TODAY I DIRECT MY THOUGHTS primarily towards the men who hold the LDS priesthood because two recent events have garnered my attention, in part for the way each involves decisions made by LDS men. The first is the child sex abuse civil lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was just dismissed by an Arizona judge, and the second is the sudden ending of a San Francisco Bay Area tradition that had Relief Society (RS) presidents sitting beside bishoprics during Sacrament meetings. The decisions I’d like to focus on are not those made by the men considered to have high authority in the Church (or their attorneys), but the decisions of the local leaders to obey them, even in situations where they know obeying them is not only wrong but could bring harm to others. 

Unfortunately it’s common for local LDS leaders to forfeit their moral compass to someone in a position above their own. This is counted unto local, male leaders as righteousness, but how can it be righteous for a man to make a decision he knows is wrong, or, in some cases, potentially evil? And yet, local leaders habitually receive a pass in these situations because they aren’t seen as the one with whom the buck stops. It’s time to retract that pass.  

Let’s take the more egregious of these events first: Arizona. As a quick recap, a father in Arizona was habitually sexually abusing his young daughter and then uploading pornographic documentation of her molestation to the dark web. The man admitted at least one molestation event to two bishops. Church attorneys in Salt Lake City, working under the direction of the First Presidency, advised these bishops not to report the abuse to local law enforcement because Arizona law technically exempts clergy from mandatory reporting, though it doesn’t prohibit it. In other words, both bishops could’ve legally reported the abuser to law enforcement, but neither did. This resulted in seven more years of sexual abuse for one daughter and then allowed the father to sexually molest a second daughter, born during those seven years, from her infancy on. The second bishop excommunicated the father, which means that, at a minimum, the abuser’s bishopric (3 men), his stake presidency (3 men), and the entire stake council (12 men) knew that a young girl had been molested by her father, could’ve legally reported it, should’ve morally reported it, but did not because instruction had come down the pipe not to report the crime to law enforcement. (See links below for more information.) 

Nothing should be more clear to anyone than that child sex abuse is evil and must be stopped. Most discussions of abuse, including one I began here, focus on how the church hierarchy is failing victims. To this day, when a local leader calls the church’s “hotline,” he is asked a few questions and, if his answers suggest the LDS Church may have culpability that could potentially bring bad press or legal action against the Church, his call is sent straight to Kirton-McConkie, the LDS Church’s legal team, whose priority is asset management. This is apparent from the Arizona case and others.

The men who create and enact these policies deserve scalding criticism, both the First Presidency who signs off on the policies and the attorneys (male or female) who advise local leaders to not report child abuse. But, gentlemen, if you participate in carrying out a policy of silence in the face of physical or sexual abuse of a child (or a spouse), you warrant a millstone about your neck. I don’t know how the many men who learned of the sexual abuse going on within their Arizona congregational boundaries can live with themselves. 

Except that I do know how. It’s that handy-dandy pass you have. Every Latter-day Saint is conditioned to view their obedience to the one with priesthood authority over them as a symbol of their willingness to submit to God. But gentlemen, God never asked anyone to protect evil. Instead, this is what He said and asked: 

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

I know you realize that the man in a position above your own is not God. The bishop, the stake president, the mission president, the area authority, the seventy, the apostle, the prophet–none of these men are God. None of the men who write policy or interpret doctrine is God. The idea that each is a representative of the Savior is held so sacred among the men of this Church that they fail to see that their application of it can undermine, even destroy, that which is truly sacred. That pass? It’s a lie. Any man who chooses to facilitate abuse or otherwise harm the powerless is guilty of being an accessory to that abuse, no matter who asks him to do so. 

Of course, there are many ways male local leaders can harm women and children that have nothing to do with physical and/or sexual abuse. Consider the second current event I mentioned: the North America West Area president called for the end of RS presidents sharing the stand with bishoprics. I first learned of this when Melanie, a woman from the Bay Area, left a voice message for the hosts of the At Last She Said It (ALSSI) podcast, which was included in episode #159.  Apparently, the area authority deemed the RS presidents “a distraction.” According to Melanie, this has left the women in her area feeling sad, insulted, angry, and hurt. But then she added, “Local leadership has handled it beautifully. They seem to  be our greatest allies. They are horrified, they disagree, they are validating all our concerns.”   

