mother’s life in A Fleeting Slice of Holiness. In her essay, Life Perspective from the Far End, Rebecca Norman begins, “I am 70 years old,” and shares the highlights of her life from her point of view. And in the prose poem, Upon the Posts of My House, Ericka Anderson, inspired by a verse in Exodus, brings the story fully forward in words that inspire us to action in today’s world.

Each essay takes us on very personal journeys through time, threading each version of ourselves with those people who challenge, inspire, and walk alongside of us as we meander from age to age. I remind myself to sit still and just listen to stories shared. To look back and depend on my own life too often is to stop growing. To not acknowledge what I have learned is to deny wisdom. To ignore the present is to miss out. In this balance we find young, middle aged and older sisters. In this span, we find each other.   

Guest Post: The laying on of hands #MormonMeToo

Anonymous grew up in a faithful Mormon family in which her father was sometimes bishop and her mother was sometimes relief society president and probably every person was abused. She tried and failed to interrupt the abuse cycle as a child; She tries and mostly succeeds at the same as an adult.

 

[image error]

father

he doesn’t remember

what he did to my body

my body

remembers.

 

nurse

did she tend the wounds

and never ask what caused them?

did we stay home

when there were wounds to tend?

 

sister

on winter break, while

he tears upstairs to hit me

she yells stop

&

he

stops.

on summer break, when

he makes our brother’s ears bleed

splits his lips

she warns she’ll tell CPS

if it happens again.

when she is back at college

it happens again.

 

again

and again and

again

and

again and

again

(I lose count,

climb trees,

disguise my limbs as branches,

hum and cry until the house is quiet

again.)

 

mother

he parents with fists;

she asks him to.

 

bishop

something wrong is happening at home

the words slip from my mouth like oil;

he laughs.

I know your family

he says

nothing is wrong.

he knows my family

from three months of sundays.

something wrong is happening at home.

the words sink on my tongue

I don’t try to tell

again.

 

brother

he doesn’t remember

what he did to my body

my body

remembers.

Guest Post: What’s That Smell? #MormonMeToo

[image error]By Caroline Crockett Brock

Last year mold was found in my daughter’s middle school. It was black mold, and it was growing behind seemingly sound walls.

Now here’s the thing about mold: If conditions are right, it can grow just about anywhere. A school. A home. A church. It doesn’t discriminate. All it needs is food, water and a dark stagnant environment.

There’s mold in the church today. Black Mold. We’ve begun to see the toxic effects of its spores in the story of Joseph Bishop, and more widely, in the Protect LDS Children campaign. Truth is, evil predators reside in every faith community. It’s the tragic reality. What concerns me are the systems that allow a predator to operate freely in this church and the underlying communal false beliefs and dysfunctions that contribute to the rise of their behavior.

When mold was found in my daughter’s school, there was a public outcry. There was no resistance to these efforts. The school district did not turn to lawyers in order to deny culpability. It quickly employed experts to investigate the problem. To eradicate the mold, they had to find the source.

In the same fashion, we as a body of Christ must find the source of our own black mold and to do so, we can’t worry about what our neighbors will think. We’ve got to put on masks, pick up sledgehammers and be brave enough to investigate its origins.

Did it start in the 1830s with a leader who coerced 14 year-old girls into marriage by promising eternal rewards for her and her family?
When he used the power of his position as prophet to marry other married women?
When he hid his exploits from his wife then called her to repentance for not accepting polygamy?

The belief that women are passive vessels designed to house a man’s eternal dynasty rather than equal partners in a process of co-creation has birthed a malignant false belief in man’s eternal entitlement. This emotion of ‘benign’ superiority is the breeding ground for the toxicity we feel today. It’s in the lie of Eve’s ‘sin’ and the historical societal oppression of women justified by that myth. It’s in the blatant untruths embedded in the temple story wherein attendees watch men mimic a hierarchical string of commands about creation, without a whisper of participation from the feminine divine. It’s the lived experience of generations of LDS women who were manipulated into polygamy in hopes of an eternal reward. Let me be perfectly clear: ANY dominion is unrighteous dominion. It’s these practices and untruths that Mormons have never truly repudiated and repented of, that have served as food and water for this mold. Because of this, black toxins have been quietly growing behind walls made of God-sanctioned patriarchy ever since.

There’s mold in the walls of this church, and denial has never been a successful strategy in eliminating it. Without an honest investigation of the source, we have little hope for eradication and a toxic-free environment. When we seek to protect the structure more than the inhabitants within, we all continue to suffer. Before healing can occur, Mormon iniquities and untruths about the male dominance over females must be revealed, properly named, and eradicated.

There is no other way.

 

In the case of my daughter’s school, investigators found the mold to be so pervasive that a new school was erected instead. Rather than having children stay in a school dangerous to their long-term health, the district built a state of the art facility where children could learn and grow in a safe and toxic free environment.

