The Church and Child Abuse: An Experimental Argument

[Res Ipsa]

Hi whoever is reading. Most of the time I make arguments here, I've given a fair amount of thought about them before. I've at least spent some time thinking about the ramifications and tried to shoot holes in them before I ever post them. It's a part of my profession that bleeds over into my unprofessional side. It's embarrassing to get ambushed in front of a judge.

This thread is not that. I have an idea for an argument that I want to flesh out. I don't know if it's a good argument or if there's some kind of good argument lurking in my unorganized thinking. But I think it would be fun to construct it here, and I'm certain that whatever argument might be there would benefit from input and criticism during the construction process.

I have no idea what it will look like at end. I may throw in the towel and decide there's nothing interesting there. I may get bored because it all ends up being trivial and obvious. It may require factual inquiry beyond my available time or accessible resources, also resulting in throwing in the towel. I may end up concluding the opposite of what I think I'm trying to show. No idea other than some general thoughts. I'm not in any hurry, so it may take a while.

I'll use this OP as the "construction site, with additional posts used to receive and discuss feedback, hash out subarguments, etc. So, the rough outline is:

1. There are inherent conflicts between the stated goals of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the church") to protect children from child abuse on the one hand and to protect its image and preserve its assets on the other.

2. The church has a significant number of different approaches it could take to resolve those conflicts.

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

4. There is no doctrinal impediment to placing the well-being of the child above the church's public image and money.

5. The church deceives its members into believing that the church has fewer choices than it actually does.

6. When the well being of a child or children conflicts with the church's interest in preserving its money and public image, the church can and should place the children first.

[Kishkumen]

Let me provide what I believe is the first, most obvious (at least to me) and honest response to your post:

The LDS Church needs to protect itself in order to have the resources to continue serving the largest number of endangered children. If it yielded on clergy penitent privilege, then it would sacrifice its freedom of religion and make itself vulnerable to manipulation by governmental agencies and federal authorities to the point that it would be unable to accomplish any of its missions. It is sad to say, but when you have one child tied to the tracks on that fork, and a whole church with its millions of children tied to the other branch of track, well, we all know what most people will do. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

[Res Ipsa]

Let me provide what I believe is the first, most obvious (at least to me) and honest response to your post:

The LDS Church needs to protect itself in order to have the resources to continue serving the largest number of endangered children. If it yielded on clergy penitent privilege, then it would sacrifice its freedom of religion and make itself vulnerable to manipulation by governmental agencies and federal authorities to the point that it would be unable to accomplish any of its missions. It is sad to say, but when you have one child tied to the tracks on that fork, and a whole church with its millions of children tied to the other branch of track, well, we all know what most people will do. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Excellent and thank you. Let's call that Kish Counter 1. I was first tempted to say that it applies to point 6, which asserts "the church can..." But that functions as the conclusion, and a counter should be responsive to part of the argument. So, I'd say I have a missing premise that I need to supply. Does that sound right?

[Kishkumen]

Excellent and thank you. Let's call that Kish Counter 1. I was first tempted to say that it applies to point 6, which asserts "the church can..." But that functions as the conclusion, and a counter should be responsive to part of the argument. So, I'd say I have a missing premise that I need to supply. Does that sound right?

Sounds right to me, RI. I am sorry for thinking outside the lines here. I did not mean to saddle us with more work extending your considerations at the outset. I'm kind of hopeless like that.

[Res Ipsa]

Excellent and thank you. Let's call that Kish Counter 1. I was first tempted to say that it applies to point 6, which asserts "the church can..." But that functions as the conclusion, and a counter should be responsive to part of the argument. So, I'd say I have a missing premise that I need to supply. Does that sound right?

Sounds right to me, RI. I am sorry for thinking outside the lines here. I did not mean to saddle us with more work extending your considerations at the outset. I'm kind of hopeless like that.

No, please don't apologize. What you posted is exactly the kind of feedback I'd hoped for. In my experience, a finished, decent argument has a flow from start to end. But the process is anything but linear. For me, the process of building the argument skips around, sometimes chaotically. At this stage, even though I've imposed some general structure, the process is more like brainstorming. Get ideas for the argument and counterarguments on the table. Figure out the best place for them in the structure, then dive into analyzing them.

