SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It is the forced compliance that I am addressing.

It is the forced compliance that you have failed to demonstrate. All you have done is accuse.

Incredible though it may be, you seem to harbor this notion that teaching, admonishing and chastening amount to forced compliance. They do not. You are free to ignore them and go on your merry way.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

It is the forced compliance that I am addressing.

I posted this comment in a now locked thread regarding abuse in the church and thought I'd post it here as I feel it's relevant:

Quote

 

I do find it interesting in connection with the thread discussing men not being alone with women (for lunch, to drive together to a meeting and so on) and yet, the leaders feel it's just fine for a Bishop to meet alone with a youth and sometimes discuss topics of a sexual nature.  It's a huge contradiction, IMO. and I'm happy to see that many parents are now making sure one of them is present in these interviews or that another leader is there. This works as a protection for the Bishop or church leader conducting the interview as well.

The Bishopric I serve with is very open to having one of the parents (or a youth leader) included and we are seeing more and more opting for this

 

So, those who are advocating for never being alone with a person of the opposite sex for a lunch, in a car, etc., do you feel this should also apply to an adult male being alone with a young woman behind closed doors (especially when at times the topic is of a sexual nature)?

I honestly believe caution should be used with both and that both should be avoided.  

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[Danzo]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly believe caution should be used with both and that both should be avoided.  

I agree that caution should be used, but neither situation can be completely avoided.  Such is the nature of world we live in.

I try not to be alone with youth but it has happened at times (everyone else left, if I left as well, the youth would have been abandoned).  Sometimes a youth wants to tell their leader something without the parents present.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I agree that caution should be used, but neither situation can be completely avoided.  Such is the nature of world we live in.

I agree (and I almost added "when at all possible").  I think there are times when a single man and a single woman also will be alone together (especially in a work environment).  This happens within my field of work and it would be awkward to completely avoid it.  

I do feel stronger though when it's an adult male and a teenage girl alone together behind closed doors.  I think this procedure may very well be changed in the future with more and more abuse stories coming out (between adult leaders and youth....male and female).  Both parties need to be protected here.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I posted this comment in a now locked thread regarding abuse in the church and thought I'd post it here as I feel it's relevant:

So, those who are advocating for never being alone with a person of the opposite sex for a lunch, in a car, etc., do you feel this should also apply to an adult male being alone with a young woman behind closed doors (especially when at times the topic is of a sexual nature)?

I honestly believe caution should be used with both and that both should be avoided.  

My bishop's procedure is to have at least one adult outside the door during interviews, usually the ward executive secretary or one of the counselors in the bishopric.

And I've served in a couple of ancillary positions to the bishopric (executive secretary and assistant ward clerk) and this has been the procedure on those occasions as well. So I take it this is standard procedure.

I don't think it's necessary that a parent be in the room and, in fact, that might hamper the bishop in his role as a common judge in Israel (suppose a youth has something to confess and doesn't want to do it with a parent present). But my hunch is a typical bishop might allow it if the parent insisted on it.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My bishop's procedure is to have at least one adult outside the door during interviews, usually the ward executive secretary or one of the counselors in the bishopric.

And I've served in a couple of ancillary positions to the bishopric (executive secretary and assistant ward clerk) and this has been the procedure on those occasions as well. So I take it this is standard procedure.

I don't think it's necessary that a parent be in the room and, in fact, that might hamper the bishop in his role as a common judge in Israel (suppose a youth has something to confess and doesn't want to do it with a parent present). But my hunch is a typical bishop might allow it if the parent insisted on it.

 

I see it becoming more and more requested (at least in my ward) and I think it's a smart move (to protect the adult male as well).

I think it's a step in the right direction to have another adult male outside the door, but that still won't completely avoid any topics of a sexual nature that are inappropriate, IMO.  I don't understand the extreme feelings of some here about males and females being together in a work environment but are totally fine and supportive of an adult male being alone behind closed doors with a young woman.  Just my observation.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see it becoming more and more requested (at least in my ward) and I think it's a smart move (to protect the adult male as well).

I think it's a step in the right direction to have another adult male outside the door, but that still won't completely avoid any topics of a sexual nature that are inappropriate, IMO.  I don't understand the extreme feelings of some here about males and females being together in a work environment but are totally fine and supportive of an adult male being alone behind closed doors with a young woman.  Just my observation.

It's a matter of the risk being greater on the one hand than on the other. Church members tend to trust their bishops and, almost without exception, bishops are trustworthy.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's a matter of the risk being greater on the one hand than on the other. Church members tend to trust their bishops and, with rare exceptions, bishops are trustworthy.

 

There are simply too many cases of abuse that have surfaced and continue to surface.  Even one case is too many, IMO (and there have been many more).  And it's the almost blind trust expected of members (in their Bishop) that has led to many of the abusive situations. 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's a matter of the risk being greater on the one hand than on the other. Church members tend to trust their bishops and, with rare exceptions, bishops are trustworthy.

 

Any empirical evidence for this?

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think it's necessary that a parent be in the room and, in fact, that might hamper the bishop in his role as a common judge in Israel (suppose a youth has something to confess and doesn't want to do it with a parent present). But my hunch is a typical bishop might allow it if the parent insisted on it.

If I had parents who refused to allow me to interview their child unless they were in the room with him/her, then I would not interview their child. Ever. Even for a limited use recommend. A chaperoned interview is no interview at all, and defeats the purpose of an interview. 

Sad for the kid, but the parents made their decision.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Any empirical evidence for this?