In contrast, rather than eradicating the original mold from the walls, the church has decided to explain away the generational iniquities of the past with the platitudes and apologetics of today. They have labeled the abused souls “blips” rather than victims of a system that promises eternal salvation yet allows for the equivalent of spiritual homicide. The church issues a policy change that only wallpapers over black mildew stains which are ominously spreading across the room. Having two leaders in a primary room is great. It’s not the problem. Reminding me of parental rights I already have is great. It’s not problem. Until men no longer feel they have a right to preside over females due to their gender, the contamination will continue. Until men dismantle its hierarchical system where position and authority is honored above all, mold spores will fly. Until men begin to honor women’s voices and experiences rather than marginalize and minimize their personhood, this toxin will continue to cause illness.

Once this recognition and repentance occurs, perhaps we can begin to understand that patriarchy alone was never meant to be a whole or holy system. Once we feel through the pain this system has created and provide true assistance to the acutely affected victims among us, perhaps we can rebuild the walls of this faith community with the support of both men and women, patriarchy and matriarchy. Together, hand in hand, we can co-create systems in this church that support wholeness and healthy understandings of worth, sexual expression and identity. That honor and value men AND women. Until there is a balance of a patriarchy and matriarchy, there will be no hope of a structure without toxicity. No hope of a Zion-like society.

There’s mold in these walls, and it’s corroding the souls of the remarkable people in this church.

There’s mold in these walls, and to fix it, we’ve got to find another way.

By Caroline Crockett Brock. Wife. Mother. Writer. Goddess in Embryo.

Washington Post picks up Elder Cook’s misstep: “non-consensual immorality”

article also quotes Natasha Helfer Parker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...

A Therapist’s Perspective on “Worthiness Interviews” in the LDS Church #MormonMeToo

[image error]

[Image by Jochen Spalding on Flickr]

 

No matter how the LDS church adjusts “worthiness interviews,” I just can’t get behind them from a professional, moral, or spiritual standpoint. As a psychotherapist, I’m of the mind that these interviews condition children and adults to outsource their moral authority about right and wrong and set them up for a lifetime of dependency on an authority figure to determine whether or not they are “right” before God. Not only does this dynamic triangulate one’s relationship with the Divine, but it can also be confusing as the role of bishop changes about every five years (more often if you are in a congregation with a lot of turnover). For example, one bishop may tell you that a certain choice, behavior, thought, or feeling is wrong, and the next bishop could tell you it is just fine. Ultimately these interviews interfere with the principle spoken of by the founding LDS prophet Joseph Smith that church members should be taught “correct principles” and then be left to “govern themselves.” Moreover, in my opinion these required interviews can interfere with healthy psychological, sexual, and moral development across the lifespan.

Negative Outcomes for Females’ Development

“Worthiness” interviews can have negative implications for girls and women’s psychological development specifically. From the age of twelve on up, girls and women are asked to regularly sit alone in a room with an adult male to discuss intimate topics that range from their beliefs about God to their sexuality—and even at times their relationship to their own body as queries about masturbation are common despite being “off script.” This situation lays the foundation for females to feel God sanctions this kind of verbal probing of them by a man, which is dangerous because it can desensitize them to grooming behavior by sexual predators that most often prey on females. It can also unconsciously program girls and women to conclude that their value and “worth” is dependent on getting a male’s approval. It can center females’ sense of self on feedback they get from men and can set girls and women up to be vulnerable to male church leaders who may consciously groom them for nefarious purposes. We’ve seen this recently with the MTC sex abuse scandal in the LDS Church where an MTC president admitted to engaging in such behavior with young women whom he was responsible for in the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah. This horrific story is sadly just one of many that are now being revealed regarding some male church leaders who have taken advantage of their position of authority behind closed doors.

Updated Church Policy Falls Short

Some may argue that the recently updated church policy that allows children and women to have a second adult present in these interviews is a safeguard against sexual predation or abuse. However it’s not that simple. Having another adult present does not eliminate the inappropriateness of minors and women being questioned about their sexuality by a man. It is also developmentally inappropriate for adult men to be required to answer questions about their sex life in order to be deemed “worthy” by a church leader. And we know that adult men can also be targets of sexual predation and that members of the LGBTQIA+ community are especially vulnerable to harm given that their sexual relationships—and legal marriages—are condemned in LDS church pronouncements and policies, even discriminating against children who live with their same-sex married parents.

In addition, the second adult option does not account for the fact that this second adult, whether a parent or another church leader, etc, could themselves be emotionally, spiritually, physically, or sexually abusive. The second adult chosen by a child to protect her/him could use the information gleaned from a confession during an interview with a bishop as fodder for more abuse. For instance, if a child confesses something an abusive parent deems abhorrent, it could set the child up to be victimized at home—under the guise that the church leader who condemned the child’s behavior also condones the abuse.

