Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[webbles]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe that this will at least partially change in the future (and I hope it does).   A great many of our "mandatory" interviews with the youth (where the adult leader instigates the interview) are now 2 deep and it's been great to see (and very successful).  I won't be surprised if those start falling under the requirement to be 2 deep at all times (not just as requested....but that was a step in the right direction).   We are seeing more and more parents and youth leaders (at the request of the youth since they are now aware of this option) involved in these regular interviews.

I do feel that if a youth approaches a leader wanting to talk to them, this may still be allowed (one on one).  But there should not be any probing questions (instigated by the adult while they are alone) regarding masturbation, etc., IMO.

Since grooming can be done by asking about social life, school life, family life, alcohol/drug usage, etc, the adult really shouldn't ask any question.  Otherwise, the adult could be grooming the child.  And answering any questions from the child could also be grooming as well so I'm not sure if the adult can do anything that wouldn't be considered grooming.

[Tacenda]

Just now, webbles said:

Since grooming can be done by asking about social life, school life, family life, alcohol/drug usage, etc, the adult really shouldn't ask any question.  Otherwise, the adult could be grooming the child.  And answering any questions from the child could also be grooming as well so I'm not sure if the adult can do anything that wouldn't be considered grooming.

I think you take that too far. Adults can genuinely ask how their life is etc. without the thought process of thinking it's grooming. Especially when it isn't. Those light questions of asking how their life's going, is a far cry from asking if they touch their private parts or enjoy it or how far it goes, or how many fingers they used, gross, but this was asked by bishops. 

So webbles, by saying no one can ask any questions because it might be grooming, is thinking in extremes.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, webbles said:

Since grooming can be done by asking about social life, school life, family life, alcohol/drug usage, etc, the adult really shouldn't ask any question.  Otherwise, the adult could be grooming the child.  And answering any questions from the child could also be grooming as well so I'm not sure if the adult can do anything that wouldn't be considered grooming.

They can listen, give encouragement or advice.  But I agree....no probing questions or initiating topics (especially of a sexual nature) should take place while alone with a youth.

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you take that too far. Adults can genuinely ask how their life is etc. without the thought process of thinking it's grooming. Especially when it isn't. Those light questions of asking how their life's going, is a far cry from asking if they touch their private parts or enjoy it or how far it goes, or how many fingers they used, gross, but this was asked by bishops. 

So webbles, by saying no one can ask any questions because it might be grooming, is thinking in extremes.

But aren't we trying to protect children from groomers?  If we allow adults to be able to ask any questions (especially in a private one-on-one setting like Bishop's interviews) and that adult is a groomer, then the adult will be able to groom the child.  Sexual questions are just as bad as social questions when the person asking is a groomer.  If the person isn't a groomer, then sexual questions are no worse than a social question.

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Since grooming can be done by asking about social life, school life, family life, alcohol/drug usage, etc, the adult really shouldn't ask any question.  Otherwise, the adult could be grooming the child.  And answering any questions from the child could also be grooming as well so I'm not sure if the adult can do anything that wouldn't be considered grooming.

Are you being serious with this post?

Grooming has a specific intent, and it seems apparent - in my opinion - that Sam Young does not understand what grooming means.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Are you being serious with this post?

Grooming has a specific intent, and it seems apparent - in my opinion - that Sam Young does not understand what grooming means.

I think he over uses that word (especially if he believes that ALL Bishops are involved with this if they are conducting one on one interviews with youth).  

However, there most definitely have been cases of this occurring in the church (and of course elsewhere as well).  If an adult is alone with a child and asks them probing questions of a sexual nature, it's wrong to do.  And, if it's done continually between this same adult and child...then that is grooming, IMO.

I do believe that is rare with church interviews though and we are not to ask questions of a sexual nature like many used to routinely ask (especially regarding masturbation) in these interviews.

Edited August 17, 2019 by ALarson

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sam Young brought a huge amount of attention to this issue. Is it impossible for you to accept that he have been influential in raising this to the consciousness of members and leaders?

Gee, "good start" doesn't sound all that critical. It sounds logical. It's a good step. Is it the only or final step? Of course not. Can more be done and will more be done at some point? I'm certain it will.

So is a "broad overview" all that is needed? Or would more specificity be useful? I'd hate for you to be critical and call the broad overview a "good start" or something awful like that  

 

Personally, I feel it is a "good start" at best. It's kind of the least they could do and I expect the church will do more. They can't do everything all at once so I suspect over time the training will be updated and added upon. But there are still issues that aren't addressed by the training.

Why are bishops and Stake presidents exempt from requirements for 2 deep leadership?

I'm guessing that the church did this with good intentions of battling abuse, but also as a way to address the public expectation and disappointments around the church's policies and procedures. Yes, it can do good, and it's also a decent PR move. But if they think this PR move is all that is needed they are going to be disappointed. More needs to be done. I expect it will. The only question is when.

 

I added a part at the end about what to do when you see or hear about stuff going on with missionaries, specifically excessive teasing, bullying all that stuff. The aren't kids or teens anymore but they are vulnerable, impressionable young folks and can get taken advantage of by members or nonmembers

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They can listen, give encouragement or advice. 

I do not think Sam would agree with.

From his blog:

"Taking minors behind closed doors, beyond the earshot and eyesight of everyone, IS predatory grooming behavior."

** which means every parent, teacher, police officer, Principal, etc who talks to a minor one-on-one, is engaging in "predatory grooming behavior".

 

Notice what he labels "predatory grooming behavior"..."behind closed doors", so would that mean zero "behind closed doors" listening or giving encouragement or adice?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sam Young brought a huge amount of attention to this issue. Is it impossible for you to accept that he have been influential in raising this to the consciousness of members and leaders?

Gee, "good start" doesn't sound all that critical. It sounds logical. It's a good step. Is it the only or final step? Of course not. Can more be done and will more be done at some point? I'm certain it will.

So is a "broad overview" all that is needed? Or would more specificity be useful? I'd hate for you to be critical and call the broad overview a "good start" or something awful like that  

 

Personally, I feel it is a "good start" at best. It's kind of the least they could do and I expect the church will do more. They can't do everything all at once so I suspect over time the training will be updated and added upon. But there are still issues that aren't addressed by the training.

Why are bishops and Stake presidents exempt from requirements for 2 deep leadership?

I'm guessing that the church did this with good intentions of battling abuse, but also as a way to address the public expectation and disappointments around the church's policies and procedures. Yes, it can do good, and it's also a decent PR move. But if they think this PR move is all that is needed they are going to be disappointed. More needs to be done. I expect it will. The only question is when.

 

To my bold...

Sam is planning a march in October, I believe. Maybe this is a PR move to get a head of that?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

I do not think Sam would agree with.

From his blog:

"Taking minors behind closed doors, beyond the earshot and eyesight of everyone, IS predatory grooming behavior."

** which means every parent, teacher, police officer, Principal, etc who talks to a minor one-on-one, is engaging in "predatory grooming behavior".

 

Notice what he labels "predatory grooming behavior"..."behind closed doors", so would that mean zero "behind closed doors" listening or giving encouragement or adice?

Like I've stated.....if the youth instigates the interview, I believe there's no problem with one on one interviews as long as the adult does not use it as an opportunity to ask sexual questions or initiate topics other than what the youth wants to discuss (ie. the purpose for them asking to speak to the adult).

However, if the adult initiates the interview AND then asks probing questions....I can see that as being described as "grooming" or at least potentially so (especially if they start reoccurring at the request of the adult).

There needs to be safeguards in place to prevent this and also to protect the adult leaders as well.  I see the church working towards this goal too.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

But aren't we trying to protect children from groomers?  If we allow adults to be able to ask any questions (especially in a private one-on-one setting like Bishop's interviews) and that adult is a groomer, then the adult will be able to groom the child.  Sexual questions are just as bad as social questions when the person asking is a groomer.  If the person isn't a groomer, then sexual questions are no worse than a social question.

You're right, in the regard that every conversation could potentially be used for grooming purposes. Thankfully most people are good. Unfortunately we can't always tell who the few bad apples are, which make it challenging. But the problem with the church on this issue is that it mandates private interviews. In most conversations both parties engage in the conversation willingly, but when it's an institutionalized requirement if a kid wants to fully participate, it creates a power dynamic where the child/youth really can't say no to a person pulling them in for a private one-on-one interview to talk about the LoC and their masturbatory habits.

In my mind, parents should be cautious of adults who interact with their children and take precautions to protect their children. Part of that would be the simple messaging that  the child doesn't have to be alone with anyone or answer any question they aren't comfortable with. But when these interviews are a part of religious observance, it grants additional power to the adult and the kid just has to take it. After all, God asked the man to ask these questions so it must be ok, right? I hope you can see some of the differences.

[Nofear]

Completed the training. Seemed to pretty much what the BSA one did (a few minor differences) and more. It was generalized to both primary, young men, and young women.

I don't see the LCR having been updated yet to report the protection training status of the members.

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

Are you being serious with this post?

Grooming has a specific intent, and it seems apparent - in my opinion - that Sam Young does not understand what grooming means.

I'm serious.  A groomer can use questions that are not sexual in nature to groom the child.  If the adult isn't a groomer, then the questions are not being done with grooming intention and any question would be ok (sexual, social, etc).  Luckily, not all people are groomers.  But since we can't tell if a person is a groomer or not, then we should not allow adults to ask or answer any question in a one-on-one interview because IF the adult is a groomer, they can use those questions and answers to groom the child.

Just saying that we should stop sexual questions because of a fear of grooming is not enough.  If you really fear grooming, then you should stop all questions and answers in a one-on-one situation.

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right, in the regard that every conversation could potentially be used for grooming purposes. Thankfully most people are good. Unfortunately we can't always tell who the few bad apples are, which make it challenging. But the problem with the church on this issue is that it mandates private interviews. In most conversations both parties engage in the conversation willingly, but when it's an institutionalized requirement if a kid wants to fully participate, it creates a power dynamic where the child/youth really can't say no to a person pulling them in for a private one-on-one interview to talk about the LoC and their masturbatory habits.

In my mind, parents should be cautious of adults who interact with their children and take precautions to protect their children. Part of that would be the simple messaging that  the child doesn't have to be alone with anyone or answer any question they aren't comfortable with. But when these interviews are a part of religious observance, it grants additional power to the adult and the kid just has to take it. After all, God asked the man to ask these questions so it must be ok, right? I hope you can see some of the differences.

I agree with you.  I just don't see why you focus so much on questions around LoC and masturbatory habits.  All questions in that situation are influenced by the additional power.  Any question in that situation can be used to influence/groom/etc the child if the adult wanted to do that.  Any question could also be considered abuse, depending on the child.  I hated being asked social, family, etc questions in one-on-one interviews.  They were torture to me.  But I couldn't say no or stop it because it was required of me.  Even now, I hate going to one-on-one interviews because of those questions.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm serious.  A groomer can use questions that are not sexual in nature to groom the child.  If the adult isn't a groomer, then the questions are not being done with grooming intention and any question would be ok (sexual, social, etc).  Luckily, not all people are groomers.  But since we can't tell if a person is a groomer or not, then we should not allow adults to ask or answer any question in a one-on-one interview because IF the adult is a groomer, they can use those questions and answers to groom the child.

Just saying that we should stop sexual questions because of a fear of grooming is not enough.  If you really fear grooming, then you should stop all questions and answers in a one-on-one situation.

I wasn't paying attention possibly, but I agree there shouldn't be a one-on-one in a private setting such as a car, or office etc where grooming can happen, I guess I was thinking out in the hall or in public more. Too bad the latest training didn't include bishop's/counselors/councilors for staying two or three deep.

Just thought of something, years ago my nephew's young men president drove him home from an activity and they were alone in the car. Well my nephew was struggling with possibly the WoW or something and not wanting to attend church and he told his mom afterward that the YM's president starting yelling & swearing at him for not being active enough and stuff. I think that did more harm to his testimony. So hopefully two deep include's YM presidencies. 

See article below, I believe a bishop/SP/high councilman/counselors whatever, shouldn't be one-on-one any longer as well. There is a man in the news right now who was in Tennesee recently, possibly to pick up his son from a mission. He and his wife were at the mall in an H&M store and he video'd a young woman in the dressing room. Luckily she saw the phone up in the corner and came right out and quickly knocked his phone on the ground picked it up and ran to the store manager to show them before this dude deleted what he'd filmed. Turns out he is a former bishop and now a high councilor. So when men like him could at one time interview a young man/woman alone, it's dangerous!

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/man-accused-of-taking-pictures-in-opry-mills-dressing-room

https://fox13now.com/2019/08/16/utah-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-voyeurism-in-nashville-mall-fitting-room/

Edited August 17, 2019 by Tacenda

[provoman]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Like I've stated.....if the youth instigates the interview, I believe there's no problem with one on one interviews as long as the adult does not use it as an opportunity to ask sexual questions or initiate topics other than what the youth wants to discuss (ie. the purpose for them asking to speak to the adult).

However, if the adult initiates the interview AND then asks probing questions....I can see that as being described as "grooming" or at least potentially so (especially if they start reoccurring at the request of the adult).

There needs to be safeguards in place to prevent this and also to protect the adult leaders as well.  I see the church working towards this goal too.

Thank for sharing, I believe I understand your position.

 If we take Sam for the words he used, then no interviews period.

If a minor says "Bishop can I talk to you in private about being bullied in Sunday School", according to sam's postings it would be "predatory grooming behavior" for the Bishop to speak to the minor "behind closed doors" about being bullied.

Sam has, in my opinion, set a zero tolerance standard for any "behind closed door" conversation between ANY adult and ANY minor regardless of the relationship.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think this is in danger of being anywhere close to "too much," if that's even possible.

The danger is a legal liability one, not being too informed.

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sam Young brought a huge amount of attention to this issue. Is it impossible for you to accept that he have been influential in raising this to the consciousness of members and leaders?

Gee, "good start" doesn't sound all that critical. It sounds logical. It's a good step. Is it the only or final step? Of course not. Can more be done and will more be done at some point? I'm certain it will.

So is a "broad overview" all that is needed? Or would more specificity be useful? I'd hate for you to be critical and call the broad overview a "good start" or something awful like that  

 

Personally, I feel it is a "good start" at best. It's kind of the least they could do and I expect the church will do more. They can't do everything all at once so I suspect over time the training will be updated and added upon. But there are still issues that aren't addressed by the training.

Why are bishops and Stake presidents exempt from requirements for 2 deep leadership?

I'm guessing that the church did this with good intentions of battling abuse, but also as a way to address the public expectation and disappointments around the church's policies and procedures. Yes, it can do good, and it's also a decent PR move. But if they think this PR move is all that is needed they are going to be disappointed. More needs to be done. I expect it will. The only question is when.

Not impossible for me to accept but I also do not consider it likely. Our apostates always seem delusional about how influential they are. It is also key that the main thing Young was going on about (bishop interviews) did not change. On what basis would you argue that he influenced this change?

They are exempt in the case of interviews because the interviewee sometimes wants to confess and that should be kept private.

I also disagree that this is primarily a PR move.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Completed the training. Seemed to pretty much what the BSA one did (a few minor differences) and more. It was generalized to both primary, young men, and young women.

I don't see the LCR having been updated yet to report the protection training status of the members.

It is in the reports section but I am not sure who has access. I was hopefully Presidents would have it but it could be just Bishop and Clerk or just Bishopric and Clerk or something else. The access table has not been updated yet.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

They can listen, give encouragement or advice.  But I agree....no probing questions or initiating topics (especially of a sexual nature) should take place while alone with a youth.

Initiating any topic? This is stupid overprotectiveness.

”Is everything going okay at home?” GROOMING!!!

”Did you enjoy the campout last week?” GROOMING!!!

“How is school going?” GROOMING!!!

[Meadowchik]

Sam Young invited stories on his website which have impacted people. The platform included believers and non-believers and exposed the various child safety hazards inherent in the church's practices.

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Initiating any topic? This is stupid overprotectiveness.

”Is everything going okay at home?” GROOMING!!!

”Did you enjoy the campout last week?” GROOMING!!!

“How is school going?” GROOMING!!!

Oh, of course those types of questions (making light conversation, etc.) are not what I was referring to.  I thought that was obvious (but apparently not  )

I'm referring to instigating any conversations while alone with a youth that involve any type of probing (or privacy invasive) questions and most specifically any of a sexual nature.  Those are what should be avoided (and we've received instruction to avoid them now from our stake leaders).

[bluebell]

I did the training this morning.  It was well done, didn't seem to take a full 30 minutes but maybe it did and I just didn't notice.  I appreciated that it reminded anyone who is not a bishop or stake president to immediately go to the authorities (and then the bishop) if abuse of any kind is suspected.

I'm assume that that advice isn't given to bishops and stake presidents because their legal designation as clergy can impact their legal responsibility depending on the local laws, and the church doesn't want them to make the situation harder to prosecute if they provide information to law enforcement that they were not legally allowed to provide.

[MustardSeed]

Tragic. 

I’m in the yw.  I have a reputation of being one that yw can trust with grave concerns.  I love to take a walk up and down the street with the young people and talk- so much less intense than sitting across from someone, and much less intimidating than two leaders sitting across from someone.  

I understand why I cannot do that- due to hideous betrayals of perps, but it’s really sad. 

 

[bluebell]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Tragic. 

I’m in the yw.  I have a reputation of being one that yw can trust with grave concerns.  I love to take a walk up and down the street with the young people and talk- so much less intense than sitting across from someone, and much less intimidating than two leaders sitting across from someone.  

I understand why I cannot do that- due to hideous betrayals of perps, but it’s really sad. 

 

I could not agree more.  We are trading some problems for others with these new restrictions.  Because of evil and conspiring people that trade off is necessary, but we will still see some negative consequences from losing the good while trying to prevent the bad.  It's inevitable. 

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Tragic. 

I’m in the yw.  I have a reputation of being one that yw can trust with grave concerns.  I love to take a walk up and down the street with the young people and talk- so much less intense than sitting across from someone, and much less intimidating than two leaders sitting across from someone.  

I understand why I cannot do that- due to hideous betrayals of perps, but it’s really sad. 

 

Yeah, it is sad. Kids have a strange trust of me and talk to me a lot and I always worry how that looks to others. The sooner we burn the wicked the better. Well, except that I would probably be a pile of ashes at that point. Still probably worth it.