The Sin Next To Murder: Getting Punished for Sexual Assault
Trigger Warning:
This article is going to cover topics that some readers may find upsetting. This includes abuse (including sexual abuse), victim blaming, and the pressures to forgive abusers. Please take care in reading this and remember if you are upset or in distress you can contact your local crisis line for help. You are not alone in this.
Preface
In part this article is going to focus on abuse that women and girls have experienced as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not because men and boys do not experience abuse, or that they haven’t faced their own challenges when reporting abuse - it is because I am speaking from my own experience and the experience of those I am close to. I would not ever want to try and write a male perspective on the impact of abuse or the community response they received because I do not have enough knowledge to speak on this topic.
If you are a man reading this and you would like to share your own experience to make this topic more balanced please feel free to reach out to me at bisexualexmo@gmail.com.
The LDS Church has a complex history when it comes to teachings surrounding abuse and how abuse victims should be treated. I am not going to argue that the LDS church condones abuse, or encourages it directly. In fact there are several leaders throughout history who have condoned the abuse of women and children and called for any man who abuses them to repent.
“Unfortunately a few of you may be married to men who are abusive...No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord.”
The problem with a high control, patriarchal religion is that the actions of those in leadership are not always governed by a single quote or teaching. They can be governed by the persons own views, their own upbringing, and their understanding of the churches teachings as a whole. In the LDS church leaders rely on a chain of command where a bishop is guided by his stake president, who in turn is guided by his area president who is a member of the Seventy, this chain of command eventually going all the way up to the first presidency.
So when an allegation of abuse is made to the bishop his actions cannot always be determined by some written or unwritten rule, but of his understanding of the LDS handbook and his overall knowledge of LDS teachings when it comes to abuse, responsibility, forgiveness, and reporting. His understanding can be shaped by the factors mentioned, but his response can also be shaped by the understanding his stake president has on the same topics.
Ultimately this is not about some men in the church behaving inappropriately or going against guidance given to them, it is about how the LDS church systematically discriminates against women, often holding them (at least in part) responsible for the abuse they have suffered. These men are told that their “power of discernment” helps them to determine truth, yet often it can lead to victims not being believed, or worse being punished for alleged responsibility. The patriarchal nature of the church can lead men to believe that they are superior to women and can lead women to believe that they should always question their behaviour before questioning or criticising a patriarch.
Historic LDS Teachings
The Value Of Virtue
Two major topics surrounding the response to abuse (both the individual response and the response of leaders and the wider community) are the teaching of the value of virtue and the necessity of forgiveness in all instances.
The Miracle Of Forgiveness is a book written by Spencer W. Kimball in 1969 and it has been a huge part of LDS culture since it was published, printing over 1.6 million copies in multiple languages by 1998 (Kimball, Edward; 2005, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball; pg. 79). This book was recommended reading for LDS missionaries and copies were often given to members who confessed to struggling with topics covered in the book e.g. masturbation, homosexuality, or other perceived sins. At the 2005 General Conference Richard G. Scott encouraged members who were unsure of the “classic steps to repentance” to speak to their bishop or “study a source such as President Spencer W. Kimball’s masterly work The Miracle of Forgiveness” so that they can gain a full understanding of all of the requirements to repent.
It would be generous to say that this book is problematic, among other this book advises that:
Your virtue is worth more than your life. Preserve your virtue even if you lose your life
Having a working wife is fraught with danger as she will be freed from family concerns and can succumb to the affections of another man.
Homosexuality is a crime against nature. It is ugly, repugnant, and leads to bestiality.
Kimball feels that it is regrettable that the community's attitude towards homosexuality is no longer that of Mosaic law (where homosexuality was met with the death penalty).
Homosexuality can be cured
Suicide is a great crime that only a fool would commit.
There are so many bad takes in this book it would not be possible to list them all in this article, but instead, we will focus on two main points. Firstly is the idea that virtue is more valuable than a person's life. In his book, Kimball says “Once [chastisy] is given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured on is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed she is of course in a more favourable position….It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having list it without struggle”.