So, please, think outside the lines and post your thoughts. The lines I've drawn are unlikely to be the best lines, but they're a place to start.

[Marcus]

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

I've thought about this one myself, quite a bit. It seems to me that the dichotomy is between the priesthood-holding patriarchy, and the (by Mormons) lesser-valued women and children.

Granted, Some of those children are male, and some of them may eventually graduate into the priesthood-holding patriarchal group, but it seems clear those are males who have managed to bring value (money) and/or to show extreme loyalty, in the form of an unwillingness to rock the boat. That loyalty seems to include a willingness to sacrifice or agree with the sacrifice of the well-being of women and children, as they protect and support the upper (male) echelons of the LDS church.

As a female, it wasn't until I began to be an adult woman myself that I felt the full weight of the requirement that adult LDS women MUST bow to the (LDS-male perceived) superiority of the upper-priesthood-holding men.

I still recall the shock I felt when my utterly brilliant, incredibly talented mother began directing me toward "listening to the priesthood," accompanied by the dire warning that I would "deeply regret" not letting a random neighborhood guy with no training who was called as a bishop tell me how I should live my life.

Clearly, my mom was just a bit too successful at raising an independently thinking woman, for which I will be eternally grateful.

On the other hand, I have acutely felt the shunning the LDS loyal rank and file heap on a woman who disagrees with the ingrained misogyny of the LDS church. It might be slightly easier for a male to stay loyal, but it is intolerable for an intelligent women. I am not surprised at all at the pharmaceutical requirements in Utah. I really hope I can safely say this here--when my mother passed, I was in charge of the disposal of her prescriptions. I was sickened to find that her LDS doctors had been subscribing, continuously, heavy doses of benzodiazepines for more than 30 years. I still keep the earliest Rx I found, to remind me. I was an infant when she got it. She was in her early 60s when she passed.

Back to the arguments:

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

Yes, they do.

[Res Ipsa]

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

I've thought about this one myself, quite a bit. It seems to me that the dichotomy is between the priesthood-holding patriarchy, and the (by Mormons) lesser-valued women and children.

Granted, Some of those children are male, and some of them may eventually graduate into the priesthood-holding patriarchal group, but it seems clear those are males who have managed to bring value (money) and/or to show extreme loyalty, in the form of an unwillingness to rock the boat. That loyalty seems to include a willingness to sacrifice or agree with the sacrifice of the well-being of women and children, as they protect and support the upper (male) echelons of the LDS church.

As a female, it wasn't until I began to be an adult woman myself that I felt the full weight of the requirement that adult LDS women MUST bow to the (LDS-male perceived) superiority of the upper-priesthood-holding men.

I still recall the shock I felt when my utterly brilliant, incredibly talented mother began directing me toward "listening to the priesthood," accompanied by the dire warning that I would "deeply regret" not letting a random neighborhood guy with no training who was called as a bishop tell me how I should live my life.

Clearly, my mom was just a bit too successful at raising an independently thinking woman, for which I will be eternally grateful.

On the other hand, I have acutely felt the shunning the LDS loyal rank and file heap on a woman who disagrees with the ingrained misogyny of the LDS church. It might be slightly easier for a male to stay loyal, but it is intolerable for an intelligent women. I am not surprised at all at the pharmaceutical requirements in Utah. I really hope I can safely say this here--when my mother passed, I was in charge of the disposal of her prescriptions. I was sickened to find that her LDS doctors had been subscribing, continuously, heavy doses of benzodiazepines for more than 30 years. I still keep the earliest Rx I found, to remind me. I was an infant when she got it. She was in her early 60s when she passed.

Back to the arguments:

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

Yes, they do.

Thanks, Marcus!

First, on the benzos. Oh my God. My first depression medication provider had me on benzos. The provider was a bunch of nurse practitioners supervised by a shrink (which is how it works these days). My GP recommended me to one of the last shrinks in the area who still provided therapy services. He looked at my current meds and was shocked that the benzos were even on the list. It took over a month to get weaned off the wrong meds and ramped up on the right ones. I don't know how anyone could function on high dosages of benzos over that length of time. SMH.

