Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New official interview policy


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For me, the bishop's office was a safe place.  As a youth I never spoke to the bishop about what happened (I never spoke to it to anyone).  But I was able to speak to him on other matters-- for me, my relationship with Christ was the anchor that kept my sanity.  We spoke frequently on the value of Christ and a relationship with Him.  They were very valuable talks, probably much more so that the bishop ever ever realized.  

Would those I have had those conversations with another person in the room?  HECK NO!!!   Younger me would have said "that's way to great of a security risk.  Allowing the mask to slip a little for one person-- pending they've past my background checks, it barely permissible.  With two people?  Squaring the possible risks?  Simply unacceptable.  Initiate shut down mode."  

As to having a parent there.... suffice it to say I STILL refuse to have my mother know anything about my trials (it'll be a disaster).  

I see nothing wrong with a youth going to speak with the bishop like you did. I'm glad you got solace from it. I hope it doesn't come down to youth members not being allowed to visit the bishop on their own free will. I also don't mind the repentance process where they need to get something off their chests and move on. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's not what the policy says. When responding to abuse, it states "...the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe."

You can leave a home (or apartment or whatever) without leaving your marriage. 

 

So, a wife (or husband) whose spouse is convicted of abuse - should not divorce them?  

 

The church

  • does not condone divorce when there is abuse in a marriage
  • does not condone women providing for themselves (it is the man's job to provide)
  • does not condone women protecting themselves (it is the man's job to protect)

... am I getting this right?  I am sorry - but women are the protectors and providers in most of these cases, and they need to be supported in those roles - as well as supported and encouraged to actually leave - including divorce - an abusive spouse.

 

Edited by changed
Link to comment
1 minute ago, changed said:

So, a wife (or husband) whose spouse is convicted of abuse - should not divorce them?  

It really depends on a lot of things --- the biggest thing being the actual individuals' involved choice.

I actually have counselled people to get a divorce, even though there is an unwritten rule (or a sense of an unwritten rule) that leaders shouldn't lean in one direction or the other. Generally speaking, that is a good position, but in the different permutations that emerge in our messy lives, there will be instances where counsel is sought for and that is the counsel to give. This is even more so when moved upon by the Spirit. 

We had a family leave our ward fairly recently. The husband was excommunicated, and the wife was really struggling. She had sought counsel as to what to do multiple times, and multiple times I had told both of them (sometimes we met together, sometimes separately) that they were going to work though this themselves. After reiterating this, they both asked for blessings, and I was as surprised as anyone that I was directed in my blessing to her to counsel her to make preparations to separate, with promises that God would be with her and the children and that they would be guided in this. They had moved out within a week. I would never have said that, but it was also an instance where I clearly felt the Holy Ghost move me to give that counsel (the husband was present, and also received a blessing at that time). It wasn't unexpected for him --- given what had happened, it was completely understandable. But, they had been wrestling with it for months. 

So, yes, sometimes leaders can be inspired to counsel divorce, but that isn't the default setting. It all depends on circumstances, and (hopefully), inspiration. 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

After the comment I responded to, the tone could only go up.  Are you proud of all the grooming you did?

Not at all. Quite ashamed actually. It was unintentional, but it happened nonetheless. Many youth were subjected to inappropriate questions from a person they trusted. What happens next time when someone who isn't trustworthy starts asking inappropriate questions? I don't know. It makes me sick.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As soon as the heretics all go away or are......dealt with....

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. 

Link to comment
On 3/26/2018 at 11:21 PM, bsjkki said:

All youth classes now require two deep teachers. I’m going to need a lot more people in primary or have really big classes. This is going to take some rearranging.

 

We've been doing this for close to 10 years now for every primary class.

Link to comment
On 3/26/2018 at 9:54 PM, Calm said:

I just read depressing stats (haven't check the credibility of the site, they don't come across as emotional though) about teacher reporting and actual investigation by social services.  Can't copy, so linking, quick read:

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all_statistics_20150619.pdf

info below starts on page 7

2/3 of teachers have not received specific training in prevention or reporting of child abuse.

24% have never received oral or written guidelines about the mandated laws of reporting  for their state.

Possibly 25% of known abuse cases are not reported by professionals not in child protection even when mandated.

I question the 2/3 bit about teachers. Washington has had mandatory abuse detection and reporting laws for teachers for many years. You are required to sign an affidavit that you received training at the beginning of every school year. The training is extensive and specific. All 50 states have mandatory reporting laws....by federal mandate. Failure to report is taken very seriously and can include loss of credentials, fines, or time in the slammer.  I find it hard to believe 2/3 of teachers aren’t trained about that. I can believe some  may not have been paying attention during the training meetings.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Calm said:

It said there were 6900 cases of abuse, 27% were sexual abuse, so about 2300.  Apparently other states have a lower percentage of sex abuse cases and a higher percentage of neglect.  

