High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm willing to concede that there are guidelines on what should be talked about

What is the language used for calling the hotline in cases of abuse?  It would be interesting to compare as iirc the hotline instructions qualify in my view as constraints (required, not advised).

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What is the language used for calling the hotline in cases of abuse?  It would be interesting to compare as iirc the hotline instructions qualify in my view as constraints (required, not advised).

I’m not sure what you have in mind.  But, here’s the section from CHI 1 if it’ll help you identify what you’re thinking of:

Abuse Help Line

In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops (1-801-240-1911 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-1911). These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused. Stake presidents and bishops should also call the help line if they become aware of the viewing, purchasing, or distributing of child pornography.
This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.
When stake presidents or bishops call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse.
A bishop should also notify his stake president of instances of abuse.
In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president, who will seek guidance from the Area Presidency.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused

The language here is not ambiguous. “Should promptly call” and “Every situation” 

“should also notify”

Those are what I would described as instruction for mandatory actions. I would look for the same type of absolute language in something I labeled as a constraint. 

So far I don’t remember that level of language limitations in the youth interviews. 

I am not certain there should be as this might prevent a leader from helping a youth become appropriately comfortable in discussing something the youth wants to discuss, but I can see why some might think it a good idea. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The language here is not ambiguous. “Should promptly call” and “Every situation” 

“should also notify”

Those are what I would described as instruction for mandatory actions. I would look for the same type of absolute language in something I labeled as a constraint. 

So far I don’t remember that level of language limitations in the youth interviews. 

I am not certain there should be as this might prevent a leader from helping a youth become appropriately comfortable in discussing something the youth wants to discuss, but I can see why some might think it a good idea. 

Ah... now I understand what you were getting at.  Thanks. 

[Meadowchik]

On 11/8/2019 at 7:33 PM, smac97 said:

Not really.

Moreover, the Church's current policies and guidlines impose some real constraints on the extent to which such topics are addressed by bishops.

Again, why are you so insistent on ignoring the Church's policies and guidelines on this issue?  Why are you pretending that the Church treats "asking sexually explicit questions" as an appropriate part of bishops' interviews?

 

I am not ignoring the guidelines provided by the church, as I already acknowledged: "I don't think guidelines on how to "appropriately" inquire about a child's sexual experiences are adequate. Just don't let [inquir[ing] about a child's sexual experiences] be an acceptable practice."

Reading your responses to the others here, I do not see any specific constraints. The fact is, the guidelines intentionally provide leeway for a bishop to discuss in more or less detail as he feels appropriate. Rather than a careful restrainment, the guidelines leave alot up to how the bishop feels and judges the situation. As Eric Hawkins explained: 

Quote

"Well, I think the conversation needs to be according to the understanding of that young person. You may have a young woman who is 11 years old, or 12 years old, 13 years old, who is completely innocent. You may have one of her counterparts who is of the same age, but very, very mature in her thinking, and the ways of the world, and so forth. And so the conversation would be very different for those two individuals. And that's what's outlined in the guidelines for bishops, as far as interviews." https://www.thisamericanlife.org/661/transcript?fbclid=IwAR2dY8xqDsESFdE_MXcJJbJ1goCTued8vn4RAmbb3Mb5gqbgd9Xlsvj3yAs

So the guidelines do not restrict the conversation to a yes or no question like, "Do you live the law of chastity?"  and they are meant to allow bishops the guidance to go into more detail. 

It is common knowledge that the bishop, when evaluating a possible violation of chastity, will ask questions to understand the "severity" of the chastity violation. The matter is again, not just one of whether a person is living the law of chastity or not, but in what ways they are potentially not living it. This need to discuss potential issues with a person's sexuality, depending on their level of "innocence" or worldliness is a direct result of the point I made previously:

Quote

Bishop worthiness interviews create a space where it is acceptable for an adult to inquire about a child's sexual experiences from a moralistic, judgmental perspective, as a standard practice. 

Schools and doctors do not make a child's sexual experiences an object of their moralistic judgment. Education on human sexuality does not require personal questions to students, it does not require personal questions which are then use to make moralistic judgments over a student's sexuality. Neither does the practice of medicine.