But they also immediately complied. Whether or not they put forth an argument on behalf of the women, I can’t know. But I know that Melanie reported the decade-long tradition of women on the stand was “immediately shut down.” It isn’t the area authority who informed the RS presidents they’re no longer welcome on the stand. It isn’t the area authority who will refuse them a seat behind the podium in every Sacrament meeting going forward. That will be done by the local leaders, the “allies.” That’s the decision that should not receive a pass.

Even though these male leaders know that the fruit of this tradition is good, that ending it will hurt women and girls in various ways, that the Church Handbook has no policy forbidding the female presidents from the stand, these local leaders aren’t likely to show up this Sunday and invite the RS president to sit beside them. Instead, they will choose to support the man above them rather than the women beside them, knowing the harm that choice inflicts. Gentlemen, this is not allyship. The fact that these men did as they were told and the women felt grateful demonstrates what’s wrong with both the power and gender dynamics within the Church.

Some of you may be wondering how I can be so naive as to think a bishop or stake president can ignore the men above them. After all, if they continued to invite the RS presidents to the stand during Sacrament meetings, they’d be reprimanded. If they insisted, they’d be released. Let me say this clearly for all priesthood holders to hear, you can’t open doors for women unless you stand up for us first.

And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

I don’t care if you’re released. I care that you care about me, and about other women, about children. I care that you’re willing to put your position and power on the line for the powerless. I care that the men I call my leaders actually lead. Because if you don’t, nothing will ever change. The Church we both love will stagnate, wither, and potentially die. And yes, you will be held culpable for your part in the continued outflow of women, the young and not so young, from your wards and your stakes when you wouldn’t stand up and stand firm as a man who wants better for us.

I ache for Melanie and the other women in the Bay Area. I especially ache for all the LDS women like me who have never experienced wards and stakes like hers once was. She had been experiencing a small token of great regard for the spiritual and leadership capabilities of women and then had that taken away. In a church culture where women receive little regard from men, a few sympathetic words can hide the betrayal that underlies them. No woman wants to need men to protect us from more harmful men, but that is the situation that is forced on LDS women.

In LDS Mormonism, the human conscience is expected to take a back seat to directives made by authorities. There’s little difference between the Arizona local, male leaders who did as they were told and allowed child sex abuse to continue, and the Bay area local, male leaders who obeyed the area authority and shoved women “back into their place,” except, of course, for the kind and degree of harm to the specific victims. There’s no reason to think the Arizona bishop wouldn’t do exactly as the Bay area bishop did and vice versa. Obedience is the expectation, as Dallin Oaks has said, even when the authority is wrong. If that doesn’t strike you as a distortion of everything Jesus came to teach, I’m at a loss as to how to help you regain your ethical core.

My dear brothers, please be different. Change is needed and you know it. That change is your responsibility. If women could enact the change, it would’ve happened decades ago.

Please honor your conscience. Please do what is right regardless of consequence. Face the storm with the courage to do what you know to be in the best interest of those around you. Stand up for women and children, for the abused and neglected, for those who are otherwise marginalized or powerless and unheard in our system. I don’t want you to ever have to look back at your decisions and count up the times you’ve denied the light within you. Losing your title is an honor when it means you’ve done the right thing. It’s your task to exchange the millstones that have hung around the necks of too many LDS men for the milestones of progress we can all celebrate. I, for one, refuse you a pass.

~~~

…when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121:37)

Be sure to like and follow Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt on Facebook by clicking here and the author on Twitter here.

Learn more about the Bay Area event:

Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 24, 2023: ‘A slap in the face’: LDS Relief Society leaders ordered off the stand, by Peggy Fletcher Stack

AP News, Aug. 4, 2022: Seven years of sex abuse:: How Mormon officials let it happen, by Michael Rezendes

AP News, April 11, 2022: Arizona court upholds clergy privilege in child abuse case, by Michael Rezendes and Jason Dearen

AP News, Nov. 8, 2023: Court cites clergy-penitent privilege in dismissing child sex abuse lawsuit against Mormon church, by Michael Rezendes and Jason Dearen