I think you've raised an issue that I haven't even started to think about. The missing premise that Kish alerted me to is something like changes can be made without damage to the organization. The changes I've been thinking about are making different choices when faced with the conflicting goals. But it certainly is possible that, as a practical matter, those different choices cannot be made within the existing male dominated hierarchy in place in the LDS church. Just as one of a million possible thought experiments, would the results have been the same in the Arizona case if the Bishop had been a woman? A woman with a young child? I dunno. But, for purposes of the argument I'm trying to construct, I think it's definitely an issue to be considered.

I wouldn't label this as counterargument, although it could be used as one. For now, I think it makes sense to label it as Marcus Issue 1 and assign it to the premise that I need to articulate. If you think there's a better way to structure it, please let me know.

And thanks again.

[malkie]

I'm not sure if this is a proper response to your request, Res, and I'm aware that its application is much wider than Church and Child Abuse, but here are my thoughts after reading your OP.

It is not for nothing that the requirement for obedience is sometimes portrayed as the first law of heaven, and that the church is built on a very well-constructed hierarchy, with those at the top being sustained as the mouthpieces of god.

This allows those at the bottom of the pyramid to excuse conduct (including their own) that they would otherwise find heinous. It is all for a greater purpose that is known to their superiors, and that they may not question. But, unlike the famous "600", they gallop their half a league, expecting to do and live - an eternal life full of rewards for their obedience.

As I have seen it described (and have used the description myself) the people at the "ordinary worker" level feel safe in outsourcing their consciences to the organization and its authorized leaders.

God's ways are not our ways, and we do what we do to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man. Anything and everything may be sacrificed for that goal.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm not sure if this is a proper response to your request, Res, and I'm aware that its application is much wider than Church and Child Abuse, but here are my thoughts after reading your OP.

It is not for nothing that the requirement for obedience is sometimes portrayed as the first law of heaven, and that the church is built on a very well-constructed hierarchy, with those at the top being sustained as the mouthpieces of god.

This allows those at the bottom of the pyramid to excuse conduct (including their own) that they would otherwise find heinous. It is all for a greater purpose that is known to their superiors, and that they may not question. But, unlike the famous "600", they gallop their half a league, expecting to do and live - an eternal life full of rewards for their obedience.

As I have seen it described (and have used the description myself) the people at the "ordinary worker" level feel safe in outsourcing their consciences to the organization and its authorized leaders.

God's ways are not our ways, and we do what we do to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man. Anything and everything may be sacrificed for that goal.

Thanks, Malkie. For purposes of this argument, I’m assuming that any change will have to come from the top. Any bishop could decide that stopping the abuse was more important than following the instructions given by a lawyer on the hotline. Once the phone call is made, it can’t be unmade. Presumably the Bishop would be humming “do what is right let the consequence follow….” And, presumably he would no longer be Bishop.

It is the leadership at the top that is making choices they don’t have to make, while at the same time creating a false picture of the range of choices they have the freedom to make. So that’s where I’m headed — at least for now.

[huckelberry]

I'm not sure if this is a proper response to your request, Res, and I'm aware that its application is much wider than Church and Child Abuse, but here are my thoughts after reading your OP.

It is not for nothing that the requirement for obedience is sometimes portrayed as the first law of heaven, and that the church is built on a very well-constructed hierarchy, with those at the top being sustained as the mouthpieces of god.

This allows those at the bottom of the pyramid to excuse conduct (including their own) that they would otherwise find heinous. It is all for a greater purpose that is known to their superiors, and that they may not question. But, unlike the famous "600", they gallop their half a league, expecting to do and live - an eternal life full of rewards for their obedience.

As I have seen it described (and have used the description myself) the people at the "ordinary worker" level feel safe in outsourcing their consciences to the organization and its authorized leaders.

God's ways are not our ways, and we do what we do to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man. Anything and everything may be sacrificed for that goal.

Oh my God.
What a total nightmare.