[Meadowchik]

On 11/8/2019 at 7:52 PM, The Nehor said:

So it could potentially possibly be used but has not so we should do something. Someone could theoretically kill someone with a spork. Where is the campaign to ban sporks? If steps need to be taken shouldn’t we target a practice that is tied to lots of cases of abuse?

I actually worry this campaign is going to end up helping abusers. Abusive parents now have a ‘cover story’ to insist on being present during any interview and mitigate an abused child’s ability to seek help or escape. They tell the bishop they want to be there at any interview with their children. An older child comes to the bishop, more likely because some abuse to a younger child. The bishop calls in the parents. The child is dismayed and the parents ferret out afterwards what the child was trying to do. Punishment follows. I cannot substantiate that specific scenario but this is what happens when children are caught by abusive parents trying to get help.

You know, it would be really helpful if, as part of its standard practice of dealing with reports of sexual abuse, that the church had some kind of recording system, to provide insight on the relationship between worthiness interviews and abuse disclosures, and other church contact and abuse disclosures, and numbers on which reports result in further reports to law enforcement and referrals to medical and therapeutic services. That could give us an idea of the role the interviews have in abuse disclosure compared to the role other types of church contact has in abuse disclosures.

Anyways, it's not just about the chance of a worthiness interview facilitating sexual abuse. It is also that such intimacy is just wrong. It is a violation of a child's privacy for a bishop to be asking questions about a child's sexual experiences. It's none of his business. It's none of the church's business. Parents may or may not understand what interviews entail, and they may or may not consent to the privacy violation, but it's still wrong. 

I think that children can have the opportunity to disclose potential abuse when they have ongoing relationships with responsible adults, relationships with boundaries that respect their privacy. After all, disclosures do occur in other contexts when privacy is more respected,

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You know, it would be really helpful if, as part of its standard practice of dealing with reports of sexual abuse, that the church had some kind of recording system, to provide insight on the relationship between worthiness interviews and abuse disclosures, and other church contact and abuse disclosures, and numbers on which reports result in further reports to law enforcement and referrals to medical and therapeutic services. That could give us an idea of the role the interviews have in abuse disclosure compared to the role other types of church contact has in abuse disclosures.

Anyways, it's not just about the chance of a worthiness interview facilitating sexual abuse. It is also that such intimacy is just wrong. It is a violation of a child's privacy for a bishop to be asking questions about a child's sexual experiences. It's none of his business. It's none of the church's business. Parents may or may not understand what interviews entail, and they may or may not consent to the privacy violation, but it's still wrong. 

I think that children can have the opportunity to disclose potential abuse when they have ongoing relationships with responsible adults, relationships with boundaries that respect their privacy. After all, disclosures do occur in other contexts when privacy is more respected,

I know, they can inform neighbors, teachers and friends. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know, they can inform neighbors, teachers and friends. 

I think it was Hamba who cited a study that showed librarians were among the most frequent choice of kids to report abuse to. 

Makes me wonder if there is a need for both familiarity and distance coupled with a sense of authority to maximize the feeling of being safe. 

Librarians are not someone they need to see every day. Maybe that allows them to feel more comfortable taking a risk to share. 

If so, limiting the people that provide the right sort of balance between familiarity and distance could be detrimental.

Anyone know of any studies on why kids choose who they do report to?

———

As far as friends go, I believe the typical stat used in the US is 9 in 10 tell another child rather than an adult. The problem there is the other child may not tell anyone else.  I believe they are much less likely to pass on the info than an adult, but need to refresh my memory of studies to be sure.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:23 PM, Calm said:

What is the language used for calling the hotline in cases of abuse?  It would be interesting to compare as iirc the hotline instructions qualify in my view as constraints (required, not advised).

I was told, repeatedly, to call the hotline every time I received allegations of abuse.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

On 11/10/2019 at 5:42 AM, Meadowchik said:

It is a violation of a child's privacy for a bishop to be asking questions about a child's sexual experiences. It's none of his business. It's none of the church's business. Parents may or may not understand what interviews entail, and they may or may not consent to the privacy violation, but it's still wrong. 

Obviously you think its wrong, and you have the right to think it is wrong for you or maybe your children.

