High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's not ad hominem.  It's the natural and foreseeable consequence of these folks getting their way.  

Surely these folks are not so stupid and myopic as to be unaware of the countless instances in which a bishop has been instrumental in detecting and stopping abuse.  Surely not.  The alternative, then, is that these folks are not stupidly ignorant of the foreseeable consequences of their demands.  They are aware of those consequences, and they just don't care about them.

What "guidelines and boundaries" do you think need to be added?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's difficult to measure the net benefit or harm of these interviews.

For example, has the church released any reports of abuse cases detected during bishopric interviews? And then does it provide statistics on abuse cases occuring within the church, either within families, between members, by those in leadership positions, and abuse occurring during interviews themselves?

To my knowledge there are no such reports.

But there are other types of harm and benefit having nothing to do with abuse or abuse (sexual or any kind) being reported.

As far as opportunities to report abuse, however, there are plenty of ways to create them in a church community without one-on-one worthiness interviews.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Meadowchik

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

What "guidelines and boundaries" do you think need to be added?

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not rockpond and I also no longer associate with the church, but fwiw I’ll give my thoughts. 

I would love to have the church publish guidance about in-bound and out-of-bounds questions when it comes to chastity. I can understand general questions (from the church’s standpoint) like “Did you have s*x? How many times?” More detailed questions than these (questions about positions, org*sms, etc) seem voyeuristic. Having specific published guidelines would help produce accountability for those interviewing.

I think a yearly lesson on abuse to the youth where they are taught age appropriate information would be helpful. As part of these lessons, the fallibility of even church leaders like bishops should be discussed. The youth should be given specific guidance on what to do if anyone, including the bishop, is making you feel uncomfortable. 

I also think it would be prudent for the church to establish something like an ombudsman that could receive and process complaints about these types of things.

Thanks,

John

Edited November 7, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but I am more trustworthy with my anecdotes than they are.

It is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking someone to discredit their argument. I am suggesting what their motives are. That does not discredit the argument. My argument that interviews end more abuse then they start is refutation. I am speculating about their motives for fun. I am also (speaking generally and not specifically) right about their motives.

Nothing you’ve written here shows me that you understand their motives. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, this list:

Why aren't you smearing all female teachers as presumptive perverts and child molesters, the way you are with bishops?

Ang again, what about the Church's published guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse?"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency)?

An excerpt:

Are you aware of this policy?  It seems not.

I think bishops are becoming less willing to meet with youth.  Because of despicable things said about them by people like Sam Young (and folks who replicate his endless smears against all bishops, like...)

-Smac

Because they aren't the ones assigned to give one on one interviews, definitely they should be two deep as well, in most cases, as with the men. I hope I don't have to keep reiterating my stance. Maybe you don't take the time to read all of my posts on this thread. 

And yes, I'm aware of the recent change that allows a parent, thanks to Sam's protest.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Tacenda

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Again, this list:

Why aren't you smearing all female teachers as presumptive perverts and child molesters, the way you are with bishops?

Ang again, what about the Church's published guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse?"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency)?

An excerpt:

Are you aware of this policy?  It seems not.

I think bishops are becoming less willing to meet with youth.  Because of despicable things said about them by people like Sam Young (and folks who replicate his endless smears against all bishops, like...)

-Smac

Because they aren't the ones assigned to give one on one interviews,

And for that you feel it appropriate to smear them as presumptive perverts and child molesters?  Even the ones who give interviews in an entirely above-board and appropriate manner?

And your statement is nonresponsive.  Why aren't you smearing all female teachers, some few of which have engaged in misconduct, as presumptive perverts and child molesters, the way you are with bishops (some few of which have engaged in misconduct)?  

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

definitely they should be two deep as well, in most cases, as with the men.

The exact same thing can be said of bishops.  And yet here you are, endlessly smearing all bishops because of the misconduct of a very few.  Meanwhile, you seem to be giving female teachers a pass.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's difficult to measure the net benefit or harm of these interviews.

It is?

Here's one:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.
...
The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.
...
The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . the Church's training and resources.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" connected to a law firm (Kirton & McConkie) that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.  Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

None of this is being acknowledged by the execrable Craig Vernon, or Sam Young, who know about all of these efforts, but also know that these efforts undermine the false narrative they are crafting against the LDS Church.  

So, your thoughts?  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

For example, has the church released any reports of abuse cases detected during bishopric interviews?

I don't think so.  

Are you aware of any instances of such abuse?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And then does it provide statistics on abuse cases occuring within the church, either within families, between members, by those in leadership positions, and abuse occurring during interviews themselves?

Again, I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

To my knowledge there are no such reports.

I concur.  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

But there are other types of harm and benefit having nothing to do with abuse or abuse (sexual or any kind) being reported.

Such as?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

As far as opportunities to report abuse, however, there are plenty of ways to create them in a church community without one-on-one worthiness interviews.

And you know this . . . how?

And why are these other ways mutually exclusive to one-on-one interviews?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not rockpond and I also no longer associate with the church, but fwiw I’ll give my thoughts. 

I would love to have the church publish guidance about in-bound and out-of-bounds questions when it comes to chastity. I can understand general questions (from the church’s standpoint) like “Did you have s*x? How many times?”

I agree that these questions can be appropriate, but still need to be handled with tact and decorum.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

More detailed questions than these (questions about positions, org*sms, etc) seem voyeuristic.

I quite agree.  I can't imagine that such questions would be relevant or appropriate.

And FWIW, I harbor some real skepticism about narratives posted online by Sam Young and his ilk that have bishops asking such questions.  These narratives are unvetted, anonymous, unsubstantiated, and are intended to be lurid and sensationalistic.  The temptation to exaggerate in such circumstances can be strong.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Having specific published guidelines would help produce accountability for those interviewing.

I'm not sure how "specific" such guidelines could be.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think a yearly lesson on abuse to the youth where they are taught age appropriate information would be helpful.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I don't think the Church's ecclesiastical leaders should be teaching matters of sexuality (apart from abstaining from such things).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As part of these lessons, the fallibility of even church leaders like bishops should be discussed.

How would that go?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The youth should be given specific guidance on what to do if anyone, including the bishop, is making you feel uncomfortable. 

I'd be okay with that.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I also think it would be prudent for the church to establish something like an ombudsman that could receive and process complaints about these types of things.

Hmm.  An interesting idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

As an adult, why would I? But as a youth, no problem. And again, I've no qualms about an older youth having a one on one, if they need to clear something up.

You are holding the youth to a standard that don't hold yourself to. 

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is?

Here's one:

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . the Church's training and resources.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" connected to a law firm (Kirton & McConkie) that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.  Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

None of this is being acknowledged by the execrable Craig Vernon, or Sam Young, who know about all of these efforts, but also know that these efforts undermine the false narrative they are crafting against the LDS Church.  

So, your thoughts?  

I don't think so.  

Are you aware of any instances of such abuse?

Again, I don't think so.

I concur.  

Such as?

And you know this . . . how?

And why are these other ways mutually exclusive to one-on-one interviews?

Thanks,

-Smac

An anecdote cannot provide insight on net impact.

Yes, I am aware of abuse occurring during interviews, or by church leaders, etc...

As for other types of benefit and harm are pretty obvious: like the psychological benefits potential used by confession and compassionate listening, or the harm of being conditioned to trust strangers who hold a position of authority.

Reporting of abuse does occur in situations throughout society outside of 1-1 worthiness interviews. Create a space that is safe and merits trust, and the church can continue to be a place where the vulnerable can seek help.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nothing you’ve written here shows me that you understand their motives. 

Oh no. Whatever shall I do?

Edited November 7, 2019 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh no. Whatever shall I do?

That's up to you.  You wrote:  "I am also (speaking generally and not specifically) right about their motives."

You've presented no evidence to support such a claim.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An anecdote cannot provide insight on net impact.

Ah.  So you are likewise skeptical of the anecdotes offered by Sam Young?

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, I am aware of abuse occurring during interviews, or by church leaders, etc...

Really?  CFR, then.

And I'm sure you will not be presenting unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymous stories published by Sam Young, since they "cannot provide insight or net impact."

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As for other types of benefit and harm are pretty obvious: like the psychological benefits potential used by confession and compassionate listening, or the harm of being conditioned to trust strangers who hold a position of authority.

A bishop is not a "stranger."

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Reporting of abuse does occur in situations throughout society outside of 1-1 worthiness interviews.

I acknowledge that.  But reporting of abuse also occurs as a direct result of one-on-one bishop's interviews.  Do you acknowledge that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So you are likewise skeptical of the anecdotes offered by Sam Young?

Really?  CFR, then.

And I'm sure you will not be presenting unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymous stories published by Sam Young, since they "cannot provide insight or net impact."

A bishop is not a "stranger."

I acknowledge that.  But reporting of abuse also occurs as a direct result of one-on-one bishop's interviews.  Do you acknowledge that?

Thanks,

-Smac

I do not doubt that anecdotes can be true, what I said is that they cannot tell us net impact.

From wiki: "

• In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.^[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.^[3]

 

• In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.^[4][5]

 

• In Mid-2013, LDS member Michael Jensen 16-year-old son of a respected local Mormon family. While still on his mission in Arizona, was brought back to West Virginia for questioning. Jensen was convicted that year of sexually abusing Spring’s children and is currently serving a prison sentence of 35 years to 75 years in a West Virginia state prison. At the time of his sentencing, a state judge classified him as a “violent sexual predator.”^[6]

 

• In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.^[7]

 

• In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.^[8]

 

• In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.^[9]

 

• In 2016, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court denial of the United Effort Plan Trust's motion for summary judgment, in a lawsuit brought by "J.W." against Bruce Wisan, the trust's current leader. The trust was operated for the express purpose of furthering Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, including the practice of marriage involving underage girls.[1]
• In August 2017, former LDS Church bishop Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two teenage boys from his congregation in Mapleton, Utah. The abuse occurred in June 2014 during his tenure as bishop. Hughes received concurrent 1-15 year prison sentences on the sexual abuse counts, and 0–5 years in prison for witness tampering.^[10]

 

• On August 15, 2017, MormonLeaks published a three-hundred and sixteen (316) page document which contained confirmed and alleged instances of child sexual abuse between 1959 and 2017.^[11]

 

• On October 30, 2017, an Australian court sentenced Darran Scott to 10 years in prison for sexually abusing boys, some of whom he met as a Mormon leader.^[12]"

 

^{A bishop can absolutely be a stranger. There is nothing preventing bishops from doing worthiness interviews upon first meeting a member or someone they've never spoken to personally before. I've experienced this multiple times and the practice would indicate that this happens with regularity.} 

^{Yes, I acknowledge that benefit (of directly resulting in reporting) just as I acknowledged and explicitely described benefits from these interviews.} 

^{The overall question that I am addressing is twofold: 1)What is the net impact of 1-1 worthiness interviews? 2) Are 1-1 worthiness interviews the only way those benefits--specifically the benefits of abuse reporting--occur?}

^{I can say that those who oppose such interviews are concerned about these questions and many feel that that they may have net harm and that reporting of abuse can otherwise be possible without 1-1 worthiness interviews.}

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

• In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.^[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.^[3]

 

• In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.^[4][5]

 

• In Mid-2013, LDS member Michael Jensen 16-year-old son of a respected local Mormon family. While still on his mission in Arizona, was brought back to West Virginia for questioning. Jensen was convicted that year of sexually abusing Spring’s children and is currently serving a prison sentence of 35 years to 75 years in a West Virginia state prison. At the time of his sentencing, a state judge classified him as a “violent sexual predator.”^[6]

 

• In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.^[7]

 

• In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.^[8]

 

• In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.^[9]

 

• In 2016, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court denial of the United Effort Plan Trust's motion for summary judgment, in a lawsuit brought by "J.W." against Bruce Wisan, the trust's current leader. The trust was operated for the express purpose of furthering Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, including the practice of marriage involving underage girls.[1]
• In August 2017, former LDS Church bishop Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two teenage boys from his congregation in Mapleton, Utah. The abuse occurred in June 2014 during his tenure as bishop. Hughes received concurrent 1-15 year prison sentences on the sexual abuse counts, and 0–5 years in prison for witness tampering.^[10]

 

• On August 15, 2017, MormonLeaks published a three-hundred and sixteen (316) page document which contained confirmed and alleged instances of child sexual abuse between 1959 and 2017.^[11]

 

• On October 30, 2017, an Australian court sentenced Darran Scott to 10 years in prison for sexually abusing boys, some of whom he met as a Mormon leader.^[12]"

First, I am curious if you read these, and if so, why you chose to use these specific examples.  Many of these are not even bishops, or even LDS.  One is the son of a "respected Mormon family"... One is from the FLDS faith... One abuse happened on a church-owned pineapple farm (no bishop mentioned), one was of a bishop luring an underage girl online who was not even in his congregation...  The MormonLeaks document is full of allegations and is not about bishops only.  Why are you showing us these examples as evidence?

No one has denied that bishops have been guilty of abuse, but I don't see any documented cases where this has happened during the interview process.  

Edited November 7, 2019 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that these questions can be appropriate, but still need to be handled with tact and decorum.

I quite agree.  I can't imagine that such questions would be relevant or appropriate.

And FWIW, I harbor some real skepticism about narratives posted online by Sam Young and his ilk that have bishops asking such questions.  These narratives are unvetted, anonymous, unsubstantiated, and are intended to be lurid and sensationalistic.  The temptation to exaggerate in such circumstances can be strong.

No doubt some of this happens. However, based on my first hand experience and first person knowledge I find the stories in general to be credible. It’s a big church with not just bishops interviewing, but counselors as well. While I think it is A very rare exception that a bishop is an abuser, I think the temptation to cross the line in questioning is probably strong (I mean how wide spread is p*rn use in the church?)

Quote

I'm not sure how "specific" such guidelines could be.

I think the examples I gave could be used just fine. 

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I don't think the Church's ecclesiastical leaders should be teaching matters of sexuality (apart from abstaining from such things).

sorry. I think it was a bad edit. I meant a yearly lesson on abuse in all its forms at an age appropriate level. The BSA puts out some great info hear. Schools do as well as part of their health classes. Not a birds and the bees kind of thing. 

Quote

How would that go?

Merely a statement that we are all fallible, and rarely even trusted adults like bishops, teachers etc can be abusers. 

Quote

I'd be okay with that.

Hmm.  An interesting idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, I am curious if you read these, and if so, why you chose to use these specific examples.  Many of these are not even bishops, or even LDS.  One is the son of a "respected Mormon family"... One is from the FLDS faith... One abuse happened on a church-owned pineapple farm (no bishop mentioned), one was of a bishop luring an underage girl online who was not even in his congregation...  The MormonLeaks document is full of allegations and is not about bishops only.  Why are you showing us these examples as evidence?

No one has denied that bishops have been guilty of abuse, but I don't see any documented cases where this has happened during the interview process.  

At least three were bishops abusing minors in their wards.  The nature of bishop interviews provides predators unique opportunities to exploit potential victims. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's up to you.  You wrote:  "I am also (speaking generally and not specifically) right about their motives."

You've presented no evidence to support such a claim.

You want evidence to support a claim about psychology. Yeah, good luck with that.

You can play that game with anything. You can claim the guy this thread is about was not actually doing it for the sexual thrill, maybe it is a personal sociological experiment about the dangers of a surveillance society and he created this incident to highlight the problem. You would call me crazy and be right because it is obvious why he did it but you would be hard pressed to prove it.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You want evidence to support a claim about psychology. Yeah, good luck with that.

Then you should not be claiming knowledge about their motives beyond what they have stated.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can play that game with anything. You can claim the guy this thread is about was not actually doing it for the sexual thrill, maybe it is a personal sociological experiment about the dangers of a surveillance society and he created this incident to highlight the problem.

And if I made such a claim on this thread, I would be called upon to support it.  Would I not?

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You would call me crazy and be right because it is obvious why he did it but you would be hard pressed to prove it.

I think you are crazy to claim that you know the motivations of the thousands of people that support ending one on one interviews with youth/children.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

At least three were bishops abusing minors in their wards.  The nature of bishop interviews provides predators unique opportunities to exploit potential victims. 

Not really. Bishop interviews are probably close to the worst time. The child or teen is probably on edge already unless they are older or confident (making them a worse target). Someone, usually many someones, are right outside the door. Often they have a key to the office and could come in unexpectedly. The duration of an interview is usually not long, especially with youth. If the parents are at all conscientious they will talk to the child or teen afterwards just to check in. It is almost a perfect storm of not being good for abuse except for the one on one nature.

If I were looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse a teen or child I would target at a camp out or an activity and not something as public as an interview.

The complaint that was voiced earlier (not in this quote) that talking to kids about chastity trains them to trust authority in talking about sex is also silly. School teachers teach Sex Ed. Parents hopefully teach before that. All authority figures. Both teaching much more. I hope you are not suggesting that they would be better off learning from peers instead of authority figures.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then you should not be claiming knowledge about their motives beyond what they have stated.

And if I made such a claim on this thread, I would be called upon to support it.  Would I not?

I think you are crazy to claim that you know the motivations of the thousands of people that support ending one on one interviews with youth/children.

Yet I claim it anyways. It is in the way they argue for it. Human behavior has patterns that are not that hard to read. I am not going to pretend ignorance.

No One has produced anything substantial supporting the hypothesis that asking about the law of chastity is damaging or even grooming so I do not feel obligated to accept that standard either.

I did say generally and not specifically. I am just claiming to know the motives of most of them.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

At least three were bishops abusing minors in their wards.  The nature of bishop interviews provides predators unique opportunities to exploit potential victims. 

CFR

This is asserted endlessly as if substantiated and proven. I would argue it is a really bad opportunity.

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think you are crazy to claim that you know the motivations of the thousands of people that support ending one on one interviews with youth/children.

One of the features of moral panics is that they attract all kinds of supporters who find fulfilment in or sympathy with the movement for a variety of reasons. It is a bit easier -- though always contestable -- to analyse the motives of those fomenting the moral panic.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

CFR

This is asserted endlessly as if substantiated and proven. I would argue it is a really bad opportunity.

You just refused to answer a CFR yourself @The Nehor.  I see no reason why @Meadowchik should bother responding to your CFR.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the features of moral panics is that they attract all kinds of supporters who find fulfilment in or sympathy with the movement for a variety of reasons. It is a bit easier -- though always contestable -- to analyse the motives of those fomenting the moral panic.

So is it also fair then to claim that the motives of those who support one on one bishops youth interviews as just blindly following their leaders and accepting that church policy cannot be wrong?

This is a ridiculous game to play.  As I suggested earlier - I think both sides of this discussion ought to be able to disagree for valid reasons without needing to make unsubstantiated claims about "why" the other side feels the way they do and what everyone on the other side "ignores".

Moral panic, emotional, delusioned, religious zealots, blind followers... all are just ways to get around discussing the actual issue.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So is it also fair then to claim that the motives of those who support one on one bishops youth interviews as just blindly following their leaders and accepting that church policy cannot be wrong?

Yes, if that is actually what they are saying/writing. I suspect that is probably an accurate description of a number of members who haven't jumped on this particular bandwagon.

But this in no way supports your argument that the internal logic of a social movement cannot be discerned by carefully analysing the words and actions of the movement's leader/s.