Sexual Abuse in the Church

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I am here with Ian Wilkes as always. Ian, how are you, sir?

I'm doing really well this morning, aside from, uh, some flu, which I'm trying to get through, then I'm still alive and kicking.

So, well, flu is always a good thing to have right before Christmas.

It is. Yes. Yes. Just try to get it, get it out of the way before Christmas and then we can have a good Christmas. Are you ready for Christmas?

I am not, but I got through the Tabernacle Choir Christmas concert week. Okay. So now I can focus on something else other than singing. And I'm actually growing a beard because the Tab Choir does not meet again until after the first of the year. So I have about 2 and a half weeks where I can get as scruffy as I possibly can.

So that's good. I've not seen you with a beard before, but that will be, that'll be interesting. And you're not allowed to have beards and wear mustaches or beards in the, in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

You're allowed to have mustaches.

Okay.

But I look ridiculous with just a mustache. So that's never going to happen.

I think you should do it just so we could see you at the back there and kind of stand out a little bit more and just see that big bushy mustache moving on that big upper lip you've got.

Yeah, yeah, it should be. I think I may this time, I may go a week where I show up to a Tab Choir broadcast with a goofy mustache, but the camera never gets up to me anyway, so why not look as ridiculous as I possibly can?

Right, well, I think you'd look great in a mustache. And I want to say, by the way, every year, and has been, we've been doing this for as long as I can remember, we love listening to the Christmas songs and the, the Christmas versions of different songs, uh, created by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. We play them every year. The sound is something special, and we just absolutely adore those, um, those songs. Are you on any recordings then? Any latest recordings with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir with either with the Christmas songs or other songs? Ever do a recording with you in?

Well, that's, that's a good question. The recordings they do. So every year they do a big Christmas concert and they record the concert and they record all of the concerts. And then we go in on a Saturday afternoon where they record pieces that didn't They don't feel like they got really good versions of them in all of the concerts. And then they release that. And so, so I am on every single one of those Christmas releases, uh, since 2019. So, uh, but I have yet to see myself in any of the video recordings. So we'll see what happens. Interesting thing. So, so we have this video. This isn't what we were going to talk about, but I just want to share this story because it's a lot of fun. So at the beginning of the concert this year, we had a processional. You know, if you've ever been to the conference center, it's massive. It's about 15,000 seats. And this year we sang, sing we now of Christmas, sing we now, Noel, and walked in. And I was holding this big lantern and, and we walked down and it's really kind of an impressive sight. And my group stopped right at the, the front of the, the performance theater. I don't know what I'm calling it, but just right there at the front, I stop and turn and face the audience while we wait for everybody else to come. And I'm holding this big lantern like I'm a, I'm a hero or something. Anyway, I'm standing there and I'm about 6 feet away from the front row. And sitting on the front row was Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, and his wife. And then next to him was Senator Mike Lee and his wife. Now, Senator Mike Lee defeated my father in 2010 after a rather brutal campaign. And I, um, was a constant thorn in his side. I made a lot of sort of obnoxious videos that he hated, and he, he denounced publicly at the Republican convention. And, uh, just, he did— he and I know each other, and we don't particularly like each other. So I'm standing there with this lantern just singing my heart out, and I I'm looking at him and I go, oh, that's Mike Lee. And Mike Lee's got this nice little smile on his face. And then he looks over at me and his face just drops. It was just, oh crap. And he looks away as quickly as he possibly can. And I thought, this is the greatest Christmas gift that I could possibly get. I've made Mike Lee very uncomfortable just by standing here. So I don't know if anybody will appreciate that story, but there it is. And it's, I think, a much more pleasant story than what we're going to be talking about in this podcast. And I also want to mention we had recorded a podcast last week. I've gotten people saying, well, how come we didn't get a podcast last week? And I just want to point out we recorded an interview with another Scottish saint, and it was a great interview, but the sound quality just wasn't there. And I don't think people would have understood it, and you'd reviewed that as well. And so Excuse me. We're going to revisit that and re-record that. I apologize that this has taken so long, but the topic that we've got here I think is an essential topic, a very important topic, and that's the topic of sexual abuse within the church and the church's position on sexual abuse. And as we were preparing this, we were going over the case of Chelsea Goodrich, and I think we're going to get into that But I want to review quickly this video that's making the rounds on social media. This is a video that was put out by Scripture Plus, which is the new name for Book of Mormon Central, which is a group that I've had a lot of interaction with. They actually host my CES Letter reply on their website. They tell me it's their most downloaded thing that they host, which makes me happy. And I know the people over there, they're good folks. And I know the woman that is in this video I'm about to play. Her name is Jasmine Rapley, and she is a delightful human being. I think she misses the mark in this video, and she has been roasted by just about everybody that's come in contact with this video, has not gotten a positive reception. And, uh, I'm gonna play it. I, I, you have not heard this video as far as I know. Is that correct, Ian?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So your response, I think, will be the audience's response, uh, at least those who haven't heard the video. So I'll play that right now.

Common question I hear when talking about preventing SA is why doesn't the church do background checks? Surely we wanna be thorough in vetting the people that will work with our youth and children. Well, for those who feel strongly about background checks, you may be encouraged to hear that the church is apparently beginning to implement background checks for children and youth calling in the UK. I don't know if they're planning to implement this more widely in the future, but an important thing to understand is that mandatory background checks can be counterproductive. Let me explain what I mean by this. Background checks do not screen for people who have committed SA. They don't. They only screen for people who have been formally charged and/or convicted of SA. That's a really high bar to pass. Most perpetrators tragically have not been apprehended by the law and so would clear a background check. This can instill a false sense of security, and we can put our guard down around unsafe people. For example, the case in Bisbee, Arizona, where a man committed horrific SA against his children— at the time of the incidents, he was not convicted of any crime, and so he could have cleared a background check. And in fact, he did clear a background check because he worked for the government. And so while a background check can screen for some major things, there are some pretty severe limitations that sometimes can outweigh the benefits. So this is just one more thing we have to consider when grappling with this really complicated issue.

All right, so that's the first time you've heard that video. What's your reaction to it?

I think it's terrible. It's one of the worst pieces of advice, uh, and, and, uh, interpretations of, uh, of the, uh, importance of the background checks that I've, that I've ever heard. Um, the background check I can't speak to the US, but I think it's in the US, certainly in Canada and UK, it includes police background checks. We have to be clear what we mean by background checks. Yes, it does capture people who have been convicted, you know, in a court or in some legal proceeding. But also, you know, when people are investigated by the authorities, that information is retained. And, uh, it, it's retained for good reasons. So, you know, these police checks, um, are part of the background check process. So if they haven't been convicted, but there has been some investigations, it's important that the church and other organizations are aware that such individuals have been investigated, albeit it might not have had enough evidence to go to trial or they haven't been convicted. But, but to suggest that we don't need, uh, background checks implying no police background checks as well is absolutely absurd, absurd. And I'm not surprised she's been roasted. I think it's terrible advice. And she's— to your point, I think she's, she's good intent, but anything that dilutes or weakens the need to do background checks for people working with minors and, and youth, etc., and any comments that weaken that, I wrote that I think is completely irresponsible, reckless, and ill-advised. So that's my reaction.

Well, I, that's largely my reaction as well. Um, I would've been a little more charitable toward her if the video stopped at saying that background checks aren't always effective, but it doesn't stop there. It goes beyond that and says background checks are counterproductive. And I, there's no evidence. She provides no evidence that they're counterproductive. She just provides evidence that they don't always catch everybody. So to say they're counterproductive means we shouldn't do them because they, they don't catch everybody, which just makes absolutely no sense at all. And, you know, it, and it underscores, I think, one of the big challenges that the church has with regard to how it deals with sexual abuse. I am haunted to some degree by your, um, your recounting of your experience when you were called into stake presidency, and the first question that Elder Oaks asked you was, is there anything in your past that could damage the reputation of the church? And the church is preoccupied, and probably rightfully so, with its public reputation, with making sure that they appear to be above reproach. But the challenge with that is that so often the focus is only on the appearance of being beyond reproach. And they are less interested in being actually beyond reproach in terms of their action, that they are more interested in how they appear to the world. And, and if they can do whatever they possibly can to, to silence anything that would embarrass them rather than actually deal with it, that tends to be what they do. And that sort of leads us to the story of Chelsea Goodrich, which came to light in an AP story that came out on the 12th of December. So this is fairly recent. And 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich revealed a recording where she— I mean, we can get into the details of her case, but she was abused. And she met with an attorney. So she met with the director of risk management for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His name is Paul Ritting, R-Y-T-T-I-N-G. And I've got 1 minute here. I'll just play this very quickly. And you have heard this recording, and I think many people have, but but, uh, it's worth reviewing. Here we go.

I sent you a letter indicating that the church was prepared to assist up to $90,000. I've been back and, um, I explained a little bit more detail to those who make these decisions and indicated that one of the best ways we could help you to— and is it your mother?

Yes, is she—

try to figure a way to— one of the things that you pleaded for, just to have just a little stability. And, um, so, uh, I have authorization up to $300,000, and I want to talk to you about that though, because, um, how you decide to spend that is— could be, could be complicated. Um, if a check is payable to the two of you then if your attorneys don't get paid, then guess what? They file liens against you and they end up with the money. This, this was, was intended to help.

Okay. That, that ends that segment. Uh, he goes on to talk about how your attorneys could end up getting all of this money. But the, the big thing is, uh, he's offering her up to $300,000. Of the church's money in order for her to maintain her silence, to not go public with these allegations. And I don't know of anyone who would listen to that— active member of the church, former member of the church— anyone who would be comfortable with the fact that $300,000 of tithing money is being used essentially as hush money. Is being used to shut someone up who has had a horrific experience in the church, who's had a church leader abuse them. And rather than, than deal with this in any kind of public way, the church just wants to sweep it quietly under the rug, and they're willing to spend $300,000 to do it. Now, how many other times has this happened? We don't know. How much money has the church spent in paying this kind of money? I mean, the fact is she's gone public with it, but if this were successful, uh, none of us would know anything about it. If she had agreed to it, if she'd taken the money and been silent, we wouldn't know. So how many people have agreed to this and taken the money and stayed silent? And the reason I frame this in terms of your experience with President Oaks is that I don't know what these men are thinking in terms of how this helps the reputation of the Church, because the way the Church responds to sexual abuse, the way the Church is dealing with these high-profile cases that are coming out in large numbers. Um, anybody with any sense of public relations would recognize that this is a disaster, that this is not the way you do it. You know, to send out poor Jasmine Rapley and throw her to the wolves, uh, and say, go out and say the background checks are counterproductive because they're not perfect. Uh, it's like, you really think that that's going to enhance the reputation of the church? You really think that paying off victims is what enhances the reputation of the church? You know what would enhance the reputation of the church is the church saying, yes, absolutely, we will do background checks, and absolutely, we will report abuse the moment we hear about it. I mean, the church has gone to great lengths to avoid having any kind of reporting responsibility for any abuse ever. And the case in Arizona that Jasmine Rapley mentions is one of the most high-profile ones because the church says, well, I mean, the church issued this long lengthy press release saying, oh well, you know, he was not required by law to report this abuse. With the implication that there would have been something wrong if he had reported the abuse, if the bishop had reported the abuse, the bishop who'd heard about this. I mean, that, that was a case where the abuse had gone on for 7 years. The bishop knew well that the abuse had gone on for 7 years. Bishop called the church's hotline to say, what do I do about this? The hotline was being run by the church's law firm, which said don't report it, and so he didn't. And so the abuse continues. You know, the church's reputation, uh, is something that is strengthened by transparency. And the church seems to think that they live in a world where if nobody knows about it, then that's the best way to preserve our reputation. Actually doing the right thing comes second to creating the veneer of doing the right thing. And, and we live in a world where that's just not possible anymore. It's just so maddening to me that church leaders look at this and think it's possible to pay off. It's— money can, can silence this. We make it go away. We can preserve the church's reputation by not being fully transparent. And we don't live in that world anymore. I think maybe we did live in that world 50 years ago. We don't live in that world anymore. We live in a world where everything comes to light and where the only way to preserve the reputation is to do the right thing, no matter how embarrassing or how painful it may be in the short term, because in the long term, this kind of behavior is going to do so much more damage. To the church's good name and the church's reputation than any kind of short-term damage that will come when the church has to acknowledge, yes, we had a predator in leadership. We've discovered this. The instant we discovered this, we took as the strongest possible action. We took legal action. You know, I mean, that, that's the only way to do this. There, there really isn't another alternative. And, and, and I just don't see how anybody thinks that you do the church any favors by giving them a pass for this kind of a mess. You don't do the church any favors. Long term, you are hurting and you are destroying the church by not requiring them to be accountable for, for these kinds of messes. Am I just ranting, or what do you think, sir?

As you've been speaking, I have been nodding my head in agreement with your points. I think there are a number of very important factors, Jim Bennett, to know and understand in all of this, and I'll try to piece them together in some order. The question that Elder Oaks asked me when he was calling me onto the Stake Presidency, the first question about anything in my background that might harm the church. I, I was taken back by that, quite shocked by that being the first question. I anticipated something like that at some point in the course, but that being the very first question was quite revealing and showed me, certainly in respect to where I am looking in hindsight now, that the church is focused primarily on self-protection, protect the institution, at all costs, no matter. And I think that coming from that level in that situation there was quite revealing. Other factors are looking at the church as a business, because businesses behave like this. When the church— when the businesses are— companies are negotiating settlements, the, uh, you know, they have, you large corporations have head of risk management. You know, when I look at the term the church's risk management division, that's a company term. I don't associate that with a religious organization term. It's a business term. And so it reminds me to look at the church as a business. And if we look at it as a business and not as the only true church upon the face of the earth, etc., then we see the church in a very different light. And bringing the church, uh, risk management, uh, lead into the negotiations to settle, settle cases like this is what a large corporation would do. That's what they do. That's what they— that's how they negotiate. And they want a complete settlement. And it's also important, uh, to understand other factors collectively and individually, certainly in regards to the experience of Chelsea Goodrich, as I understand it. Chelsea was, you know, she's a member of the church, uh, from Ely, Idaho. Uh, many years ago, she was sexually abused by her father. Later in the years, she recounts some of those events, some of those incidents. Uh, she shares this, these experiences with her mother, who's Lorraine Goodrich. Uh, they then, uh, confront, their father, who's— I think his name is John Goodrich. John Goodrich is a— is also a former bishop of the church. They confront, uh, she confronts her father. Her father, uh, confesses or acknowledges, uh, the incidents and the events. During those conversations, Chelsea, uh, Goodrich records some of those conversations. She has them on, on record. And, uh, She then, or at some point, John Goodrich, the, the offender, the father, uh, meets with his bishop and provides a full confession to his bishop. Uh, Chelsea Goodrich and her mother then meets with, uh, the bishop after that confession, and the bishop acknowledges the— that there's been a confession, uh, a detailed one, and that the bishop will make himself available to as a witness if needed in any formal legal or law enforcement proceedings. Uh, that, uh, reassures Chelsea Goodrich, who I think they're thinking of some, uh, legal case against the father. Uh, within a short period of time, uh, the bishop, uh, approaches the, uh, senior church officials who advises the bishop not to participate in any formal legal litigation proceedings in respect to the father's confession. One of the reasons what the, that the bishop gives, or the church gives, for providing that advice to the bishop is something called confessional privilege, where an individual making a confession to a bishop, that that's protected, very similar to like an attorney-client privilege, where the, this, confession goes right back to the Church of England, the, uh, and the Catholic Church, going way back, uh, under UK law, old UK law, English law, where those confessions were not available, uh, within, as I understand it, within a, uh, a legal— they couldn't provide or weren't able to provide, uh, those confessions in a legal context, going back to 18th, 19th century old, England legal. That's my understanding. But the modern, uh, laws, uh, um, ensure that in the US, for example, ensure that anyone giving confession to the bishop, that that confession is privileged and cannot be disclosed. And the church, uh, uses that to, uh, put pressure onto the bishop. In this case, I think that's what happened. The bishop was put under pressure. The church— the bishop, uh, who heard the confession was instructed to follow the church proceedings and not to participate in any legal proceedings against John Goodrich, the confessor. And so what happened, I understand, is that John Goodrich and the bishop would have shared with the risk management division of the church that the recordings that Chelsea made of her father's confession were out there and posed a potential risk, to the church. Uh, the church then quickly excommunicated John Goodrich. Um, basically threw him off the ship, which is, which is good. I think that's right and necessary. The church did— I think the church did that, uh, also to protect itself. It's a risk management, uh, decision as well. Nevertheless, it was the right thing to do. And then the church's risk management division approached, uh, Chelsea Goodrich and her mother and We then hear the conversation between, um, the, uh, the individual, um, Paul Whiting, uh, who's head of the Church Risk Management Division, speaking with Chelsea. And I think her mother's in the room offering— I think initially offered $90,000, but they were— I think it says that they were, uh, given permission to extend that to $300,000. Uh, if you look at further recordings or further details, they said the, the the conditions are very clear that Chelsea and her mother are not to disclose this to anyone else, any other organization, aside from the financial or legal advisors under strict condition. They've said very clearly in that recording there that they can't make the check payable to Chelsea or her mother for reasons that they explain on the recording there. They have to make it payable to the lawyer, et cetera, et cetera. And I can understand that. Again, that's a if you look at the church from a business perspective, Jim Bennett, that's what they, that's what they do. That's very common, I think, settlement cases. But the other piece that is not mentioned here, but it's actually out there, I think it's on the recording as well, is that the recordings that were made by Chelsea and the mother of the father confessing to the sexual abuse against his daughter, they are to be destroyed. And I think they have to provide evidence that they've been destroyed as well. So it's very clear that the church has got a very— this risk management division. I deal with risk management in the corporate world, and there are very strict and stringent processes to follow and assessments that you have to quantify numerically to determine, assess, and mitigate risk in a business context. And the church applies and deploys modern risk management principles and practices to protect its reputation. Again, as a corporation, you would, you would, um, You'd expect that, you know, any large corporation like Coca-Cola that I've worked with and others, they've got very stringent regulations and processes for dealing with that. And that's normal. The church deploys such systems and processes for the reasons that we're discussing and has done so here. And so there are a series of questions that arise, including but not limited to what you've shared. You know, how many times, you know, this is the process that the church follows. Can we see the process in detail? What is the process that the church has followed? So it's important because when the, uh, bishop receives a confession of somebody who's committed a, a, a sexual crime against, uh, an individual, minor or not, the church has this policy of keeping it in-house and not, uh, allowing the bishop to go to the, um, you know, the police authorities, which is awful. I, I, I think this is the church at its worst. As a podcast, we, we, we said that we try to keep a balance and look at the church as look at all the great things that the church does, and it does. But when the church fails, uh, like in this case, it is failing and failing to protect the, the, the rights of victims, et cetera, to receive, you know, to get full disclosure and full transparency. Then this is another example of, of many where the church is behaving at its worst. It's not behaving like the true Church of Jesus Christ, like the saints of, uh, uh, uh, sorry, true Church of Jesus Christ. This is not the behavior of Jesus Christ. Christ would not behave like this. This is the church of men. They were protecting the reputation, protecting their, uh, investments, and, uh, you know, doing everything they can to, uh, protect the, the institution. I think it's appalling. I think it's degrading. I think it adds further harm to the, the victims. There's a whole series of questions. There's yours about, you know, how many, what's the process? You know, let's look at the process internally, provide disclosure. Secondly, to your point, how many times has this happened? Can we see how many cases have been brought against the Church? Can we see, have they been settled outside of the, you know, of the courts? Can we see the numbers that we talk, in this case, we're talking about $300,000. Are we talking, uh, over the number of years, are we talking $100 million or $200 million in, in settlements? You know, what, what is that number of, of, uh, that has been, um, used of tithing money to your point, uh, to settle all these, um, all these cases? This is not the first case, it's not the last, uh, you know what, you know, open the books, let's see the numbers, show, uh, transparency. I think the issue there would be Here's the problem. The church would come back and say, look, if you signed a confidentiality agreement in the settlement arrangement, then we can't disclose the numbers. And that, that, that's a fair point, because in the corporate world, when you do reach a settlement, uh, both parties or all parties agree not to disclose details or even any, any of the financial details. So that's, that's fair to the church. They would, they would have a legal point there, which is a very common point about not disclosing the numbers in terms of the financial settlement. But can we provide, can we provide some level of transparency to show us, you know, what's the, um, what's the process? How many times has this happened? Is the trend increasing? Is the number of cases increasing? Is the church, is it decreasing? Is the church getting a handle on it? There are so many questions, Jim Bennett, that this case and other cases like this, uh, raise. And to your point, and I'll finish on this, uh, at this stage in the conversation, the church would do far better if it was more open, more honest, more transparent, dealt with it. You know, let's do the background checks. It's not just about, uh, sexual abuse background, it's criminal background checks. You know, when we're talking about background checks, do we not want to know if an individual that we're calling into a calling has a criminal background? Surely we do, whether it's of a sexual nature or not. I think it's important that the church, um, uh, you know, follows, uh, process, uh, you know, the, the outside, uh, legal, uh, um, and other, uh, transparent processes by, uh, encouraging, not discouraging, uh, the need for background police checks and criminal checks. So we have more openness, more transparency, Surely we should be doing everything in our power to protect children and to protect minors and youth in every way possible, going above and beyond and actually leading the conversation and saying, hey, look, we can do more, we can do this, we can do that. I just, you know, if Christ was here, And if you look at the scriptures like 3 Nephi 17, and you read the scriptures like the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, Christ saves his worst wrath for those who abuse children. He finds it abominable. I didn't pronounce that right, did I? And so his anger and his fury is at the worst for those who her children. And, uh, if he was here, he would— I find, find the whole thing, uh, this whole experience with the church absolutely disgraceful. Yet it's his church, and these are his, uh, his mouthpieces who should know better. And shame on the church and the church leaders for behaving like this and using the tithe payers' money, um, as hush money to quiet and to further victimize, uh, people like Josie Goodrich. So that's my response to, you know, with some background context.

Well, I mean, from my perspective, I am less interested in shaming the church or embarrassing the church than I am in making sure the church is doing everything in its power to protect children. I mean, I don't necessarily— I mean, I said, yeah, how many times has this happened? How much money has been spent? And as I think about that, I realize, okay, that might be nice to know, but that really isn't the focus for me. The focus is how do we make sure this never happens again? How do we make sure that we minimize it? I mean, yes, it's going to happen again. It's going to because We live in a fallen world, and human beings do this kind of thing. I wish it were not the case, but they do, and they will in and out of the church. I hear people say things like, "Well, gee, if you told somebody that if they confess to a crime in a bishop's confessional that they're going to go to jail, then they're not going to confess." And to me, It's like, well, you know what? It's more important that they realize they're going to be held accountable. If they're not willing to confess, then that ends up being on their soul, right? They're the ones that are going to be condemned before God. But to say, okay, well, we're going to protect you from the law, from the consequences of your actions, I just don't see any value in that. I don't see any reason why the church benefits from that. And if somebody is going to repent of this kind of a heinous crime, then legal punishment, I think, is part of that repentance process. Being held accountable for what you have done. It's not just enough for a bishop to just wave at you and say, well, goodness, 'You seem like you're very sorry about this, and so I'm just going to let you go on with your life as if nothing has happened,' when the reality is we know from sad experience over and over again that these kinds of predators don't stop. You know, they require intervention. They require somebody. I mean, this is a pathology that is so deep and so destructive that it requires professional intervention. It requires legal intervention. And most of all, it requires separating the predator from the prey. I mean, these are people who prey on the vulnerable. These are people who destroy lives. Other than murder, I can't think of anything that does more damage than the sexual abuse of a child. And it's, it's the church. I keep coming back to this idea of the church's reputation because the church's reputation is damaged by not talking about this, by not confronting it, by not getting out in front, by not leading the charge. My wife's favorite movie is a movie called Spotlight. Have you ever seen Spotlight?

Mm-hmm.

No, it won all the Academy Awards the year it came out. It's like 5 years ago, maybe now, something somewhere around there. But it's the story of the Boston Globe. And they had a division, an investigative journalism division called Spotlight, where they would just sort of spotlight some kind of something that people weren't aware of. And they were the ones that broke the story of the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal. And, you know, Boston, it is sort of the heart of American Catholicism. And they started digging and discovered that there was this generational cover-up of hundreds, if not thousands, of priests that had been abusing children. And the result was, and still is, I think, just a devastating blow to the reputation of the Catholic Church. Had the Catholic Church, when confronted by this, been public about it, excommunicated the priests instead of just sort of shuffling them around quietly, which is what they did— I mean, they just over and over again, priests I mean, they discovered that, like, in the Boston area particularly, it was somewhere around 15 to 20% of all of the priests were involved in this, and they just were quietly relocated somewhere when somebody made a complaint, and they continued to serve as priests. They weren't— I mean, the instant this came to light and it was proven to be true, uh, those priests should never have been anywhere near children again, at least not with the authority of the Catholic Church behind them. And they should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the Catholic Church had done that, had just stood up and said, you know what, we have this problem, this is happening, and this is the action we're taking to prevent it, I think there would have been a short-term outcry. And long-term, the Catholic Church would be in a better place than it is now, because they're still dealing with this. It's still an embarrassment to them. And we're going in that direction. I don't think it's nearly as pervasive as perhaps it was there. I don't know. I can't, I can't make that decision or that judgment. I do believe that the overwhelming majority of church leaders are good people who don't engage in sexual abuse.. But there are enough that do that we need to take the necessary precautions to deal with it. And, you know, the church in the UK— I mean, Jasmine Rapley mentioned this, and we've talked about this particularly on the Mormonish podcast. We've talked about the fact that, yes, the UK has now taken that action in the church, but only after tremendous pressure from the membership of the church in the UK. I mean, this was activism toward the church that the church hates, supposedly, and yet it seems to be the only thing that gets results. And, and so, you know, it would be nice if the church would just lead out on this. And, and I've talked about this as well. When I was serving, uh, in, in a bishopric And I was in charge of the scouting program in the United States. The scouting program required background checks. I had to undergo a background check in order to serve in that position. I was happy to do it, and it was not a big deal. Didn't take very long, and off we go. And I think that will be the vast experience of almost everybody, you know. So I just don't understand The foot-dragging, you know, to put this in a political context. I mean, you put this in a business context. My father was— worked for the Nixon administration as the undersecretary of transportation back in the '70s, and I guess in the '60s. I don't— anyway, he worked for Richard Nixon. And, and later on, when Richard Nixon came to light about the Watergate break-in, um, that ended up ending Nixon's career, and he became the first president of the United States to ever resign. But the issue for him was not necessarily the Watergate break-in. The issue was the cover-up. The cover-up always ends up doing more damage. To the institution covering it up than the initial crime would. And my father would constantly say, if Richard Nixon had only said, you know what, my campaign operatives did this terrible thing, they have been fired, we're not going to tolerate this in my campaign. It's embarrassing. Shame on us. We'll do better going forward. He would not have had to resign. I mean, it would have been painful. It would have been embarrassing. But the cover-up is what sank him. And it's the cover-up that is sinking the church, not just even with sexual abuse. It's the cover-up of, okay, we're not going to confront the difficult parts of our history. We're just not going to talk about them. We're not going to deal with them and just kind of hope they go away because they're embarrassing. We don't want to talk about that. We don't want to talk about polygamy. We don't want to talk about all the things that are Well, you don't have any choice, guys. You just don't have any choice. I'm, I'm, I'm not trying to be cruel. I'm not trying to be judgmental. I'm not trying to be harsh. This is just the reality. There is no choice anymore, but the choice of transparency, because transparency is going to come to you whether you like it or not. And it could either come to you over a long period of time, very painfully as you fight it every step of the way. And damage your reputation every step of the way because you're defending the indefensible. Or it can come with you leading the charge and you dealing with the problems and the slings and arrows as they're thrown at you. But long term, having the reputation that, hey, you know what, we're straight shooters and we realize that this is a problem. We're doing everything we can to solve it. Even one case of sexual abuse is too many. And so we are doing everything in our power to cooperate with law enforcement and keep these people from ever molesting another child again. I mean, that's such a— I mean, it's just so clear to me. I mean, what am I missing? Is there a piece of this puzzle that I just don't see?

Amen to all of that. No, you're not missing a thing. That's exactly the counsel advice that the church should be listening to, and they should listen to that piece right there and play it back, play it over and over. You said earlier that you don't wanna focus on the shame in the church, and I can see that, where you're coming from on that. However, sadly, it does take, at times, the need to shame the church, you know, to put pressure on the church, and laws and regulations and media. So I think it's a good thing in many ways that, in every way really, that the church is influenced by that. But to your point, the church should, in fact does, know better. You know, look at the mantle of the calling. They profess to be the mouthpieces of God here on the earth. It's not a business. Allegedly, it's not a business, it's not a political organization. There's a couple conversations there, I know that, but professes to offer salvation, promise of salvation in return for living all these principles and doctrines. You will be with God forever with your family. That these are the saving principles and ordinances of Jesus Christ. All this pattern, this path, and you will be redeemed. We are promising and offering eternal salvation. It's not offering a return on investment for shares or offering any political ambitions or political office. We're talking about eternal salvation here now, and that carries enormous responsibility and, and significance. And so surely the need to follow, you know, practice what it preaches at the basic level is the way to go. And, and to your point, when it fails to do that, it continues to fail to do that, it's showing itself, in my opinion, to be, to be false, to be false prophets. And it reminds me, Jim Bennett, of— or it's very difficult rather not to see the church, frankly, as a great and spacious building. It talks about this in 2 Nephi, the great and spacious building, you know, Nephi's vision. But it's difficult these days not to see the church as actually the building that Nephi speaks of, this great and spacious building with no foundation, or very limited foundation. Where's the foundation of the decent principles, the fundamental principles of goodness, of, of love and faith and honesty and transparency and, and integrity. Where's the integrity of the church in all of this? These behaviors and actions by the church in manifesting those types of recordings add further harm and injury to the victims, you know, where they can't get full disclosure, can't, uh, get full, uh, you know, support by a professional authorities, where they're not allowed to do that, that adds further pain and anguish. And some of these people, Jim Bennett, these individuals, they go on to commit suicide. Because they've gone through a traumatic, traumatic experience, trying to navigate it. They need all the help they can get, all the support they can get. And to get closure or to get some level of— I don't know if you ever get closure, but to get some level of peace and some level of, some semblance of quality of life, they need as much support from the authorities and other organizations that they can get, and they need the church to cooperate fully, completely, entirely. And the church doesn't do that. And so yes, we want the church to change, but unfortunately it's only by it appears at least shaming the church and putting the spotlight on the church and reminding the church of its fiduciary responsibilities and other responsibilities, et cetera, will it actually change? Where is the leadership in all of this? You know, I've just heard some profound counsel, direction from you just then. I could feel the emotion behind your words. Where is that emotion in the First Presidency? Where's that passion, that energy to deal with this head on? Who is that light bearer in the First Presidency or in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that will stand up, speak the words that you've spoken, and actually say, look, brother, we can do better, and we will. And from this day forward, we will take this most serious responsibility, just like Christ did and would. And we will lead the conversation and implement changes even beyond what's required of us, because children and youth and minors, uh, need our full and deserve our full protection.

Uh, well, amen to that. As you were talking and you said, where is Where are— who is the guy? Where are the people that are gonna lead this? I found one. His name is Patrick Kearon. You know, we talked in our last episode about Patrick Kearon, and I expressed how wonderful it is that he's been called into the Twelve. His last General Conference talk was in April of 2022, and it was called "He Is Risen with Healing in His Wings." And the whole thing is about victims of sexual abuse. Perhaps some— I'm quoting from him— perhaps some of you, however, consider the accounts of survivors and your soul cries out that you are living a survival story right now as a victim of abuse, neglect, bullying, domestic violence, or suffering of any kind. You are in the midst of your own desperate attempt to survive a situation that feels very much like a disastrous shipwreck.? Or a promising mission suddenly aborted? Will you ever be rescued? Will you make it through your own survival story? The answer is yes, you can survive. You have in fact already been rescued. You have already been saved by the one who has suffered the very torment you are suffering and endured the very agony you are enduring. And as he goes through all of this, I mean, I could read the whole talk, but as he goes through the whole thing, he puts all of this in the perspective of the fact that Jesus has saved us. And I remember we did a piece where we sort of lambasted Elder Richard G. Scott for talking about the fact that if you're abused, the Spirit may tell you how much of that abuse is your fault. And he absolutely goes in the opposite direction. I just read this, I read this not to say to let the church off the hook, but to say that this is possible and that these men are capable of recognizing the problems. I would not be surprised to learn that in private Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, and Henry B. Eyring are just ripped to shreds emotionally by all of this. I mean, I don't think, I don't think that these are callous men that just stand by and don't care. So I also don't think it matters whether or not they are emotionally distraught, right? It matters how they act. It matters what they do. In the Tab Choir concert, there was a big story about Victor Hugo, who was the guy who wrote Les Misérables. And near the end of his life, he set up a weekly dinner for starving children. And 3 days before he died, he penned the words, "To love is to act." Aimer, t'agir. The French. And, and that's where we are, I think. I mean, I, I, I'm not willing to say these guys aren't prophets, that these guys aren't inspired because they, they have— they confront this and haven't done— not known what to do or known how to handle it. I'm not willing to go that far. I am willing to say that emotionally how they feel. I mean, I remember the musket fire talk. Elder Holland, now President Holland, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave his talk where he called for musket fire, rhetorical musket fire against same-sex marriage. And at one point he said, you don't know how torn up we all are, you know, in the Quorum of the Twelve. He's like, you, you, we're just so torn up about all of this. You know, we just, and I just sat there listening and I went, so what? So what? I don't care. I mean, that's nice. That's nice. That's nice to know that emotionally you're human beings. It's nice to know you look at suffering and injustice and, and it emotionally moves you, but you are in a position to do something about it. And right now what you are doing is not sufficient. And so that's the thing. I mean, that's what I keep coming back to is, is that I'm not willing to say that these men are not good men, that these men are not troubled by this, that these men are not torn up. I think some of them have had many, many sleepless nights as to how to deal with these kinds of horrific situations. And I remember when I was in a bishopric— I've never been a bishop, But when I was in a bishopric and I was in disciplinary councils and people came in and told stories that just sort of turned my hair white, and I thought, oh gosh, I'm the bishop, has to deal with all of this. And the bishops that I've served were torn up by it. But it's not enough. It's just not enough. That's all. I'm not asking for the church to be punished. For past sins. I'm really not. I'm not asking for the church to have any more ignominy heaped upon them than, you know, I mean, the kind of shaming that you're talking about is shaming that is coming as a natural consequence of these disclosures. And it's not necessarily— it's not coming from inside the church. I mean, you look, you look at Jasmine Rapley, you look at the inside the church there. People are bending over backwards to find ways to sort of excuse, or I mean, even that's harsh. But yeah, I mean, the members of the church are so eager to defend the church that they don't realize they are hurting the church by refusing to allow it to be held accountable. I mean, I understand the desire to defend the church. I love this church. I want this church to succeed. I want to defend the church. And that's why I'm saying these things that I'm saying now, because you don't defend the church by turning a blind eye to evil. You just don't. And unless you confront it, unless you accept your responsibility for it, and you go forward and repent, then it's going to destroy you. This will destroy the church unless the church gets out in front of it.

These— I agree with a lot of the things that you're saying. These behaviors and actions are indefensible. You cannot defend these kind of behaviors or actions under any circumstances. When it comes to, um, taking all measures to protect children and minors. There's many other things that the church tries to defend which isn't defensible. These, these are for other conversations. I, I, I'll tell you what, Jim, I believe and know to some extent that the leaders past and present know what to do. They know what the right thing to do is, not, not just on this very important issue like sexual abuse and protection, but lots of other issues. I believe they know what to do, they know how to do it, and they know what's right and they know what's wrong. They know this, and they've got the leadership and they've got the intestinal fortitude to an extent to deal with it. But here's, here's why they're not dealing with it, this and many other issues. I believe it's mostly, not entirely, uh, broken into at least two areas. We discussed them on this podcast. What is reputation? And behind that, or adjacent to that, is financial. If the church were to provide all this accountability, all this transparency, answer these questions and many, many of the questions in regards to the process and all the claims and all the settlements, et cetera, et cetera, and acknowledge faults and failings, it would, that would open up many, many legal claims, and there would be a financial risk to the church as well as a reputational risk. And I think the church's risk management division in the corporation of the church, with the advice of companies like Curtin McConkey and other professionals that provide advanced risk management, We'll be advising the church, looking at the financial modeling and the metrics. And forgive me for being a little bit skeptical, but I'm— I come from the business world, the hard, cold-eyed realities of the business world when it comes to, you know, the corporate world. I've seen some things and understand to some extent how the business world operates, and the church operates like a business. And it will have received advice that this is the least, albeit wrong, morally, ethically wrong path to go for now at least. I think that's likely to change, but you know, they're like bean counters. They weigh the financial risk of going in the direction, the path that they're going in right now to not talk about it and to keep it concealed and say there's a percentage here of losses. If you, if you on, on this particular path versus bigger financial and other reputational losses, because reputational loss also equals in many ways financial loss as well. And it will then crunch those numbers and say, look, these are potential risks, financial or other risks if you do the right thing and provide all this open transparency. I do not accept or believe that those conversations do not happen. I believe they do happen. I think the church leaders do feel, uh, a level of empathy and sympathy. Uh, a lot of it is genuine, sincere. I think some good people there. But I think that is then, uh, cold water is poured over that with ice. You say, gentlemen, uh, look at the financial realities, look at the risks. I mean, they have a risk management division, for heaven's sake. Just think about that for a moment. That's extraordinary thing that the church has. Why does it have that? It has that because there's a financial and reputational risk component. There's a, I've seen it, I see it in the big corporations. There's a whole series of a significant level of resources committed to these divisions because it's the number one priority. It's risk management. It's the question that Elder Oaks the first question he asked. It speaks to that division. That question, um, that he asked came from that division. They sat down with him and other apostles, say, these are the questions that need to ask in these kind of interviews. So, you know, looking at the church through the prism of the corporate world, it makes sense. Looking at it from an organization, religious organization, promising itself eternal salvation, it, um, and the ethics and the and the principles of openness and transparency, integrity that the church professes or claims to follow, and the principles of Jesus Christ that he taught, et cetera. Well, that's another, that's the reason why we're talking about this. So I, they know what to do, Jim. They know what the right thing to do is, and they are failing to do it. And Elder Kieran, is it Kieran?

Yeah.

I hope, I hope, I hope he will come in and bring in some fresh thinking and say, President, look, it's time to take a different approach. My worry is that he will be just like the bishop in the case of the Goodrich case, who heard the confession of the father, will be squeezed and pressured not to, you know, to do the right thing. And it'll occur, and I hope I'm wrong, I really do, that he will have to fall in line and follow the path of least financial and reputational risk. I hate to be negative. I want to be positive. I want to be hopeful. You know, I'm holding onto your coattails of hope because as I say, they know what to do. They know the right thing to do and how to do it. The question is, will they? In time, maybe, but I just don't see it right now.

Well, let's hold on to hope. You know, I still hope. I still have hope for the church. I have hope for the future. And I think sooner or later we end up doing the right thing. I would just like to see it being done sooner rather than later. Uh, so I think that brings us to the end of the hour. And, uh, thank you very much as always, Ian, for, for all of this. And, and for those of you listening, we appreciate you, uh, sticking with us and, uh, we'll see you next time on Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.