Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Love is not letting people damn themselves by participating in ordinances when they are unready. Love is helping people confess and repent their sins.

Permissive love is not God’s love or real love between humans for that matter.

And yet confession does not have to be this way in the church. Kids being made to feel guilty about masturbation? Seven year olds thinking it might be better to die before they turn eight? (I was a serious kid and had those thoughts at age 7.) 

Just as training may have diminishing returns, so may confession and shame.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

 

Perhaps you're reading to much in between the lines, or perhaps you underestimate the damage of sitting in a room with a spiritual authority, then submitting to ANY question pertaining to your sexual activity. I know it is accepted as normal in the church, but being the norm doesn't make it good.

I was asked if I kept the law of chastity many times. I was not damaged. I had much more thorough and searching interviews in the time period of preparation for endowment and mission. I was not damaged. I know many people who have done the same and got through with no damage. Where are all these damaged people? People drag abuse stories into this as if asking the basic law of chastity question makes interviewers into abusers. Now asking the question with no evil intent is abuse?

If someone can be damaged by being asked if they keep the law of chastity they are probably too fragile to do much of anything and should seek some kind of professional help.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was asked if I kept the law of chastity many times. I was not damaged. I had much more thorough and searching interviews in the time period of preparation for endowment and mission. I was not damaged. I know many people who have done the same and got through with no damage. Where are all these damaged people? People drag abuse stories into this as if asking the basic law of chastity question makes interviewers into abusers. Now asking the question with no evil intent is abuse?

If someone can be damaged by being asked if they keep the law of chastity they are probably too fragile to do much of anything and should seek some kind of professional help.

I'm talking about the real young youth such as the words that are unknown to an 8 year old too. And don't tell me they need to know the word masturbation at 8 yrs. old or asked if they touch their private parts!

Or the extreme probing of questions to the older youth if they've confessed to petting or what not.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Confess to Christ in prayer, to injured parties you've injured, to public authorities when you've broken the public law.

Nope, there is more. We are actually much more lenient now then in the past. When people sinned in earlier days in any way that others would know of they were expected to get up in a public church meeting and confess their sins. In very rare cases this still happens.

You may dislike the practice but it is scriptural and the bounds you try to set around it are not scriptural.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm talking about the real young youth such as the words that are unknown to an 8 year old too. And don't tell me they need to know the word masturbation at 8 yrs. old or asked if they touch their private parts!

Or the extreme probing of questions to the older youth if they've confessed to petting or what not.

Who is asking 8 year olds if they masturbate? I have read the baptismal interview instructions and that is not in there, Are you just making this stuff up?

The extreme probing? What are you basing that on? Sometimes you have to ask loving and concerned questions to help someone open up. In cases where youth are confessing yes it can traumatic but that is almost always because of what happened and not because they are talking about it.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet confession does not have to be this way in the church. Kids being made to feel guilty about masturbation? Seven year olds thinking it might be better to die before they turn eight? (I was a serious kid and had those thoughts at age 7.) 

Just as training may have diminishing returns, so may confession and shame.

You wanted to die? Who was teaching you the gospel? You needed therapy or some kind of mental help. Most kids that age only understand death in an abstract sense. And how does that relate to interviews? Was your bishop musing that you would be better off dying while in the interview? I doubt it.

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm talking about the real young youth such as the words that are unknown to an 8 year old too. And don't tell me they need to know the word masturbation at 8 yrs. old or asked if they touch their private parts!

Or the extreme probing of questions to the older youth if they've confessed to petting or what not.

you really lose any credibility you might have had with comments such as these.

I think you might want to start attending church if you are going to continue criticizing the church on online forums. At least you will know what arguments are legitimate and which ones are absurd.

Its almost as if you have invented an imaginary church that you want to attack.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Danzo

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

you really lose any credibility you might have had with comments such as these.

I think you might want to start attending church if you are going to continue criticizing the church on online forums. At least you will know what arguments are legitimate and which ones are absurd.

