New official interview policy

[Kenngo1969]

 

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t find the argument that children are reporting abuse by their parents to church leaders a persuasive one because we really have no idea how often if ever this actually happens, and whether or not church leaders are even competent with handling abuse disclosures is another huge question.  

I say let the church focus on spiritual edification.  

Forgive me, but is this simply another in a seemingly-endless list critics'/skeptics'/pick-your-preferred-descriptor list of "damned-if-it-does-damned-if-it-doesn't" propositions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Did you read the policy?  Here, I'll post it again (for the third time) for your convenience.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Preventing-and-Responding-to-Abuse-attachment-final.pdf

Edited March 27, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Danzo]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

Utah has the highest rate of sexual abuse in the nation.

Really?

CFR

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes you think that? I remember most of mine very well, meaning they stood out in my mind well enough not to be lost to me decades later. I still remember the creepy feeling from the first one and several subsequent ones. They made a deep impact.

I'm sorry for what you've been through, but I would be wary of generalizing your experience to the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Really?

CFR

Silly Danzo!  Everybody knows that Utah is the center of all things evil in the entire universe!

 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Silly Danzo!  Everybody knows that Utah is the center of all things evil in the entire universe!

 

The biggest evil being illiteracy.  If only they would read the articles they link to.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I doubt there are any statistics for Mormons specifically. But Utah has ranks eighth in child abuse and first in sex abuse rates of children, according to this story:

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children

Assuming that's accurate, I think that merits a VERY serious look at what LDS practices might be contributing to Utah's child molestation rate.

 

Abuse rates vary depending on economics and location and parental situations...low economic groups have higher rates, rural is twice as high as urban, families with both biological parents present are safest, families with a single mother and live in boyfriend are the most dangerous.  Then there are the perpetrators, are they fathers or other male relatives/living companions?  Are they juveniles?  Boys age 13 and 14---puberty and immediate postpuberty conditions seem to have an impact on boys, greater supervision and education at that age on what is not appropriate could help---are more likely to be offenders (1 in 7 abuse incidents happen by juveniles at school), but also more likely not to reoffend when older (they are not predators).  They also more likely abuse kids younger than they are iirc.

Children are more likely to be sexually abused than adults.  Nearly 70% of reported sexual abuse happens to minors.  12-17 year olds were reported in 2000 2.3 times as likely to be abused as adults.

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_1_Magnitude.pdf

I wonder if number of children, school size, and number of supervising adults have an impact on Utah's stats.

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_3_Circumstances.pdf

Most abuse occurs in homes though, late evening hours, especially for 12-17 group...which is why you should always know where your teen is.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Utah also ranked especially high — No. 7 in the nation — in school safety, based on having only 5.5 percent of students who reported being threatened or injured at school and the number of incarcerated youths."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633474/National-report-shows-high-overall-quality-in-Utah-schools.html

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Some youth interview practices do have some commonalities with grooming, especially interviews that include sexually explicit questions. By normalizing this kind of behavior it seems logical that young people will be more vulnerable to intentional grooming by others. Perhaps that's one reason why Utah has the highest rate of sexual abuse in the nation. It could also have to do with Mormons being very trusting of other Mormons - which may have made Utah the capital for affinity fraud as well. Worth considering.

Grooming behaviour at the beginning will mirror being a good friend behaviour, since both are about establishing a trusting relationship.

Being alone with an adult may be useful IF that adult is actually trustworthy as this might expose a child to what is and isn't appropriate behaviour in such situations.  Learning to be open with adults by spending time with them alone (less likely to speak up if in a group) also can contribute to self confidence, being more comfortable with going to other adults to talk.  This could be 'preventative medicine' since predators look for more vulnerable, less confident children.  I think assuming all one on one interaction with adults is problematic as it ignores the benefits that are found for children's self worth when they are given special attention.  One on one time with a parent is encouraged, after all.  Polygamy is often condemned because it lessens a father's time with each child.