Why should your point of view control my children?

I brought up your the whole bishops abusing children in interviews with my children in our daily gospel discussion. My children  (ages 9, 14, 16 17)  and they think you are total wrong. I What I resent is people like you telling my children (who you don't know)about how bad interviews with our bishop (Who you don't know) of our ward (which you don't attend) in our church (which you don't believe in)  is wrong.

I don't think it is a violation of my child's privacy.

My 9 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy.

My 14 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

My 16 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

my 17 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy 

The comment from my 16 year old was "how can the bishop know if we are worthy if he doesn't ask questions."

Also, "If I wasn't worthy and had to talk to the bishop about it, I certainly wouldn't want someone else listening in".

These children that you are supposedly trying to protect don't need your protection. 

They know about sexual abuse. They know family member who were raped as a child.  We talk about abuse and how to avoid it regularly.

They know about child abusers.  There is a convicted child abuser who's family we and our children associate with regularly. They also know that there are other abusers that aren't caught yet and they need to be  careful.  

They know about boundaries. They know that being a bishop or stake president or whatever doesn't give the person the right to cross boundaries.

Stop trying to help where it is not needed and not wanted.  If you are truly concerned with abuse and violence volunteer at a shelter, or with law enforcement or something useful.

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Obviously you think its wrong, and you have the right to think it is wrong for you or maybe your children.

Why should your point of view control my children?

I brought up your the whole bishops abusing children in interviews with my children in our daily gospel discussion. My children  (ages 9, 14, 16 17)  and they think you are total wrong. I What I resent is people like you telling my children (who you don't know)about how bad interviews with our bishop (Who you don't know) of our ward (which you don't attend) in our church (which you don't believe in)  is wrong.

I don't think it is a violation of my child's privacy.

My 9 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy.

My 14 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

My 16 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

my 17 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy 

The comment from my 16 year old was "how can the bishop know if we are worthy if he doesn't ask questions."

Also, "If I wasn't worthy and had to talk to the bishop about it, I certainly wouldn't want someone else listening in".

These children that you are supposedly trying to protect don't need your protection. 

They know about sexual abuse. They know family member who were raped as a child.  We talk about abuse and how to avoid it regularly.

They know about child abusers.  There is a convicted child abuser who's family we and our children associate with regularly. They also know that there are other abusers that aren't caught yet and they need to be  careful.  

They know about boundaries. They know that being a bishop or stake president or whatever doesn't give the person the right to cross boundaries.

Stop trying to help where it is not needed and not wanted.  If you are truly concerned with abuse and violence volunteer at a shelter, or with law enforcement or something useful.

The systemic standards of the church are just as much my business as yours. And btw, none of us actually have a direct say in these decisions. You and your kids can discount my opinion as much as you all want, but that doesn't change what's right or wrong. If it's right, it's right, if it's wrong, it's wrong.

I think it's great that you are openly communicating with your children about abuse and the church. 

[Danzo]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The systemic standards of the church are just as much my business as yours. And btw, none of us actually have a direct say in these decisions. You and your kids can discount my opinion as much as you all want, but that doesn't change what's right or wrong. If it's right, it's right, if it's wrong, it's wrong.

I think it's great that you are openly communicating with your children about abuse and the church. 

Participating in the church and having children who attend  makes the systemic standards of the church my business.

Who my children talk to is not your business.

You don't have a direct say because you don't participate.  Those of us that do participate do have a say. Protecting children is constantly discussed in our ward councils by those of us who are members and who participate.  You only think you don't have a say because you have excluded yourself from the conversation and prefer to throw stones at those of us who really do worry, work, pray, discuss, debate and seek revelation on how to protect and serve the children in the church. 

If you actually cared about the children that attend church, you would be volunteering with the children, not casting stones at those of us who do volunteer.  

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Participating in the church and having children who attend  makes the systemic standards of the church my business.

Who my children talk to is not your business.

You don't have a direct say because you don't participate.  Those of us that do participate do have a say. Protecting children is constantly discussed in our ward councils by those of us who are members and who participate.  You only think you don't have a say because you have excluded yourself from the conversation and prefer to throw stones at those of us who really do worry, work, pray, discuss, debate and seek revelation on how to protect and serve the children in the church. 