Its almost as if you have invented an imaginary church that you want to attack.

Deleted. No insults.

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You wanted to die? Who was teaching you the gospel? You needed therapy or some kind of mental help. Most kids that age only understand death in an abstract sense. And how does that relate to interviews? Was your bishop musing that you would be better off dying while in the interview? I doubt it.

No, I definitely did not want to die, but I did recognize that dying at 7 would mean the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the moment of baptism changed everything. That was simply the math, a logical conclusion of the basic teachings in primary, leading up to baptism, which we know are all preliminary steps to confessing throughout life.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, there is more. We are actually much more lenient now then in the past. When people sinned in earlier days in any way that others would know of they were expected to get up in a public church meeting and confess their sins. In very rare cases this still happens.

You may dislike the practice but it is scriptural and the bounds you try to set around it are not scriptural.

When we know better, do better! 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

When we know better, do better! 

I think you would have to first prove to people that what you are proposing is the better way though, before this argument works.  I'm not personally convinced that never having optional private interviews with church leaders is the better way.  

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Danzo...you are an ***.

He is right.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I definitely did not want to die, but I did recognize that dying at 7 would mean the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the moment of baptism changed everything. That was simply the math, a logical conclusion of the basic teachings in primary, leading up to baptism, which we know are all preliminary steps to confessing throughout life.

Who was teaching you that at seven years old? I can remember much of my time in Primary and a little of my time in Nursery and preaching that little children are automatically saved on death is not part of the curriculum. Who was teaching you this? Parents?

It might seem logical to an adult reading LDS Doctrine but most seven year olds do not hear about that. I do not want to accuse you of lying but I admit I suspect it.

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Who is asking 8 year olds if they masturbate? I have read the baptismal interview instructions and that is not in there, Are you just making this stuff up?

The extreme probing? What are you basing that on? Sometimes you have to ask loving and concerned questions to help someone open up. In cases where youth are confessing yes it can traumatic but that is almost always because of what happened and not because they are talking about it.

I have spoken to non-anonymous people, many who experienced secondary trauma during the "confession." They include children reporting sexual abuse, children reporting innocent, normal sexual curiousity, teens and adults confessing sexual sin, teens reporting rape and incest, wives reporting rape and spousal infidelity,....all in some way experiencing inappropriate, damaging responses.

Even if the policy says one thing, the training is little or nothing, interviews given broad leeway on the details of how to approach. Add to that teachings that shame victims and treat sex as next to murder, and with some insensitive if well-intentioned leaders, there is high potential for damage.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Who was teaching you that at seven years old? I can remember much of my time in Primary and a little of my time in Nursery and preaching that little children are automatically saved on death is not part of the curriculum. Who was teaching you this? Parents?

It might seem logical to an adult reading LDS Doctrine but most seven year olds do not hear about that. I do not want to accuse you of lying but I admit I suspect it.

I distinctly remember it. Little children are saved is a widespread church teaching. It's in the Book of Mormon. 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have spoken to non-anonymous people, many who experienced secondary trauma during the "confession." They include children reporting sexual abuse, children reporting innocent, normal sexual curiousity, teens and adults confessing sexual sin, teens reporting rape and incest, wives reporting rape and spousal infidelity,....all in some way experiencing inappropriate, damaging responses.

Even if the policy says one thing, the training in little or nothing, interviews given broad leeway on the details of how to approach. Add to that teachings that shame victims and treat sex as next to murder, and with some insensitive if well-intentioned leaders, there is high potential for damage.

Of course they felt trauma! These are traumatic experiences

Anyone recounting these experiences to anyone would have experience trauma. 

 

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you would have to first prove to people that what you are proposing is the better way though, before this argument works.  I'm not personally convinced that never having optional private interviews with church leaders is the better way.  

I think it is clear that church leaders not requiring minors to answer questions about their sexual experiences, even the general chastity question, is better than doing so.

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Danzo...you are an ***.

I love you too. 