I am reading it as two states might have the same population, same number of abuse cases...100.  One may have 60% of the cases neglect, another 20%.  That would mean 60 in one and 20 in the other.

On the other hand the first state might have same population, but much lower rate of abuse over all, say 10 cases.  So while its rate of sex abuse of its abuse cases is still 60%, that translates to only 6 cases while the other at 20% rate is 20 cases.

If I am correct, then to compare incidents state to state, you need to skip total abuse and just count sex abuse cases per 100,000 or whatever they use.

If overall abuse rates are higher, high percentages of sex abuse in the total number of abuse cases means high numbers; overall abuse rates are low, then harder to compare.

If we are 8th in overall abuse and 27% of abuse cases being sex abuse cases is a high percentage, then we might not be first, but it seems likely we close to the top.  I am assuming the usual would be to take the total amount 2300 and divide by total population to compare rates.

If I have missed something obvious or not so obvious, please correct me, but it would be nice to have the problem solved tonight of what you are talking about because I am gnawing at it in the corner of my mind trying to figure out your point.

add-on:  I was trying to do research to get state comparison of numbers by population, but my head isn't there tonight.  Danzo will have to explain where he is going with this and if his focus leads to different conclusions.

Finally, someone who read the article.

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

1.  6900 Cases of abuse (Not reports, Not actual abuse, but cases).   This divided by some denominator (the article doesn't say, but it might be overall population, it might be population of children)ranks Utah 8th in the nation.

The number and type of cases is going to be constrained by number of case workers, and training of people who report , and resources the state has.   Maybe more resources would move Utah higher in the ranking, perhaps to number one.   It is axiomatic that the number of case is based on the number of reports, and everyone agrees that only a fraction of abuse cases are reported.  Therefore, the goal would be to move higher in the ranking, rather than lower in the ranking.

The number of traffic tickets issues, to use another example, will have more to do with the number of police on traffic duty, not the number of violators.

2. 27% of the caseload deals with sexual abuse. (the rest deals, I assume with physical abuse, neglect, emotional and other types of abuse).  

3. The 27% of the caseload (not actual abuse, not 27% of the population, not 27% of the children in Utah) is the highest in the nation.   This does not say Utah has the highest rate of sexual abuse in the nation.  This says that Utah's caseload has a higher percentage of sexual abuse cases in it's case inventory than other states. This probably means that Utah takes sexual abuse more seriously than other states do.

The obvious conclusion stated in the article is

"Carrie Jensen of Prevent Child Abuse said Utah has tougher laws than other states and may pursue child abuse more vigorously and that might help explain the high rates."

This would indicated that Utah is doing something right, rather than doing something wrong. 

I realize that this is just one article and there may be other data out there that deals more directly with overall abuse rates in Utah (rather than just a caseload analysis). But if you are going to site an article. Read for comprehension.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, changed said:

So, a wife (or husband) whose spouse is convicted of abuse - should not divorce them?  

Maybe they should; maybe they shouldn't. That wasn't the point of my comment. 

I was merely pointing out that the revised policy doesn't direct leaders to encourage divorce - it directs them to help victims of abuse be safe. 

 

Quote

The church

  • does not condone divorce when there is abuse in a marriage
  • does not condone women providing for themselves (it is the man's job to provide)
  • does not condone women protecting themselves (it is the man's job to protect)

... am I getting this right? 

I think rongo's reply touches on the first point quite well. As a general rule, the church doesn't encourage divorce. But that isn't to say that divorce is never condoned. Even temple sealings can be cancelled. 

As for points two and three, no, I don't think you are getting those right. 

 

Quote

I am sorry - but women are the protectors and providers in most of these cases, and they need to be supported in those roles - as well as supported and encouraged to actually leave - including divorce - an abusive spouse.

The church encourages women to leave abusive situations. But situations can change. 

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Rain said:

I've been wondering too if it has anything to do with the amount of children compared to adults. Just thinking, for example, that if a parent abuses all their children and has 8 children the rate will come out higher than if 3 parents of 2 each abuse all their children. So the assumption for many might be there are more abusers in Utah when the stats only talk about the number of children. 

Not saying that we should ignore the number of childen by any means or that my example is close to right. Just feel that if one wants to solve problems then one needs to understand the issue correctly.

Danzo - I'd also like to understand better what you are saying. 

 

See my response to Calm.  The number one in America refers to composition of the caseload, not to actual abuse rates.  People here see the high number and transmute it to actual abuse (usually best measured by surveys since the issue is so under reported). 

The fact that it is number one in america would indicate that Utah takes sexual abuse more seriously than other states.

