All About Mormons

I recently responded to a journalist who published some offensive material about our church and child abuse. As this topic may interest others, I’ve decided to publish my response here. Readers may also be interested in reading the Church’s official statement on child abuse.

Dear Ms. Marci Hamilton,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. I apologize if my initial email was too blunt; what you wrote was hurtful, and consequently my response was excessively visceral.

Please allow me to respectfully assert that, as a journalist, it is your responsibility to thoroughly research a subject before publishing. A brief disclaimer “welcoming correction form LDS leadership” does not make it acceptable to publish what many would view as slanderous material.

You said: “I have drawn the following conclusions based on reported cases, based on interviews of lawyers who represent victims, and by reading LDS materials, including the Doctrine and Covenants and the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual.”

You interviewed prosecuting lawyers, which seems reasonable, but you did not consult the church’s published material regarding this specific issue, choosing instead to consult an apparently randomly chosen student manual that is not directly relevant to the question at hand. You did not ask a Church spokesman to comment on the issue prior to publication, despite that fact that a “Contact Us” link is displayed prominently on the Church’s newsroom.lds.org website. With all due respect, that strikes me as unfair.

You said: “I understand that believers hold their religious institutions dear, and such feelings are to be respected, but I see no other way to protect children than to place such beliefs and practices under the public spotlight. This is not about persecution but rather protection of our most vulnerable.”

I want to make it clear that I appreciate your desire to protect children. As a recent president of the LDS Church taught: “I am glad that there is a growing public awareness of this insidious evil. The exploitation of children . . . for the satisfaction of sadistic desires is sin of the darkest hue.”

My objection is not to your efforts to protect children, but rather to the misinformation published in your article. A sincere concern for children does not justify misrepresentation. You seem to suggest that there are widespread systematic practices within the church that encourage childhood sexual abuse. This is not the case. In any group of millions of people there will be some pedophiles; this is an unfortunate reality. However, the LDS Church has policies in place that reduce sexual abuse, contrary to your allegations.

“One of the LDS’s central beliefs is in keeping the public image of the Church pure. According to LDS’s Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, ‘it is our great mission to be a standard to all the world. . .’ Achieving that goal, the manual teaches, requires measures that ‘safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name . . . or moral influence of the Church[.]'”

It is silly, frankly, to think that church members would use this text justify covering up child abuse. The idea of being an example is based on Matthew 5:14 and is common in Christianity. The obvious idea is that a good Christian should live their life correctly so they can serve as an example, not that they should hide their illegal activities so as to appear “righteous.” In fact, hypocrisy is contrary to Christ’s teachings. Rather than letting Mormon texts inform your opinion, you’ve come to the text with a pre-formed view and are drawing incorrect inferences to justify that view. Again, that strikes me as unfair.

A missionary hugging a bishop in Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.

You seem to believe that the Church offers its leaders some sort of incentive to cover up the child abuse they observe in their congregations. In fact, the LDS Church has specifically stated that it’s local leaders should do all they can to protect their congregations and families from sexual predators: “… most bishops have children of their own, often young ones, who attend church and participate in its activities. Bishops are therefore already heavily invested in the safety and well-being of their Church community. When a child abuser threatens the safety of their congregation, bishops have no incentive, financial or otherwise, to do other than protect their Church family as they would their own…”

“…In an attempt to better position themselves with potential juries, a few lawyers have gone so far as to accuse the Church of intentionally providing a safe haven for child abusers. Such accusations are unbelievable to Church leaders and members and are utterly without merit. The assertion that Church leaders would harbor an abuser in their midst, putting their own children at risk, is absurd.”

Your use of the quote “safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name . . . or moral influence of the Church” is even more misleading. A quick google search reveals that this quote is given in the context of disciplinary councils (i.e. excommunications). Ironically, child abuse is specifically listed as one of the crimes that can trigger excommunication. The idea here is clearly that someone who abuses a child cannot remain a member of the church, and so public actions must be taken to distance them from the church by revoking their church membership. If, as you allege, there were some sort of cover up, church leaders would simply look the other way rather than evoke an excommunication processes to publicly distance themselves from the perpetrator.

You said: “…so too Mormon leaders are discouraged from cooperating with authorities in cases involving abuse…”

This statement is demonstrably false. From the Church’s official statement on child abuse, which I sent you yesterday: “Simply put, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to child abusers. When abuse is suspected, the Church directs its members to first contact the legal authorities and then their local bishop for counseling and support. The Church cooperates fully with law enforcement in investigating incidents of child abuse and bringing perpetrators to justice…”

You said: “They are not supposed to testify in abuse cases involving their own members (unless the Church itself is implicated), and they must confer with their Office of Legal Services or the Area Presidency before talking to civil authorities. In other words, there must be a pause between learning of the horror of abuse and picking up the phone to involve the authorities. Moreover, they are not supposed to persuade victims to testify (or not to testify) against LDS members.”

