by

A recent Tribune article talked about issues with sexual assault among missionaries.

I have a lot of opinions on this. First of all, let me just say that when I was a missionary, I was as guilty as anyone for being cavalier about my safety or thinking I would be protected. I think part of that is just being young, feeling invincible. Young people often feel they are safer than they are because they don’t have life experience yet. I was also in a relatively safe place, the Canary Islands, which is basically the Hawaii of Europe. The only things that happened to me were:

1) two companions who were robbed, neither involving weapons, although both were physically assaulted by their attackers.

2) many instances of frottage on public transportation

3) being flashed by a guy who asked me “What do you think of that?” (indicating his penis). My response was “It looks like a penis, only smaller.”

4) the disturbing presence of a naked man who routinely set up camp along our deserted route. Once he followed us (this time he was clothed) as we walked between two dark villages. We got away. Locals said he was deranged but probably harmless.

I did a post on these issues a year ago here. There was one area I worked, with pretty strong success, that was full of heroin addicts. That was the place my comp got robbed (the first time), but I never felt unsafe there. My parents came at the end of my mission, and when we walked through that area to see some of my families, for the first time saw that place as a civilian and did not feel that it was a safe area for them, as we gingerly stepped over discarded needles.

The elders in my mission were definitely in worse places than we were, consistently. The Tribune article focused on the risks of sexual assault that are more of an issue for sisters on the whole, but men are also exposed to plenty of dangerous situations, including some sexual assault. From the article:

At the 2018 training seminar for new mission presidents, church President Russell M. Nelson said that if missionaries are obedient, “they will be protected, both physically and spiritually,” according to the Church News. “Teach them that in spite of their ever-present risks, they will be much safer than will be their classmates and colleagues who were not called on missions — a mission is the safest place on the earth for them at this time.”

I’m sure it’s statistically valid that missionaries are generally safer than, I dunno, drunken college students attending frat parties who dive into the wrong end of swimming pools. Granted. But when applied to missionaries as a group, safety is not really about obedience. God doesn’t say “Sister X, you didn’t read your scriptures today, so you will now be sexually assaulted.” We have this magical mindset that missionaries are going to be physically safe in dangerous situations if they do completely unrelated things [1]. But the fact is that missionaries are often in unsafe situations beyond their control, and no, they are not always protected even when they are obedient.

I do believe you can feel spiritual warnings to avoid situations or get out of a place, but that doesn’t mean that nothing will ever happen to you or that you are at fault if something does. It doesn’t mean you are disobedient or a bad missionary, or that those who aren’t assaulted are somehow better. When we say this, it’s a weird twist on the prosperity gospel: if you are righteous, you will prosper; therefore if you prosper, you were righteous. Ergo, bad things only happen to disobedient people, or in other words, bad things only happen to bad people. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Missionaries are often young enough to still believe they are immortal.

Missionaries are often religious enough to think martyrdom is a good outcome.

Missionaries are often naive enough to miss social cues that they have entered a dangerous situation.

Missionaries are often sexually innocent enough that they don’t comprehend the sexual motives of those people around them who may target them.

Missionaries are often from stable, affluent backgrounds and haven’t been exposed to the risks of poverty, political instability, corrupt police forces, or violent threats.

In addition to these types of external threats, missionaries are often exposed to risks from those who are mentally ill: the public, investigators, and even other missionaries. Very few missionaries have the life experience to know what to do in these situations.

In light of these risks, the article talks about the Church Missionary Department working on policies, procedures and training for Mission Presidents to handle these situations better in future.

The church needs to:

Quit telling missionaries not to talk to family members about safety concerns. [2] Require more oversight of dangerous areas–maybe force MPs to justify their decisions of where to put missionaries when the area is designated as high risk. There should be frequent risk meetings to assess situations. People who work for the State Department have to do one “hardship” assignment in a more volatile country (out of their first three assignments). These embassies have completely different protocols than regular assignments, and so should missions in these areas. Honestly, we should probably be working more closely with the embassies in general. Lots of Mormons work in the State Department anyway. Revert to age 19 for elders, at least in some of the more risky locations. Even if being a year younger doesn’t put those individuals at risk, the dynamics Presidents are managing today must be substantially more fraught than they were when I served. [3] Or, conversely, make missions smaller so that Mission Presidents can provide better oversight of risks. Involve EXPERTS more in creating procedures and provide EXPERT counseling. In particular, engaging women to counsel women would be helpful. Let missionaries who are victims of crime make their own decisions about whether they will go home, with no pressure either way, and with support from a professional counselor and family. Provide far better information about risks–to the missionaries–in areas missionaries are assigned to, and keep that information updated. Involve women with expertise in assault in the creation of procedures and training materials as well as mission governance. Missions should have an assigned professional counselor who is local to assist with missionary mental health issues including trauma, but also anxiety and depression, and should provide regular training to the missionaries directly, not just to Mission Presidents. We should lift the restrictions on calling home. Allow contact with home. Instead of training the missionaries to keep their mouths shut about things, train the parents to be a good support network. We need more women overseeing missionary work in an official capacity. There is no formal leadership role for women over missionaries–and yes, I mean over both men and women serving. This is an issue that needs to be solved including the insights women provide, not just male thinking. [4] Too often, men in the church see women as something to be protected, not empowered and trusted. That mindset creates danger for women in myriad ways: it fosters dependence on unreliable and absent oversight, it keeps them in the dark about risks, it creates resentment against women as a “special case,” and it creates anxiety in women about sharing information. And let’s be honest, occasionally, the threats to missionary safety originate with the Mission President.

What do you think?

What suggestions would you add to this list?

Do you think the mission age change has shifted risks?

Are risks to missionaries generally overstated (too cautious) or understated (not cautious enough)?

Discuss.

[1] Likewise so many teach that if you are “obedient” you’ll have baptisms when baptisms are dependent on other people’s decisions, not your unrelated actions. You can’t actually obey others into choosing to join the church.

[2] Although, let’s be honest, some parents can’t handle the truth or are culturally unaware or would like to encase their children in bubble wrap.

[3] Then: 135 men aged 20-21 years of age and 15 women aged 22 on average vs. Now: 100 men aged 19 average and 50 women aged 19 average.

[4] I don’t give a crap what you call them or if you have to do something dumb like add “ette” or “ess” to their title so you don’t forget they don’t have a penis. This is the kind of thing men often have blind spots about, particularly men who have been raised in a highly gendered way.