Remember for an incident to turn into a case it has to be 

1. Reported by someone 

2. believed by someone who handles the cases

3. be believed to be serious enough to create a case.

 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As for points two and three, no, I don't think you are getting those right. 

I really do think many women are called upon to provide for and protect their children ... how many marriages end in divorce? and of those, how many women end up being responsible for their children?  

That is wonderful if a mother (or father) is able to stay at home when children are young - but I do not understand why one or the other is given the specific duty of provide/protect/nurture - those duties should be given to all involved.

Edited by changed
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I question the 2/3 bit about teachers. Washington has had mandatory abuse detection and reporting laws for teachers for many years. You are required to sign an affidavit that you received training at the beginning of every school year. The training is extensive and specific. All 50 states have mandatory reporting laws....by federal mandate. Failure to report is taken very seriously and can include loss of credentials, fines, or time in the slammer.  I find it hard to believe 2/3 of teachers aren’t trained about that. I can believe some  may not have been paying attention during the training meetings.

Yes, I was wishing they provided more info on that.  I question it as well, but if it is even half right, that is 1/3 teachers.  I may see if .I can find other research to see how good the info is later.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, I was wishing they provided more info on that.  I question it as well, but if it is even half right, that is 1/3 teachers.  I may see if .I can find other research to see how good the info is later.  

Arizona is not exactly an educational trailblazer, and we have to have annual training on abuse, mandatory reporting, McKinney-Vento, harassment --- all sorts of these things --- in order to retain our certification. I'll bet that this is pretty universal, so even 1/3 is kind of a ridiculous number.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I see no reason for an apology.  Improving on something does not mean that any ill intent was involved in the prior to the change.  The only people who really should apologize are those who are guilty of abuse. 

A bishop is a father of his ward..his leaders/God asked him to be responsible for this ward.  All those designated from top down are all responsible for each other in guidance..in prayer..and good sense with the help of handbooks..and directions..and scriptures.  Where those things have failed..it is with great empathy that one would apologize that such has happened..but things will be better...duh..so nothing wrong with that.  Apology of course, I would never expect..  Those people who have abused were put in a position to do so..under all leadership.

Please note that I don't expect a perfect people..no one does..but when I make a mistake..or someone under me makes a mistake..my apologies.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment

If the allowance of a second adult is a good idea, it was a good idea five years ago, ten years ago. It was a good idea when the Church said this in December 2017 in response to the petition to end one to one interviews:

Quote

 

SALT LAKE CITY — (KUTV) An online movement, including a petition, asking the LDS church to change its practice of interviewing children about sexual matters, drew a response from the church Monday, to questions from KUTV.

"Personal interviews are an important part of ministering to those in a congregation. They offer an opportunity for a leader to know an individual better and to help them live the gospel of Jesus Christ," church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement to KUTV. "Leaders are provided with instructions in leadership resources and are asked to review them regularly.
"Our belief is that interviews should be meaningful and sacred opportunities for an individual to counsel with priesthood leaders, who represent the Savior in their ministry," the statement said.

 


http://kutv.com/news/local/petition-calls-for-ending-church-leader-interviews-of-sexual-matters-lds-church-responds

Keep in mind that when the Church put this^ statement out in defence of keeping the one to one interviews, it was secretly negotiating with a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a church leader, in an effort to keep quiet the existence of a porn/abuse den in the basement of an MTC and 30 years of protecting the abuser at the expense of the victim.

Now, after the leak about the basement den and MTC Presidents abuse of at least two female missionaries and before the Conference, adding a second adult to one to one interviews is suddenly a good idea. Church Leaders changed their mind between December 2017 and March 2018. And the only difference was the leak.

Public exposure of what the Church is doing in secret brings about positive change.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 adding a second adult to one to one interviews is suddenly a good idea.

I don't see the church saying anywhere that this is a "good idea" as you put it, but allowable at the request of the interviewee. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Finally, someone who read the article.

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

1.  6900 Cases of abuse (Not reports, Not actual abuse, but cases).   This divided by some denominator (the article doesn't say, but it might be overall population, it might be population of children)ranks Utah 8th in the nation.

The number and type of cases is going to be constrained by number of case workers, and training of people who report , and resources the state has.   Maybe more resources would move Utah higher in the ranking, perhaps to number one.   It is axiomatic that the number of case is based on the number of reports, and everyone agrees that only a fraction of abuse cases are reported.  Therefore, the goal would be to move higher in the ranking, rather than lower in the ranking.

The number of traffic tickets issues, to use another example, will have more to do with the number of police on traffic duty, not the number of violators.

2. 27% of the caseload deals with sexual abuse. (the rest deals, I assume with physical abuse, neglect, emotional and other types of abuse).  