The problem with this quote is twofold. Firstly it gives the victim the idea that they are in part responsible for their rape if they live - that they have a responsibility to fight off their attacker to the death and if they somehow survive then they have failed. Secondly, it gives the idea that if the victim is still alive that they must take some responsibility for not fighting hard enough, in some cases leaders have used this to say that the victim must have wanted it.
Richard G. Scott reiterated this sentiment in his talk Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse where he claims “The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. 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. If you go to churchofjesuschrist.org and search for general conference talks on abuse this article comes up as the second recommend talk to read, so even 20+ years on this rhetoric is still being referenced and is available for any abuse survivor or leader to read when searching for a resource to help them.
Sometimes the act of fornication is called “the sin next to murder” because in LDS scripture the act is described as an abominable sin. As far as sins go the only things worse than having sex outside of marriage is murder, and the denial of the Holy Ghost.
“Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
For behold, if ye adeny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.”
LDS leaders have come up with some imaginative comparisons for a person who has lost their virginity, equating them to licked cupcakes, chewed gum, broken china, wilted flowers, nails in a fence, or even low-hanging fruit that will only get picked by the unworthy. All painting a picture that says if you lose your virtue that you will be something disgusting, something that no good person will want - it is worth noting that many of these comparisons are only made to women losing their virtue. There does not seem to be such a hyper-focus on the young men and their responsibility in this act.
I have been in several young women’s lessons where I experienced these teachings first-hand. No one ever brought up the idea that there are limitations to these rules, but that the only way to find a worthy husband is to be pure - no exceptions. If your virtue is not intact then you are no more than a piece of gum that someone has spat out and no one will willingly pick up again. These teachings are not beliefs that a handful of young women were taught, but a common practice across the religion.
The Gospel Topic section on chastity advises “Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true. Breaking the law of chastity and encouraging someone else to do so is not an expression of love. People who love each other will never endanger one another’s happiness and safety in exchange for temporary personal pleasure.”
As well as preaching on the value of virtue, LDS leaders have warned on the consequences that individuals will face should they sacrifice their virtue, Spencer W. Kimball says “you cannot give everything until you are legally and lawfully married. To give illicitly that which is not yours to give (remember, “you are not your own”) and to give only part of that which cannot be followed with the gift of your whole self is emotional Russian roulette. If you persist in pursuing physical satisfaction without the sanction of heaven, you run the terrible risk of such spiritual, psychic damage that you may undermine both your longing for physical intimacy and your ability to give wholehearted devotion to a later, truer love”. It goes on to say “All sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity and are physically and spiritually dangerous for those who engage in them…Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel…Those who find themselves struggling with sexual temptations, including feelings of same-gender attraction, should not give in to those temptations. People can choose to avoid such behavior and receive the Lord’s help as they pray for strength and work to overcome the problem”.
Again the problem here is that the advice still says that “all sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity”. The message is clear that breaking the law of chastity is a serious sin and any sexual relations outside of marriage violate this law, there is nothing to say that this does not apply to those whose virtue was not willingly given. This can lead abuse survivors to feel as though they have sinned because the abuse they suffered caused them to break the law of chastity.
Of course this is not true, but when all you have to depend on is church resources and the words spoken by its leaders then you can grow up with a narrow view of the value of being virtuous and what actions violate the law of chastity. This does not apply to just victims, but also their families, church leaders, and the wider LDS community. If young men and women grow up hearing that all sexual relations violate the law of chastity and that their virtue means more than their life, these are the lessons they can carry with them as they get older - they carry these beliefs into their roles as friends, parents, or church leaders. This belief shapes how they respond to allegations of abuse and the way they proportion blame.