I get wanting to protect children first and foremost.  I want to put body cams on my grandkids.  I also worry about removing something that might make them less likely to be abused in fear that it provides opportunities and a mentality to be abused without showing actual research it does that and in greater amounts than it helps prevent.  I don't know if such interviews help.  I just think given the knowledge we do have of self esteem, we should be careful.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873158/

"In fact, the nature of mentoring relationships, emphasizing a close, caring, and supportive relationship between an adolescent and a non-parental adult, may be particularly well-suited to developing adolescents’ self-esteem."

"Longitudinal research on natural mentoring relationships indicates that adolescents who report having an important non-parental adult in their lives tend to report greater psychological well-being, including self-esteem and life satisfaction."

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Jane_Doe]

Thinking on this more...

Many fond memories of my childhood are of 1-on-1 moments with leaders.  

....I remember one time- I was 12, and their was this boy named "Bob" in the ward that really liked me and kept pressuring me into giving him a kiss for his 13th birthday.  I did not share the feeling back-- rather i was/am an abuse victim and the thought of giving him a kiss radiated SO wrong with me / absolutely terrified me.  I didn't want to talk to my parents abut it- we had an extremely rocky relationship.  I did NOT want anyone to know about Bob.

Eventually though, I did turn to my Beehive advisor.  "Sally" was a woman about 21 years of age.   She assured my terrified self it would be ok, and I shouldn't feel pressured at all.  When I didn't immediately relax, she came up with the idea of giving him a Hersey kiss instead!  So we went to the store, and bought a giant bag of Hersey kisses!  And me of course, being a chocolate-holic, ate them all.  The last time I saw Bob he asked me "hey, don't I get my birthday kiss?", and I laughed and said "nope, I ate them all!", and walked away.

It... on one hand the whole story was kind of silly-- the poster child for middle-school silliness.  But on the same hand also deeply profound.  Sally helped me have confidence n myself, to say "no", and have it be ok.  With her I felt special- because I was special- she just helped me see that fact.  Our relationship help empower me, and see my own beauty.  It was just a special moment, just the two of us....   It was special.

 

 

We've heard a lot about bad things which can happen 1-on-1 the last few weeks.  And certainly they can- I personally know that all too well.  But I also know all too well the many good things that can happen 1-on-1 too, so many of the good times which outnumber the bad.  The new church policy... it is a prudent and needed move, I'm not going to argue with that.  But there's also something which is lost here too, and part of me-- the part that remembers Sally and so many other special moments that helped me through troubled times... part of me mourns today.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry for what you've been through, but I would be wary of generalizing your experience to the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks. I don't believe that what I experienced was all that unusual. And I know every kid in my particular peer group at church got the same questions, because the Bishop said he was asking everyone. He was well meaning, I'm sure. These kinds of questions continued in each interview minus one or two. They were also asked at the MTC, and again I think it was a pretty routine practice.

Over the years  I've traded stories with many people. The experience of members reporting having been asked sexually explicit questions is pretty common, in my experience. People seem just as likely to report having been asked as not having been asked, in my experience. That's not a statistic, but it is my experience.

And of course some people have it much worse. Sometimes sexual questions escalate to voyeuristic questions, or physical assault.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Really?

CFR

I already shared the link with you before, but here it is again:

 

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children 

[Jeanne]

Big points to the church..and to those who made it an obvious good change..the members.  This means they are listening. Only one regret..and hope it may come this weekend..and apology for the mental/spiritual/physical and privacy  hurt of the children and all adults on both sides.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Jeanne

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Grooming behaviour at the beginning will mirror being a good friend behaviour, since both are about establishing a trusting relationship.

