Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, california boy said: Read the article. It is about forced behavior. Read what article?
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) For children: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html "The best available study suggests that about 10 percent of students suffer some form of sexual abuse during their school careers. In the 2000 report, commissioned by the American Association of University Women, surveyors asked students between eighth and 11th grades whether they had ever experienced inappropriate sexual conduct at school. The list of such conduct included lewd comments, exposure to pornography, peeping in the locker room, and sexual touching or grabbing. Around one in 10 students said they had been the victim of one or more such things from a teacher or other school employee, and two-thirds of those reported the incident involved physical contact. If these numbers are representative of the student population nationwide, 4.5 million students currently in grades K-12 have suffered some form of sexual abuse by an educator" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/ "The 2002 Department of Education report estimated that from 6 percent to 10 percent of all students in public schools would be victims of abuse before graduation — a staggering statistic." Edited August 16, 2017 by Calm
ALarson Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Recall that I asked for cases involving bishops misbehaving during youth interviews. Those are included (along with other leader abuse who were allowed to be alone with a youth).
california boy Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Read what article? The one this very thread is about. Did you loose focus on what we were even talking about?
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 13 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. I agree. I see the downside risks to child abuse as worse than the downside risks to adults cheating on their spouses. Edited August 16, 2017 by ttribe 2
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: See my response to your other post. But you didn't address what I said about grooming, etc.
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) https://edsource.org/2014/schools-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-abuse-by-school-personnel-federal-report-says/57023 "The U.S. Government Accountability Office said the nation’s K-12 schools lack a systemic approach to preventing and reporting educator sexual abuse of students, despite a problem that the report said affects an estimated 9.6 percent of students – nearly one in 10 – who are subjected to sexual misconduct by teachers, coaches, principals, bus drivers and other personnel during their K-12 career. That figure is from a 2004 report made to the U.S. Department of Education and is the most recent estimate available, according to the Government Accountability Office report released last week." ----- Just providing stats for very imprecise comparison, I am all for allowing children to have parents present if the child wants it, more ambivalent about parents requiring it as statistically speaking I believe a parent is more likely to be an abuser than a bishop and perhaps such confidential interviews might allow the child to open up and report it. ----- Most sexual abuse of children (84% for 6-11 year old) takes place in a residence (child's or perpetrator's)...won't allow me to copy/paste, sorry: https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_3_Circumstances.pdf https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens ""80% of perpetrators were a parent" Edited August 16, 2017 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, ttribe said: But you didn't address what I said about grooming, etc. I don't see the need to address your suspicions.
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't see the need to address your suspicions. Okay. Well, I think that is a head-in-the-sand approach to the complexities of these events, but that's your prerogative. ETA: If you decide you actually care, this article may be helpful: http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/grooming-dynamic-of-csa Edited August 16, 2017 by ttribe 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, ttribe said: I agree. I see the downside risks to child abuse as worse than the downside risks to adults cheating on their spouses. What about the greater likelihood of the one happening as opposed to the other? What about the risk of hindering a servant of God in the performance of his duty? Calm has given once possibility (the child opening up about having been abused at home). I have given another (the possibility of the youth having something to confess but being unwilling to do it withe parent present. And Rongo, a veteran bishop, said it well: A chaperoned interview is no interview at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Okay. Well, I think that is a head-in-the-sand approach to the complexities of these events, but that's your prerogative. ETA: If you decide you actually care, this article may be helpful: http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/grooming-dynamic-of-csa Your suspicion that a bishop used youth interviews to groom victims is nebulous. Give me something more solid, and I'll take it seriously.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, california boy said: The one this very thread is about. Did you loose focus on what we were even talking about? No, I didn't "loose" focus. But it's possible I did lose focus. Maybe you could help by quoting a specific paragraph or passage from the article, one that clearly says the Church of Jesus Christ takes away people agency by forcing them to do things.
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your suspicion that a bishop used youth interviews to groom victims is nebulous. Give me something more solid, and I'll take it seriously. I'm not doing the work for you. I seriously doubt you've read a single thing I've already linked for you. 2
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What about the greater likelihood of the one happening as opposed to the other? What about the risk of hindering a servant of God in the performance of his duty? Calm has given once possibility (the child opening up about having been abused at home). I have given another (the possibility of the youth having something to confess but being unwilling to do it withe parent present. And Rongo, a veteran bishop, said it well: A chaperoned interview is no interview at all. You aren't following - regardless of likelihood, I believe the negative outcomes of child abuse to be orders of magnitude more harmful than cheating spouses. I'm with ALarson: even one is too many. A child has many outlets to report abuse at home; the Church is only one. As to hindering a servant of God; well, I suspect God has plenty of ways around such a hinderance. And Rongo, is quite wrong-o, in my opinion. But, it's just that; an opinion. 1
rongo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 7 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? Seriously. I've never had parents ask or insist on this, though. Here's the thing. If the parents are that concerned about potential abuse, then they should be the type to have prepared their child for this. My wife and I have prepared our children, and we have no fear of "bad" ecclesiastical interviews, because our kids know and can advocate for themselves. While you would think that *these* parents would be *the* ones to prepare their kids so that no harm could accrue to them in an interview, they are the ones crying to high heaven to try to get worthiness interviews stopped altogether. This issue is really about the struggle between progressives and traditionalists in the Church. They actual don't care about protecting their kids so much as they want to force the practice of worthiness interviews to stop for all others, too. 1
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: Seriously. I've never had parents ask or insist on this, though. Here's the thing. If the parents are that concerned about potential abuse, then they should be the type to have prepared their child for this. My wife and I have prepared our children, and we have no fear of "bad" ecclesiastical interviews, because our kids know and can advocate for themselves. While you would think that *these* parents would be *the* ones to prepare their kids so that no harm could accrue to them in an interview, they are the ones crying to high heaven to try to get worthiness interviews stopped altogether. This issue is really about the struggle between progressives and traditionalists in the Church. They actual don't care about protecting their kids so much as they want to force the practice of worthiness interviews to stop for all others, too. This is conjecture on your part and unbelievably irresponsible given the documented abuses. 1
rongo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 49 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. Did any of your incredible experiences and conversations include confession about serious things?