Blame & The Power Of Discernment
I have spoken with women who have been raped and they have given their experience of reporting this to their bishop. More than one has advised that when this was reported to their bishop he asked intrusive questions to determine who was to blame. Things such as what they were wearing, did they choose to be alone with their attacker. He wanted to know in explicit detail how they were touched, where they were touched if they got wet, and if they fought back. These women felt compelled to relive their trauma and gave the details of a horrendous attack to someone who is in no way qualified to ask questions or provide any support.
When addressing young men to do everything possible to avoid pornography Dallin H. Oaks also took the time to warn young women that if they did not dress modestly that they were part of the problem because they would become walking pornography for young men.
To put this into context it would be considered immodest for women to not have their shoulders covered, or to have a skirt shorter than their knees. These are not in the least bit comparable to pornography, but even if they were it is worth saying that women are not responsible for the thoughts or actions of men in their lives. This is just one facet of how the idea is instilled into young LDS men that they are not fully responsible for their thoughts and this rhetoric can frame not only the way they live their lives and act towards the women in their own families, but it can bleed into any role they take as a church leader.
Women put trust in church leaders that they will not only have their best interest at heart and will be believed but that these men can communicate with the Holy Spirit to get to the truth of any matter. Unfortunately, the experience some women have is far from supportive. Due to the belief that men can control their thoughts and actions women can be blamed for a multitude of things surrounding their assault. They are told that they choose to put themselves in that position, they chose to go on an unchaperoned date, they choose to study alone in a dorm room, they were not being attentive enough to their husband's needs, they choose to wear something inappropriate that made them seem sexually available. It didn’t matter they said no. It didn’t matter they did not want sex. They were told they needed to repent for putting themselves in that situation, after all men can’t control themselves.
Another huge part of reporting abuse to an LDS bishop is the idea that they have the ability to discern the truth. They believe that if they ask/pray they will be given a feeling on a particular topic. In the case of abuse reporting some bishops believe this feeling can tell them if the victim is telling the truth or if they are in some way responsible for the abuse.
The church teaches that this gift means they can “understand or know something through the power of the Spirit. … It includes perceiving the true character of people and the source and meaning of spiritual manifestations”. David A. Bednar taught that the gift of discernment can help us to detect hidden errors and evil in others, detect errors and evil in ourselves, and find and bring forth the good that may be concealed in others/ourselves.
The problem is that rather than trusting that rape or sexual abuse is completely the fault of the abuser and not the victim LDS leaders feel the need to try and apportion blame between the two and even go as far as to extol the virtues of the abuser. There have been many public cases where a man has been arrested and charged with child sexual abuse and their LDS leader has come forward to offer to vouch for their wonderful character. They say the man is not a danger to the community, that they are a kind person, a good father, a loving husband, and an active member in church activities. They feel confident in these claims because they have asked for “guidance” from the “Holy Spirit” and felt a confirmation that they are making the right call.
This leaves abuse survivors in a horrible position, especially if they also believe that the leaders indeed have this power. They listen to the bishop when he says that they must repent. They take their punishment and seek forgiveness for the perceived wrongdoing. Women who have shared their stories have said their punishments include things like:
Having a regular (normally weekly) meeting with the bishop to discuss progress
Not being able to take the sacrament
Daily prayer and scripture reading along with a detailed journal on what they did and read (this to be shared at a meeting with the bishop)
Keeping a journal of how they are achieving any agreed action e.g. dressing more modestly, not being overly outgoing with the opposite sex, not watching pornography
Reading assignments such as reading the Miracle of Forgiveness
Not talking about their abuse to anyone in the ward (including naming their abuser)
Removing any social media posts which discuss their abuse or name the abuser
Agreeing to therapy where their therapist can feedback session discussions to the bishop
Forgiving the abuser.
Their “repentance process” will not be completed until the bishop is happy they have completed all steps and are repentant of their actions and have forgiven their abuser.