If you actually cared about the children that attend church, you would be volunteering with the children, not casting stones at those of us who do volunteer.  

Cut it out. This is a discussion board and I am discussing the topic at hand. If you don't want to listen to me, don't. 

You're perpetuating a culture of dismissing dissidents. I think that's gross. 

Btw, I am in regular contact with my son's bishop and gave feedback to him just this morning. I support my son's activity in the church because he's choosing to attend. It's disgusting that you tell me I don't really care. That's a very close-minded position.

You are wrong in conveying that a person cannot care as a critical dissident.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Danzo]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Cut it out. This is a discussion board and I am discussing the topic at hand. If you don't want to listen to me, don't. 

You're perpetuating a culture of dismissing dissidents. I think that's gross. 

Btw, I am in regular contact with my son's bishop and gave feedback to him just this morning. I support my son's activity in the church because he's choosing to attend. It's disgusting that you tell me I don't really care. That's a very close-minded position.

You are wrong in conveying that a person cannot care as a critical dissident.

The topic at hand is people like you trying to tell people like me who their children can see and under what circumstances. You pretend to care about my children. but then go on to advocate keeping them from them help they need in life.  all because you can't see a benefit to what my family has decided is right.

If you don't trust your children being alone with you church leaders, You are right to keep them from being alone with them. You know your children and you know your leaders.  

The problem is when  you extrapolate your experience and want to keep my children from being alone with their church leaders.  You don't know my children, you don't know my church leaders. 

You use the believe that because some people are bad, no one can be trusted.

You have a right to that belief, but I don't like it when you advocate forcing that belief on to me and my family.  

I have seen the benefit confidential interview with priesthood leaders can bring in my life. I have seen it in my families life, my children's life.  

Why do you want to take that from us?

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Danzo

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

The topic at hand is people like you trying to tell people like me who their children can see and under what circumstances. You pretend to care about my children. but then go on to advocate keeping them from them help they need in life.  all because you can't see a benefit to what my family has decided is right.

If you don't trust your children being alone with you church leaders, You are right to keep them from being alone with them. You know your children and you know your leaders.  

The problem is when  you extrapolate your experience and want to keep my children from being alone with their church leaders.  You don't know my children, you don't know my church leaders. 

You use the believe that because some people are bad, no one can be trusted.

You have a right to that belief, but I don't like it when you advocate forcing that belief on to me and my family.  

I have seen the benefit confidential interview with priesthood leaders can bring in my life. I have seen it in my families life, my children's life.  

Why do you want to take that from us?

 

First, I don't think you get to define the topic here. That is done by the OP and can also evolve as the thread continues.

Second, I cannot take these interviews from you. I can offer perspectives which might be a miniscule drop in the prevailing consciousness of the topic. My hope is what it always is in discourse like this: that sense and good points will eventually prevail.

 

[Rock_N_Roll]

On 11/11/2019 at 12:54 PM, Danzo said:

I don't think it is a violation of my child's privacy.

My 9 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy.

My 14 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

My 16 year old doesn't think it is a violation of her privacy

my 17 year old doesn't think it is a violation of his privacy 

The comment from my 16 year old was "how can the bishop know if we are worthy if he doesn't ask questions."

That’s exactly what I would have said to my father if he’d asked me when I was that age.

It also would not have been true. 

My son stopped going to bishops’ interviews after I attended one particular “special fireside”, for the Priest Quorum, held by our bishop  (I was in the YM).  I can only image what was said when it was one-on-one. 

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

That’s exactly what I would have said to my father if he’d asked me when I was that age.

It also would not have been true. 

My son stopped going to bishops’ interviews after I attended one particular “special fireside”, for the Priest Quorum, held by our bishop  (I was in the YM).  I can only image what was said when it was one-on-one. 

I am not sure what your family situation was like and why you felt you had to lie to your father, you probably had a good reason.  I hope you are not suggesting my children are untruthful.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

That’s exactly what I would have said to my father if he’d asked me when I was that age.

It also would not have been true. 

How so?

Temple recommend interviews are completely voluntary. 