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: Seriously. I've never had parents ask or insist on this, though. Here's the thing. If the parents are that concerned about potential abuse, then they should be the type to have prepared their child for this. My wife and I have prepared our children, and we have no fear of "bad" ecclesiastical interviews, because our kids know and can advocate for themselves. While you would think that *these* parents would be *the* ones to prepare their kids so that no harm could accrue to them in an interview, they are the ones crying to high heaven to try to get worthiness interviews stopped altogether. This issue is really about the struggle between progressives and traditionalists in the Church. They actual don't care about protecting their kids so much as they want to force the practice of worthiness interviews to stop for all others, too. I disagree. Because I have a child who experienced extreme social anxiety, I push for a companion of the child's choice to be present if the child requests it. I have no desire to terminate worthiness interviews and believe they are essential. I think it is, in fact, wonderful if a bishop is able to be another loving adult for a child to talk to. 3
rongo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I disagree. Because I have a child who experienced extreme social anxiety, I push for a companion of the child's choice to be present if the child requests it. Isn't the goal or the hope, though, to help children/teenagers improve and make progress with social anxiety? Hopefully? Or, do we throw in the towel and decide that they will never get better and make progress? I have worked with youth with extreme social anxiety, too. The key is to build rapport with them over time (including showing them that they mean something to you. Attending things that are important to them, talking to them about hobbies and interests, etc. Rome isn't built in a day, but kids can get better at being able to at least approach being able to talk generally. Sometimes that is the only goal or real expectation in interviews, anyway). I guarantee you that a child with a companion of the child's choice present isn't going to talk to their bishop about weighty things (not just confession, but issues, struggles, and worries). 1
rongo Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 12 minutes ago, ttribe said: This is conjecture on your part and unbelievably irresponsible given the documented abuses. I notice that you didn't deny it. How do you feel about worthiness interviews in general (including with adults)?
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, rongo said: I notice that you didn't deny it. How do you feel about worthiness interviews in general (including with adults)? I didn't deny it because it's not an issue for me. Have all the worthiness interviews one-on-one you want...with adults. I think it prudent to have more controls in place to protect kids. Your flippant treatment of this issue is downright frightening to me. Edited August 16, 2017 by ttribe
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, rongo said: Isn't the goal or the hope, though, to help children/teenagers improve and make progress with social anxiety? Hopefully? Or, do we throw in the towel and decide that they will never get better and make progress? I have worked with youth with extreme social anxiety, too. The key is to build rapport with them over time (including showing them that they mean something to you. Attending things that are important to them, talking to them about hobbies and interests, etc. Rome isn't built in a day, but kids can get better at being able to at least approach being able to talk generally. Sometimes that is the only goal or real expectation in interviews, anyway). I guarantee you that a child with a companion of the child's choice present isn't going to talk to their bishop about weighty things (not just confession, but issues, struggles, and worries). Which is why I believe allowing interviews with adults present is a necessary requirement in some cases in order to move towards the eventual goal of one on one. Refusing any form of a worthiness interview besides one on one in the privacy of an office with a closed door as it appears you do ( if not, please clarify) means for children like my daughter, worthiness interviews will never happen. I have been in therapy sessions with my daughter. We started that way until she was comfortable enough to do it on her own. Even now, if there has been a significant break, we start out with me in the room and next interview she is back to one on one. I can assure you my daughter has opened up about some very weighty issues while I was there, including stuff she hadn't first talked to me about it. One on one is preferable, but does not have to be the only method used in my experience. Edited August 16, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 39 minutes ago, rongo said: Seriously. I've never had parents ask or insist on this, though. Here's the thing. If the parents are that concerned about potential abuse, then they should be the type to have prepared their child for this. My wife and I have prepared our children, and we have no fear of "bad" ecclesiastical interviews, because our kids know and can advocate for themselves. While you would think that *these* parents would be *the* ones to prepare their kids so that no harm could accrue to them in an interview, they are the ones crying to high heaven to try to get worthiness interviews stopped altogether. This issue is really about the struggle between progressives and traditionalists in the Church. They actual don't care about protecting their kids so much as they want to force the practice of worthiness interviews to stop for all others, too. I can understand why parents who teach their own children how to respond to grooming and other potentially abusive situations still think more restrictions are needed since the vulnerable kids generally aren't the ones with proactive parents, but the ones with parents who are neglectful or absent altogether. It is not a bad thing to be concerned about children that are not your own. 1
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Calm said: I can understand why parents who teach their own children how to respond to grooming and other potentially abusive situations still think more restrictions are needed since the vulnerable kids generally aren't the ones with proactive parents, but the ones with parents who are neglectful or absent altogether. It is not a bad thing to be concerned about children that are not your own. Careful now, because he's already stated unequivocally that they don't really care about kids; they just want to subvert the process and do away with ALL worthiness interviews. How does he know that? Because he SAYS SO, of course!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Anyone notice this thread has been derailed? It was A Larson who derailed it. I think he was trying to take the pressure off those who were getting the worst of it in the discussion about the thread topic, namely those who condemn and deride the personal practice of not being alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse. Anybody have anything else to say on the thread topic? If not, I think I've lost interest.
Recommended Posts