Other than the psychological impact all of this has on the victim, the other very important thing to note is that if the bishop (through their power of discernment or other means) does not believe that abuse has taken place he may choose not to report it to the church appointed helpline. Even if the abuse gets reported to the helpline the details are only ever passed on to the police when legally required (and in some recent cases the details were never passed on even when it was required by law). This can lead to prolonged abuse individual, or even for the abuser to go on and abuse others before anything is acted on.
There should never be any involvement with “God” or the “Holy Spirit” when it comes to reporting abuse. If such a crime is reported then the victim and their families should be given the support needed, and the crime should immediately be reported to the police for investigation. There should also be recognition from LDS leaders that by providing character witnesses for people charged with abuse that they are helping to harm the victims even further. If LDS leaders feel the need to provide ecclesiastical support then they can do so privately, but standing up with the abuser and talking about their other wonderful qualities is in poor taste and further pushes the idea that the victim should still hold some love or admiration for their abuser.
Forgiveness
This has been briefly discussed in other sections but it does deserve an explanation in its own right. There is an idea in the LDS church that we must all forgive any sins committed against us if we are to lead happy, fulfilling, and gospel-led lives. There is an idea that if we do not work to forgive those who have wronged us that we will be miserable, unhappy, and ungodly - but this is not true.
I will preface this by saying to anyone who has experienced abuse in any form that you probably would benefit from therapy. Talking through your experience with a licensed (and preferably secular) therapist can help you to heal and better manage your triggers, intrusive thoughts, or negative feelings you have. But it is possible to live a happy and fulfilling life without forgiving someone who wronged you. I am not a therapist and I am only speaking from personal experience and the experiences that others have shared with me.
Many people seem to have the idea that if you don’t forgive someone then you have some bubbling poison inside of you that will only fester and cause you to become a terrible person. But this is not true. There are so many reasons why someone can become angry, or unhappy with themselves or the world around them and the root cause should be addressed with professional help. What doesn’t help is leaders telling people to move on, forget the incident, think of how they have been blessed, and choose to be happy. Pushing away all of the hard feelings like anger, fear, guilt, or disgust does not deal with the actual incident and it does nothing to create coping mechanisms or create a feeling of self-love and appreciation.
Not forgiving someone does not mean you have to foster feelings of hatred towards them. It does not make you a terrible person and it doesn’t stop you from moving forward with your life. Not forgiving someone does not have to be tied to all of the negative feelings that the LDS church often ties to it. In 2022 Kristen M. Yee gave a talk at general conference on the “Healing Path of Forgiveness” where she talks about her own experience of growing up in a home where she “didn’t always feel safe because of emotional and verbal mistreatment”, she goes on to explain that while in her youth she resented her father and had anger in her heart for the hurt that over the years she was able to “find peace and healing on the path of forgiveness, I came to realize in a profound way that the same Son of God who atoned for my sins is the same Redeemer who will also save those who have deeply hurt me. I could not truly believe the first truth without believing the second”.
She quotes Russell M. Nelson saying “through His infinite Atonement, you can forgive those who have hurt you and who may never accept responsibility for their cruelty to you…It is usually easy to forgive one who sincerely and humbly seeks your forgiveness. But the Savior will grant you the ability to forgive anyone who has mistreated you in any way. Then their hurtful acts can no longer canker your soul”. Yee goes on to quote Richard G. Scott saying “you cannot erase what has been done, but you can forgive. Forgiveness heals terrible, tragic wounds, for it allows the love of God to purge our heart and mind of the poison of hate”. This quote is from the talk mentioned above where Scott also said “the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for the abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed…no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure”.
Forgiveness and finding a path forward after experiencing abuse is difficult and while experiences can be similar everyone's experience is different. No one has the right to tell you how to feel, or what the appropriate response to trauma is. This is something that each individual deals with on a personal level and it should be up to the individual if they want to forgive someone who has abused them. The LDS agenda of forgiveness is built on the false premise that forgiveness is required when in fact it isn't, you get to decide how you respond and no one has the right to take the away from you.