Abused children may not be aware of behaviors that constitute abuse (especially when it is emotional or spiritual abuse) and may choose an unsafe adult, who again could be their parent and unknown as an abuser to the child and to the bishop, to accompany them in these intimate interviews. This policy also doesn’t account for a minor or adult woman being interviewed by their bishop-father who may be their abuser. And most egregiously, the policy puts the onus on the minor child or adult woman to be informed about the policy and to invite another adult in the room. This seems to set up potential for the victim of abuse to be blamed when ecclesiastical abuse happens. And in my opinion, as long as worthiness interviews are conducted, incidents of abuse will continue. There is simply no way to safeguard against further victimization even with this new policy.

However, by instituting this new policy, the LDS Church seems to be acknowledging that there is reason to be concerned about the current set up. I see this as a positive step forward. But as a psychotherapist I fear church leaders may not be aware of the deep-seated psychological and moral damage that is being done by these interviews being required at all. Not only is the dynamic rife with potential for abuse of children, it is infantilizing of all adults and can stymie individuals’ and whole families’ healthy psychological, emotional, sexual, moral, and spiritual development. When church members are conditioned from a young age to believe that their bishop or other male church leader is responsible to judge a person’s “worthiness,” this can cause them to abdicate their moral authority over their own lives. This is antithetical to the LDS church doctrines of agency and personal revelation. My recommendation is for one-on-one meetings with any church leader to be on an opt-in basis only, and that confessions should be voluntary. I am not alone in this professional opinion. Additionally, church members should be able to choose between a female or male church leader to discuss private matters—always with the option for anyone to bring someone of their choosing into the room.

Independent Hotline Needed to Report Abuse

In order for the interests of the LDS church to not enter into the equation when someone has been victimized at church, when an allegation of abuse or need for counseling is made, any reporting system or therapeutic resource must be independent from the church. Too many competing interests have been in place for too long for victims to be protected or for members to get sound psychological treatment. Through the media’s reports of how the church responded to the MTC sexual abuse survivor, we are now seeing the kind of conflicts of interest involved when an institution is asked to hold perpetrators in leadership accountable. Other institutional churches outsource resources for reporting of abuse to keep their system in check. This seems like the next logical step in responding to our broken system.

Report Abuse to Police or Independent Victims’ Hotlines

Until the church decides to separate its interests from those of its victimized members, the free U.S. national hotlines below are places survivors can turn. I recommend that anyone victimized at church or elsewhere go directly to the police and not their bishop as a first step toward healing and holding a perpetrator accountable—whether the perpetrator is a church leader or otherwise. (And for those in other countries, please include resources in your communities in the comments section.)

 

National Sexual Assault Hotline

800.656.HOPE (4673)

https://www.rainn.org/

 

National Domestic Violence Hotline

1.800.799.SAFE (7233)

http://www.thehotline.org/

 

Need for Routine Background Checks & Psychological Testing

All adults who work with children or youth should be screened with background checks, including all ecclesiastical leaders, who should also undergo psychological testing as is standard for most clergy of other faiths before they are put in positions of power over entire congregations. These safeguards seem to be the most basic standard for best practices in responsible church organization.

Patriarchy Contributes to Sexism & Abuse & Harms Everyone

The damage done to the psyches and, too often, to the bodies of females during worthiness interviews cannot be underestimated in a patriarchal system like the LDS Church. It is ripe for misuse by male church leaders who are given ample opportunities to prey on the most vulnerable in our community. Granted, not every male church leader consciously grooms females or sexually assaults them. However, the current church system of girls and women being subjugated to boys and men—by all males from age twelve and up being given exclusive  priesthood authority—contributes to overt and internalized sexism and misogyny. Girls and women are often told that their faithfulness and obedience to God is dependent on their submission to male priesthood authorities’ instructions about everything from how to dress their bodies to how to negotiate the complex dynamics in their most intimate relationships, including how they should interact with God (e.g., the prohibition against praying to the Feminine Divine, or “Heavenly Mother”).

This institutionalized sexism impacts all church members on an unconscious level because LDS church leaders consistently proclaim that the patriarchal structure of the church is of divine origin and is therefore forbidden from being questioned. This prohibition on criticism about patriarchal authority can have a deleterious effect on women and girls’ ability to identify abuse and assault when it is happening to them. It can contribute to Mormon men thinking they are entitled to dominate women. It can lead to girls and women believing this domination is God’s will. It can keep couples from sharing power and engaging in equal partnerships in marriage. Ultimately, it can limit every church member’s belief in their ability to claim authority over their lives and can prevent us from reaching our God-given potential.

Wendy is a psychoanalyst, licensed clinical social worker, and marriage and family therapist in private practice. She wants her church to be a safer place for everyone.