If you voluntarily sign up for an interview which is designed to ascertain your moral worthiness, how on earth do you expect that to take place without the interviewer actually asking questions about your worthiness? 

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Temple recommend interviews are completely voluntary. 

Youth interviews are requested by the bishop though and there can be quite a bit of pressure to get them.  My daughter had no intention of having one due to her anxiety.  We had some bishops that were persistent in trying to figure out how she might be comfortable enough to try even when she wasn't attending church at all.  I saw that as a good thing then and still do.  But I can imagine the pressure to have an interview would likely have increased greatly if she was attending youth activities and classes.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Youth interviews are requested by the bishop though and there can be quite a bit of pressure to get them.  My daughter had no intention of having one due to her anxiety.  We had some bishops that were persistent in trying to figure out how she might be comfortable enough to try even when she wasn't attending church at all.  I saw that as a good thing then and still do.  But I can imagine the pressure to have an interview would likely have increased greatly if she was attending youth activities and classes.

You know your daughter and you were in  a position to know and do what was best for your daughter.  You knew if she was ready or  not interview with the bishop. Since you knew all of the parties involved, you were in a position to decide whether your daughter could have an interview and to prepare her if she needed preparation.  This is as it should be.

What I object to, is the attitude that many people seem to have, that somehow they are so wise and all knowing that they can decide what my children can or can not do.   Somehow whatever bad experience they have had (or heard rumor of) supersedes the my judgement of the the judgement of my children.  My positive experience, and the the positive experience of others that I know means nothing. 

Only they can decide. Sam Young says its bad so it must stop. He knows best. We don't.  All to protect the children from an organization that most of them are no longer an active part of.

We have been teaching our children about the law of chastity since they were little more than toddlers. They know what "do you obey the law of chastity?" means.  They teach about sex in school. We teach them at home.  Sex isn't a four letter word. They don't shrivel up and die if it is mentioned.  We teach about boundaries. We talk about sexual abuse. We also regularly teach that  priesthood office doesn't give anyone a pass for bad behavior.  Our (now former) stake president was recently indicted (financial crimes, not sexual crimes).  We talk about it in our family, how everyone is subject to temptation and we always have to watch ourselves.  There is risk wherever we go, whatever we do. There is even risk to keeping them at home and hiding them from the world.  We prefer to prepare our children for the world the best we know how. Teach them to resolve conflict and overcome adversity, not hide them from it.  Sin is something we repent of, not something we are ashamed of. 

We don't need Sam Young's help raising our children.

 

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What I object to, is the attitude that many people seem to have, that somehow they are so wise and all knowing that they can decide what my children can or can not do. 

I was responding to the comment they were completely voluntary, not really commenting on the rest at the moment.

No problem with using that comment as a springboard for others, just don't want to be misunderstood as I am very prointerviews, though I would like to see more written out training so parents have a better idea of how interviews will proceed and can therefore better formulate their issues to talk over with the bishop if they have any so there are no surprises.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

I am not sure what your family situation was like and why you felt you had to lie to your father, you probably had a good reason.  I hope you are not suggesting my children are untruthful.

 

Can a child consent to marry? No. Even if they think they want to, doesn't mean they are at a developmental stage where they are capable to make that decision.

Would you object to me going on a campaign against child marriage? After all, if the child is cooperative and verbally says they want it, why would that be my business?

And do you have absolute rights over your child and their life, or do they have inherent rights as an individual that you cannot violate or permit others to violate?

Where are those boundary lines?

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

How so?

Temple recommend interviews are completely voluntary. 

If you voluntarily sign up for an interview which is designed to ascertain your moral worthiness, how on earth do you expect that to take place without the interviewer actually asking questions about your worthiness? 

 

Church participation is not necessarily voluntary for children.

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Youth interviews are requested by the bishop though and there can be quite a bit of pressure to get them. 

I do think there is a certain amount of (positive) peer pressure to attend the temple as a youth, and a temple recommend interview is going to be part and parcel with that.

What I was mainly pointing out though is that, because interviews are voluntary, I don't think it's fair to construe them as being an invasion of privacy.

If I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Church participation is not necessarily voluntary for children.

Neither are doctor visits, dentist appointments, school attendance, eating vegetables, or any number of other things which might be good for them.