I am not sure you can find truly comparable stats, but according to on UN report, 40-50 of European Union women encounter sexual harassment or worse in their workplace:

http://endviolence.un.org/pdf/pressmaterials/unite_the_situation_en.pdf

[ttribe]

Just now, rongo said:

If I had parents who refused to allow me to interview their child unless they were in the room with him/her, then I would not interview their child. Ever. Even for a limited use recommend. A chaperoned interview is no interview at all, and defeats the purpose of an interview. 

Sad for the kid, but the parents made their decision.

Seriously? So, parents who are attempting to ensure the safety and well-being of their minor children would result in you excluding said children from baptisms for the dead, for example?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are simply too many cases of abuse that have surfaced and continue to surface.  Even one case is too many, IMO.

I weigh the risk and the cost. There's a far greater urgency, in my view, that the leader will be hampered in the performance of his priesthood duty by my presence in the room than there is that there will be problems without it.

Regarding cases of abuse, how many cases involving bishops are you personally aware of within the last year? Five years? 10 years?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

If I had parents who refused to allow me to interview their child unless they were in the room with him/her, then I would not interview their child. Ever. Even for a limited use recommend. A chaperoned interview is no interview at all, and defeats the purpose of an interview. 

Sad for the kid, but the parents made their decision.

This is unfortunate.  We hold interviews often with a parent present and we've had some pretty incredible experiences and conversations.

I do believe these will become more and more common as parents start realizing they have a right to ask for this.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Any empirical evidence for this?

Just my own observation and impression. I don't think I have ever heard of a case of a bishop misbehaving during a youth interview. Have you?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I weigh the risk and the cost. There's a far greater urgency, in my view, that the leader will be hampered in the performance of his priesthood duty by my presence in the room than there is that there will be problems without it.

Regarding cases of abuse, how many cases involving bishops are you personally aware of within the last year? Five years? 10 years?

From your paper: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683563/Former-Mapleton-LDS-bishop-accused-of-drugging-assaulting-2-teens.html

Also:

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.^[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.^[1]

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 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.^[6]

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.^[7]

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.^[8]

^{From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases}

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

If I had parents who refused to allow me to interview their child unless they were in the room with him/her, then I would not interview their child. Ever. Even for a limited use recommend. A chaperoned interview is no interview at all, and defeats the purpose of an interview. 

Sad for the kid, but the parents made their decision.

I think that is certainly your prerogative.

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just my own observation and impression. I don't think I have ever heard of a case of a bishop misbehaving during a youth interview. Have you?

See my response to your other post.

I suspect that the interviews were used for grooming in the cases I linked in my other post.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I weigh the risk and the cost. There's a far greater urgency, in my view, that the leader will be hampered in the performance of his priesthood duty by my presence in the room than there is that there will be problems without it.

Funny, but I weigh the risk and come down on the side of protecting a youth at all costs and not even risking putting them in a potentially abusive situation.  I'd always error on the side of protecting a child.

As far as abuse cases, there are many.

Start here maybe (but there were a couple in the news just recently too):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/60/INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

From your paper: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683563/Former-Mapleton-LDS-bishop-accused-of-drugging-assaulting-2-teens.html

Also:

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.^[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.^[1]

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 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.^[6]

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.^[7]

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.^[8]

^{From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases}

From what I can see, only one of these cases involved a currently serving bishop, and it's not clear even one of the alleged incidents happened during a youth interview with an executive secretary or other adult sitting outside the door.

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

If I had parents who refused to allow me to interview their child unless they were in the room with him/her, then I would not interview their child. Ever. Even for a limited use recommend. A chaperoned interview is no interview at all, and defeats the purpose of an interview. 

Sad for the kid, but the parents made their decision.

What about for a baptism interview?  

What if the child had significant anxiety and it was the only way any interaction would take place?

We have had very helpful bishops willing to come to our home, basically conduct an interview over the dinner table while we were eating  if my daughter had been okay with it.  We have no doubt in our hearts that our friends and neighbours and leaders have tried their best to help our daughter feel she was wanted because of their adaptability.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

See my response to your other post.

I suspect that the interviews were used for grooming in the cases I linked in my other post.

See my response to your other post.

 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seriously? So, parents who are attempting to ensure the safety and well-being of their minor children would result in you excluding said children from baptisms for the dead, for example?

From what our stake leaders have told us, a parent does have the right to be included in any interview with their underage child (legal right).  I don't see Rongo following church direction on this and appears to be making a staunch decision on his own, which IMO, will only result in punishing the child.  Too bad.  

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is the forced compliance that you have failed to demonstrate. All you have done is accuse.

Incredible though it may be, you seem to harbor this notion that teaching, admonishing and chastening amount to forced compliance. They do not. You are free to ignore them and go on your merry way.

 

 

Read the article.  It is about forced behavior. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Funny, but I weigh the risk and come down on the side of protecting a youth at all costs and not even risking putting them in a potentially abusive situation.  I'd always error on the side of protecting a child.

As far as abuse cases, there are many.

Start here maybe (but there were a couple in the news just recently too):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/60/INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf

Recall that I asked for cases involving bishops misbehaving during youth interviews.

Quote

Funny, but I weigh the risk and come down on the side of protecting a youth at all costs and not even risking putting them in a potentially abusive situation.  I'd always error on the side of protecting a child.

Your welcome to your own choices based on your own criteria and the priority you place on those criteria. Me, I place a high priority on the priesthood leader being unfettered in fulfilling his role in blessing the lives of my family as the Lord's representative and as a common judge in Israel

Incidentally, error is a noun; err is a verb. .

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd