This morning this headline was prominently displayed at the top of the page of CNN (on the mobile version, the Internet version was much more tame to their credit). The version I snapshotted above is newer, the original version had “Mormon” prominently displayed in both the title and the subheading. (It originally said something like “Small town Mormon doctor is accused of abuse…More than 100 former patients say Mormon doctor abused them.”)
Of course, if the doctor was a stake president and systematically used his position to abuse most of his victims, then such a headline would have been completely appropriate. However, it is clear when reading the article that he was a sexual abuser that happened to be Mormon. Yes, some of the abuse leveraged Church connections, but I somehow doubt that if there was a Jewish doctor, among whom some of his 100+ victims were some that he knew from his synagogue, that they would prominently display the word “Jewish” two times in the heading and subheading. Of course it would have been appropriate to discuss the synagogue connection to his victims in the body of the article, but prominently displaying it as the main identifier twice is clearly the editor either trying to get clicks by piling onto a not-cool religious groups, or outright malice.
To be clear, I don’t have much to complain about with the body of the article. Out of 128 victims it’s clear that the ones that were going to go on the record did have clear Church connections, so it makes sense to platform the stories of those brave women who spoke out.
Also, none of this is to say that we’re more repressed in toto than other groups, or that we have a more painful history, but in terms of who media elites feel okay punching, it’s pretty clear there’s this weird exemption carved out for us and maybe a few other groups. There is a section of the Latter-day Saint community that thinks that any pushback to things like this is us being hypersensitive (and there are those for whom we deserve almost every attack we get from non-Evangelical Christians), but ironically these are some of the same people that would be furious about this happening to other minority groups. And yes, I know they have these complex, 50-point, multi-tiered schemas of intersectional oppression that delineates who is allowed to criticize, be made fun of, or to make fun of others. Call me old fashioned, but if you’re not going to do it with one group, you probably shouldn’t be doing it to another. This was an awful, atrocious event, and it deserves more professional treatment than being used as a click-bait cudgel against an unpopular religious minority group.
A doctor abuses over a hundred patients, and your first response is “How dare the media mention he was LDS”?? My brother in Christ, get a freaking grip.
“A doctor abuses a hundred patients and the media’s first, most prominent response was that he was LDS.” Fixed it for you.
I saw the headline, but it just didn’t resonate and i kept scrolling past. That’s not the name of my Church, so I assumed they were talking about some other group. So there was no need for me to feel attacked or offended.
The headline would be the same if he were Catholic. It would say “small-town Catholic doctor.”
“It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on flaring posters that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on flaring posters that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off a scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their posters, ‘Mr. Wilkinson Still Safe,’ or ‘Mr. Jones, of Worthing, Not Dead Yet.’ They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complex picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual. However democratic they may be, they are only concerned with the minority.”
-G.K. Chesterton, The Ball and the Cross
We need to start up polygamy again so we can be included in the “sexual orientation” list and then we will be untouchable! Any volunteers?
They’ve changed the headline, as of 2:45 pm EDT. The headline now does not reference the Church, and the article does not use the word “Mormon” anywhere now.
Pontius Python: If it was sexual abuse I wouldn’t be surprised if they mentioned the Catholicism because the resonance with past scandals would get some clicks, but if it was, say, a Ponzi scheme the inclusion of the Catholic modifier not just once but twice in the headings would be weird.
John Taber: That’s great. Maybe somebody in their world pointed out that it was a little too on-the-nose, even for them.
I agree with you Stephen. Highlighting the religious identity of the offender in this case is gratuitous and bigoted. It’s a way of getting clicks. And it is not in any way limited to “media elites”.
He was not just any Mormon, he was a leader and yes, if a Protestant minister, or Catholic priest, or Jewish Rabi was abusing hundreds of women, his religious affiliation would be mentioned. There is nothing here for Mormons to feel persecuted about. The guy was a prominent church leader and that should be mentioned, exactly as if he was an Evangelical Minister, or the leader of a mega church. He used his position as a church leader to gain trust. That is twice the violation as if he was just the women’s doctor or just their neighbor. When anyone uses a position of trust as part of sexual abuse, it SHOULD be part of the article because it is part of the problem.
As I say in the OP, “ if the doctor was a stake president and systematically used his position to abuse most of his victims, then such a headline would have been completely appropriate.” There are vague references to his “standing” in the community, but I’m not seeing anything suggesting that he was a congregational leader that was leveraging his authority position as his primary source of victims. I’m also not saying that the Church connection should not have been mentioned in the body of the article.
This Facebook article says that he’s a former member of the church:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=870222128625843
Not sure if that means he left on his own accord or if action was taken against him.
A doctor who is a church leader is still more trusted than a doctor who is an atheist or nobody at his church, so, he *did* use his church position to abuse. Therefore it is part of his crime. He was in a position of trust as both a doctor and a church leader. Don’t make me say what I am thinking and that is, “You don’t know much about abuse do you?” The more trust his victims have in him, the harder it is to even recognize abuse, the harder it is to come forward and tell others and the harder it is to dare to press charges, and the harder it is to be believed by your community. His church position gave him that position of trust, it gave him more standing in his community. I don’t care that he didn’t directly use his church position to gain his victims. He used it indirectly to keep them quiet.
What was his church leadership position? You’re making a claim without any facts to back it up.
According to floodlit.org, “We know he was a Primary teacher, a stake high council member and a Sunday school teacher at different points, but we’re not sure whether he held any of those positions at the time of any alleged sexual misconduct.” (https://floodlit.org/a/a113/)
BUT, since the Church ordains every male age 11 and up to the Priesthood, thus conferring God’s power and authority upon them, I would claim that specific callings do not matter–what matters is that boys and men are ordained “servants” of God. They are automatically far important than girls and women. And, since “with great power comes great responsibility” (Spider-Man) and “For of him unto whom much is given much is required” (D&C 82:3), LDS males SHOULD be held fully and completely accountable for all sinful acts, particularly any sexual perversions.
If you want to feel sickened, read this garbage: https://michaelcrook.org/2024/09/15/youre-damn-right-i-did-nothing/
This man should be executed and his body hung on Temple Square. EVERY ONE OF YOU CHURCH PRIESTHOOD HOLDERS
ARE 100% COMPLICIT.
You can miss me with that nonsense, NYAnn. No sane person thinks that some random man can say, I’m an elder or a Sunday School teacher or whatever so you have to let me abuse you.
And if Michael Crook doesn’t want to report abuse, that’s on him and him alone. The Catholics can have him, if they want him. I personally have gone to the bishop of another ward to say, I’m uncomfortable with a situation involving Brother X that I observed. And I sure as hell saw a lot less than Michael Crook.
That’s a frightening story–and I hope that guy spends some time in jail. That said, your saying that I am 100% complicit might be a little over the top–don’t ya think?. Perhaps you’re a bit incensed after reading that article–I know I’d want to break down the door and take that man to the ground and give him what for. Even so, I think that making such a claim would be like saying that every teacher and staff member of the public school system should be 100% complicit for the horrific amount of abuse that happens there. A bit much me thinks–especially when we consider that the church does a better job of protecting its little ones than most–if not all–other organizations of its ilk let alone dissimilar organizations like schools, daycare centers, sports organizations, the workplace and so forth.
Yeah, that Michael Crook guy has some issues.