3. The 27% of the caseload (not actual abuse, not 27% of the population, not 27% of the children in Utah) is the highest in the nation.   This does not say Utah has the highest rate of sexual abuse in the nation.  This says that Utah's caseload has a higher percentage of sexual abuse cases in it's case inventory than other states. This probably means that Utah takes sexual abuse more seriously than other states do.

The obvious conclusion stated in the article is

"Carrie Jensen of Prevent Child Abuse said Utah has tougher laws than other states and may pursue child abuse more vigorously and that might help explain the high rates."

This would indicated that Utah is doing something right, rather than doing something wrong. 

I realize that this is just one article and there may be other data out there that deals more directly with overall abuse rates in Utah (rather than just a caseload analysis). But if you are going to site an article. Read for comprehension.

When it comes to the number of cases of maltreatment of children reported to Child Protective services per 1000 children in the population, it seems UT is actually low-average. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2015.pdf However, Utah has a very high percentage of caucasion population, and statistically, whites are much more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than other peoples, so in that sense it does not surprise me too much that sexual abuse is a higher percentage of total child abuse cases than in other states. However, that still really says little about the overall percentage of sexually abused kids in Utah as compared to other states, which I believe is the point you are tying to make.

In my prior post I also tried to emphasize that Utah may have a higher rate of reporting of sexual abuse than other states. I'm sure the Church could help with this number, but it probably doesn't want to. Nevertheless, I am sure that bishop interviews uncover cases of child sexual abuse. Whether this is on a statistically significant level is unknown to the public apparently. Nevertheless, most other states just don't have the framework in place to effectively find child abuse cases. Most children are not going to tell some case worker who shows up, much less someone else. As Jane Doe pointed out many LDS kids have at least some level of comfort with a bishop whom they know - and maybe know their kids etc. This makes it much more likely that a bishop may be among the first to learn of sexual abuse cases. I believe the Church should take that to heart in developing its policy on the matter, but how much it has done so is unknown right now it seems.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If the allowance of a second adult is a good idea, it was a good idea five years ago, ten years ago. It was a good idea when the Church said this in December 2017 in response to the petition to end one to one interviews:


http://kutv.com/news/local/petition-calls-for-ending-church-leader-interviews-of-sexual-matters-lds-church-responds

Keep in mind that when the Church put this^ statement out in defence of keeping the one to one interviews, it was secretly negotiating with a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a church leader, in an effort to keep quiet the existence of a porn/abuse den in the basement of an MTC and 30 years of protecting the abuser at the expense of the victim.

Now, after the leak about the basement den and MTC Presidents abuse of at least two female missionaries and before the Conference, adding a second adult to one to one interviews is suddenly a good idea. Church Leaders changed their mind between December 2017 and March 2018. And the only difference was the leak.

Public exposure of what the Church is doing in secret brings about positive change.

AND the First Presidency.

I'm not sure that is what made the difference but it is certainly possible that a different First Presidency, with a functioning President, might address things differently.

ETA: I often make the mistake of thinking that the Q12 and First Presidency always act as one body. That they all know the same material and are all involved in decision making. But I don't really think that is true. I think there is a fair amount of compartmentalization that occurs based on quorum and also stewardship assignment. IF that is true then getting different players involved in the decision making could make a significant difference. Still, it's hard to know because there is so little known about how the church leadership actually functions at the highest levels.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If the allowance of a second adult is a good idea, it was a good idea five years ago, ten years ago. It was a good idea when the Church said this in December 2017 in response to the petition to end one to one interviews:

You raise a good point about the Church being dragged kicking and screaming sometimes to make changes that they had balked at. It looks really bad and lame if/when the Church makes changes when forced to after digging in their heels. 

That's one reason why I hope that doesn't happen. The other is because I think the benefits of one-on-one far outweigh the small risks. 

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, rongo said:

You raise a good point about the Church being dragged kicking and screaming sometimes to make changes that they had balked at. It looks really bad and lame if/when the Church makes changes when forced to after digging in their heels. 

That's one reason why I hope that doesn't happen. The other is because I think the benefits of one-on-one far outweigh the small risks. 

 

What would you consider acceptable in terms of numbers of minors groomed and abused as a direct or indirect consequence of a one to one interview with a Bishop, that would not outweigh what you perceive to be the benefits?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 Nevertheless, most other states just don't have the framework in place to effectively find child abuse cases.

Lots of churches have youth pastors and others who develop good friendships with the children.

The centralized nature of the Church could help track potential abuse cases if they move around a lot, especially across state lines.  Otherwise not sure we are that different as I don't know how much connection occurs with youth pastors except in one case where one was a good friend and neighbour.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...