Being alone with an adult may be useful IF that adult is actually trustworthy as this might expose a child to what is and isn't appropriate behaviour in such situations.  Learning to be open with adults by spending time with them alone (less likely to speak up if in a group) also can contribute to self confidence, being more comfortable with going to other adults to talk.  This could be 'preventative medicine' since predators look for more vulnerable, less confident children.  I think assuming all one on one interaction with adults is problematic as it ignores the benefits that are found for children's self worth when they are given special attention.  One on one time with a parent is encouraged, after all.  Polygamy is often condemned because it lessens a father's time with each child.

I get wanting to protect children first and foremost.  I want to put body cams on my grandkids.  I also worry about removing something that might make them less likely to be abused in fear that it provides opportunities and a mentality to be abused without showing actual research it does that and in greater amounts than it helps prevent.  I don't know if such interviews help.  I just think given the knowledge we do have of self esteem, we should be careful.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873158/

"In fact, the nature of mentoring relationships, emphasizing a close, caring, and supportive relationship between an adolescent and a non-parental adult, may be particularly well-suited to developing adolescents’ self-esteem."

"Longitudinal research on natural mentoring relationships indicates that adolescents who report having an important non-parental adult in their lives tend to report greater psychological well-being, including self-esteem and life satisfaction."

Interesting. But very rarely do I see adults try to make friends with children (who are not their own) or get them alone, let alone start asking them explicit questions about sex or masturbation. Normally that behavior would raise alarm bells if I were to see it in any other context.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

As pertains to "what has been discussed"  This is poorly written - what bishop has any idea what the detail behind "what has been discussed" could possibly mean?  It could mean oral sex, it could mean self stimulation, it could be asking if the young man has ever had an erection or wet dream, it could mean a crazy question about bestiality or fantasizing about concubines?   HB1, section 7.1.7 gives instructions to leaders, "when discussing moral cleanliness, the bishop adapts the discussion to the understanding of the youth.  He also ensures that the discussion does not encourage curiosity or experimentation."  This is 1 one single paragraph, that needs 2 - 4 years at least of professional training on child development, counseling, psychology, CBT, ACT, to even come close to dealing with properly.  

You bring up some good points, I see the revised missionary questions as highly problematic.  I hope the new general interview policy signals a movement in the direction completely away from these problems and that we get another revision to the missionary interview process.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I think that the amount of abuse that we are seeing in our society has more to do with the sexualization or pornofication of our society. It has become very sexualized. Television shows do tend to mirror the values that we have. As a child, I was raised to believe in god, go to confession if I sinned and to be aware that god is watching over me. I was taught good values in the catholic church. And the shows that I watched mirrored those morals. Much different today where the values that we see in the media tend to influence people today.

The missionaries do have to have a third person when they do missionary discussions with the opposite sex. Not so in the past. Much has changed because of the sexualization and pornofication of our lifeworld.

While I think there are elements of our society that have brought sexual imagery and discussions into the open in ways that these topics were never talked about in prior generations, I'm not sure this is completely a bad thing.   What we do know is that violent crimes have been on the decline in recent years and I suspect there may be a correlation between becoming more transparent and open on formerly taboo subjects and declines of some behaviors.  What would be interesting to understand better is what all the data points are with respect to increased sexualization and objectification in media and the crimes of abuse.  We need to follow the data though, and not automatically assume the worst.  

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Interesting. But very rarely do I see adults try to make friends with children (who are not their own) or get them alone, let alone start asking them explicit questions about sex or masturbation. Normally that behavior would raise alarm bells if I were to see it in any other context.

I am not talking about asking explicit questions, but mentoring one on one situations.  Please don't confuse them.

I see it a lot making friends and without any later complaints of abuse or signs of them.  In Primary as teachers, we talked about how we could establish mentoring situations.  I had a couple of kids over to my house.  In school, I volunteered to teach one on one anyone with reading or math issues.  We would sit in the hallway and read or do math in the library.  There were a number of other mothers who have done the same thing in all the wards and schools I have been at.  Sometimes a father is able to do it as well.