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Danzo said:

Of course they felt trauma! These are traumatic experiences

Anyone recounting these experiences to anyone would have experience trauma. 

 

By secondary trauma, I mean that the interviewer further inflicted trauma, not simply by listening, but by being a knucklehead or worse in their response.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it is clear that church leaders not requiring minors to answer questions about their sexual experiences, even the general chastity question, is better than doing so.

I disrespectfully disagree.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I distinctly remember it. Little children are saved is a widespread church teaching. It's in the Book of Mormon. 

It is, but it is not in the Primary curriculum which is where you suggested you got it. Few children reading the Book of Mormon get to Moroni 8. Fewer of them would understand it. The idea that it is generally known amongst six and seven year olds is pretty laughable. I am not saying you did not hear it but if you did you were an exception. I admit your claim that you learned it in Primary makes me suspect you figured the story was plausible because you theorized that Doctrine could mess with a child and came up with a story around it.

So since we are going with blanket leading “declare victory” “it is clear”  statements like yours above:

I think it is clear that the odds are greater you made up this story then that it actually happened.

Edited August 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Reports are that the training is taken easily within 20 minutes or less, which is, in time and content, far less substantial than the Boy Scout training.

When I took the Boy Scout training it was just online videos that took only around 20 minutes.

To the other discussions, I suspect part of the problem with worthiness interviews and teens is simply that parents don't always do a good job with talking about sexuality. Honestly I think school sex ed has helped there, even though I find a lot of sex ed deeply problematic because it neglects the ethical aspects and tends to presuppose everyone's going to be sexually active as a teen.

Of course it's difficult. My daughter had her 12 year old interview and when the Bishop asked about the law of chastity she asked what it was. I know we'd taught it a lot, and we did have pretty frank and clear discussions about sexuality and how things work. But kids forget, particularly jargon we just assume they understand. The fact that jargon isn't understood is what makes the issue so difficult for Bishops. After all particularly with kids who weren't taught well by parents they may be engaged in damaging behaviors. (A lot of kids are engaging in sexual behavior at 12 - further they are exposed to a lot of ideas these days that people of my generation weren't - particularly relative to homosexuality and the like)

Edited August 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disrespectfully disagree.

It is, but it is not in the Primary curriculum which is where you suggested you got it. Few children reading the Book of Mormon get to Moroni 8. Fewer of them would understand it. The idea that it is generally known amongst six and seven year olds is pretty laughable. I am not saying you did not hear it but if you did you were an exception. I admit your claim that you learned it in Primary makes me suspect you figured the story was plausible because you theorized that Doctrine could mess with a child and came up with a story around it.

So since we are going with blanket leading “declare victory” “it is clear”  statements like yours above:

I think it is clear that the odds are greater you made up this story then that it actually happened.

No, I did not. And I am not the only person who had these thoughts as a child. And btw, maybe you haven't been in primary with very inquisitive children? It can get pretty intense with their questions.

And it is not a "declare victory" statement. Adults in polite society simply don't do this, it is creepy, it is inappropriate: imagine asking someone else's kid in a social context if they live the law of chastity.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it is clear that church leaders not requiring minors to answer questions about their sexual experiences, even the general chastity question, is better than doing so.

I don't think that's clear at all, and that's probably where the debate comes from.  Though we all want to protect children and youth, reasonable people disagree on the best way to do that.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I did not. And I am not the only person who had these thoughts as a child. And btw, maybe you haven't been in primary with very inquisitive children? It can get pretty intense with their questions.

And it is not a "declare victory" statement. Adults in polite society simply don't do this, it is creepy, it is inappropriate: imagine asking someone else's kid in a social context if they live the law of chastity.

It's not a social context though, so I'm not sure how the two scenarios are analogous.  Doctors ask children and youth questions would be very creepy and inappropriate to ask someone else's kids in a social context.  

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

When I took the Boy Scout training it was just online videos that took only around 20 minutes.

If that is the case with the BSA training, I stand corrected. In that case, both organisations will hopefully improve as people get more accostomed to the learning.