This is quite an allegation to make without some sort of documentation. Can you provide your source so I can fact check? I think you can understand why I would view such a claim with a certain amount of skepticism, given the other examples of misinformation presented in your article.

You said: “…its leadership is made up of ‘prophets,’ who ‘speak[] for God.’ Indeed, when they speak, it is as though they are God. (That would include potential Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.) And believers are expected to be completely obedient to the prophets…”

I must confess that I did not expect such a statement to come from someone of your caliber. The first step on the path to bigotry is to convince one’s self that the enemy is homogeneous, that all members of the despised group can be hated collectively because they are all the same; they don’t think for themselves, they obey mindlessly, they are not rational, etc. I would be very careful with statements like these, Ms. Hamilton. Church members are not “sheeple,” and your implication that they believe their leaders are infallible is absolutely wrong. We do believe God can inspire our leaders, as most Christians do, but Church leaders interpret that inspiration through the lens of their own cultural understanding. They are great men and women, but they are not infallible, and they are not obeyed mindlessly. We certainly do not consider them to be gods, as you suggest! Consider these quotes from our founding church leaders, and see if they match up with the stereotypes perpetuated in your article:

Joseph Smith was the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He received a message from God to restore Christ’s ancient church in modern times.

“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” ~ Joseph Smith

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders…” ~ Brigham Young

Finally, why the mention of Mitt Romney? Is the implication here that he should not be considered a viable presidential candidate because of his religion? Because he’s one of “those Mormons,” and all church members are homogeneous, mindless drones? Are you really suggesting that a whole people should be disenfranchised in this way? I hope I’ve misunderstood your intent. If not, I invite you to reevaluate your position.

You said: “Church leaders are supposed to be ‘sensitive’ to victims, but the primary focus is on how to handle the perpetrator…”

From the church’s official statement on child abuse: “Some critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have alleged that the Church puts the needs of the victim last. More extreme reports even suggest that the Church might shun victims because they have embarrassed Church leaders. These critics have portrayed the Church’s faith upside down. Helping the victim is of first concern. It is the very nature of Christians to reach out with compassion and love to those who are struggling with the agonies of abuse. It is integral to our ministry. Within the Church, victims can find spiritual guidance that eventually leads to healing through faith in Jesus Christ. Abuse victims are also offered professional counseling so they can benefit from the best of secular expertise, regardless of their ability to pay. The Church’s official handbook of instructions for leaders states that the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse.”

You said: “So is there serious abuse in the LDS Church? Absolutely. Why don’t we know more about it? Because of the Church’s internal beliefs, rules, and the acquiescence of its believers – just like in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. “

This statement strikes me as conspiratorial. It seems to concede that there is little evidence for widespread systematic abuse in the LDS Church (i.e. “we don’t hear much about it”), and yet it still insists that such systematic abuse takes place. Please consider this commentary posted on the Church’s official website: “Let’s put this into perspective. Many hundreds of child abuse cases are filed every year against churches in the United States. While even one case is too many, relatively few are filed against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — far below what one would expect based on its more than five million U.S. members. One of the reasons for this is the Church’s aggressive effort to address the problem over the past 20 years. Most cases brought today involve abuse that allegedly occurred well before the Church implemented its present policies and training programs…[The Church’s] understanding of the complexities involved has deepened since the early 1980s when child abuse began to emerge as a serious issue.”

Finally, you said: “I have no doubt that what I am saying will provoke defensive and even angry responses…But I sincerely hope it will also lead to real reforms that result in sunshine on dangerous practices and a reordering of priorities that will put their own vulnerable children atop the list of priorities.”

Your desire to protect children is, of course, noble, but it does not justify what comes across as a thinly veiled bigotry and insufficient background research. Is it really necessary to slander an entire people in order to protect children? Might there not be a way to protect children without spreading misinformation?

Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

Sincerely,

Felipe Santana

Here’s a follow-up email, in case you’re interested:

Hi Ms. Hamilton,

Happy to end the conversation on an amicable note. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to communicate with me. While I think your article was inaccurate and unfair in many points, I can’t say I blame you personally for what you wrote. If the only exposure I had to this issue was through the eyes of abuse victims, those rare people for whom the system has failed, my view would likewise be unbalanced.

Your goal in writing the article was clearly to try to motivate the LDS Church to make changes to reduce abuse. Ironically, your tone totally sabotaged these efforts. As written, the article contains many misrepresentations and so comes across as a hit piece. Had you instead first pointed out the many things the LDS Church is doing to successfully prevent and reduce abuse and then politely offered some suggestions for improvement, based on your own vast legal experience, your council may have been welcomed.

Ironically, I recently received an anonymous email from a child abuse victim through my little website/internet ministry, AllAboutMormons.com. Not only did I send a copy of the email to the FBI with the IP address, as is my custom, I also posted a response counseling the victim to contact the police immediately. That’s how the system is supposed to work, and that’s how it does work 99.9% of the time.

Best of luck,

Felipe Santana