When my husband takes the dog for a walk, he comes home and tells me about the fun conversations he has had with a kid no when I take a walk it is always "where is he? Where is he?".  There are several other men and women in the ward who also go the extra mile in listening to kids, helping them feel special.  Unfortunately it is true one or more of them might be a predator.

I had many parents who were very grateful and many kids who treated me like a good friend...others who really didn't like me because I meant math to them...

None of that could have happened in the same intimacy today.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

I already shared the link with you before, but here it is again:

 

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children 

did you read it?

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

did you read it?

 

Yes, did you?

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, did you?

Yes, and it doesn't say what you think it says.

It doesn't say that Utah has the highest rate of child sexual abuse. 

Read the for understanding

What is the numerator?

What is the Denominator?

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Forgive me, but is this simply another in a seemingly-endless list critics'/skeptics'/pick-your-preferred-descriptor list of "damned-if-it-does-damned-if-it-doesn't" propositions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Did you read the policy?  Here, I'll post it again (for the third time) for your convenience.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Preventing-and-Responding-to-Abuse-attachment-final.pdf

This has no data to support the assertion that children are reporting abuse to ecclesiastical leaders through the interview process or that this process is effective at reducing abuse.  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Utah also ranked especially high — No. 7 in the nation — in school safety, based on having only 5.5 percent of students who reported being threatened or injured at school and the number of incarcerated youths."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633474/National-report-shows-high-overall-quality-in-Utah-schools.html

I dunno ...   Utah being the very Epicenter of the Universe of All Things Evil, I think that story is suspect.  Besides, it comes from The Deseret News, and everyone knows that no real news appears in that rag.  

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not so much thinking about youth. I suspect those interviews will be the easiest ones to accommodate. 

I'm thinking more along the lines of, how do you ensure the safety of the leader if you allow the interviewee to do the choosing; if someone else makes the selection, how then do you protect the leader from being conspired against by the attendees. 

No one is forced to attend the interview (not the person being interviewed OR the interviewer).  Judgement needs to be used from both parties (and parents if a youth is involved).  If the interviewer feels unsafe or like he's being set up, he absolutely should not conduct the interview.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one is forced to attend the interview (not the person being interviewed OR the interviewer).  Judgement needs to be used from both parties (and parents if a youth is involved).  If the interviewer feels unsafe or like he's being set up, he absolutely should not conduct the interview.

Well, if a person refuses to attend his interview, then he can't get upset if he doesn't like the results of not attending, right?  Failure to approve an ordination, renew a recommend, etc. 

As for safety concerns for the leader, oh the stories that can be told about that! And sometimes it's least safe of all NOT to hold the meeting or interview. Or to insist on a bodyguard. 

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one is forced to attend the interview (not the person being interviewed OR the interviewee). 

FYI - The person being interviewed is the interviewee. 

I understand what you are saying though. 

 

Quote

Judgement needs to be used from both parties (and parents if a youth is involved). 

Agreed.

 

Quote

If the interviewe[r] feels unsafe or like he's being set up, he absolutely should not conduct the interview.

Well, that's kind of the point of a set up. You don't know you're being set up until it's too late. And now you have two testimonies against one. If they conflict, who are we to believe?

I'll give you three guesses who critics are going to give the benefit of the doubt to.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Amulek

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

FYI - The person being interviewed is the interviewee. 

I understand what you are saying though. 

Ha!  I knew that didn't sound right, but still typed it 

(It's been corrected....)

 

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, that's kind of the point of a set up. You don't know you're being set up until it's too late.

I don't know.  I have to believe that the interviewer would know who the person being interviewed is bringing with them ahead of time (and it would need to be approved).  As a bishopric, we have always known beforehand that a youth is bringing one of their parents to be in the room with them.  

There still has to be some guidelines and good sense used.  The interviewee just can't bring some random stranger with them....(at least I would hope not).  I believe the leader would have the right to approve of the adult coming along with the interviewee and they would also have the right to refuse conducting an interview where they did not feel safe or trust those involved.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ALarson