Bishops interview with minors

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

There are lessons on the Law of Chastity given each year.  Was he inactive?

 

When an active kid tells an interviewer he doesn't know what the LoC is, what he's really saying is "I'm not comfortable talking with you about this."

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

If I were in a bishopric (heaven forbid!) and a child asked me about such things, my response would be, "Have you talked to your parents about this?" and encourage him or her to do so in a safe, family situation. I would not be volunteering information about sex practices.

Absolutely right.

I had young kids, like fresh out of primary not know some of the terminology. They were innocent. I would explain the WoW but I referred them back to parents for LoC. Then I let the parents know. It worked out great. There was no way I was going to discuss the ins and outs of the birds and bees with a 12 year old boy or girl. That would be totally inappropriate.

[Exiled]

I think this is a question of who is the real authority in the home - parents or the church.  In my opinion, until children are adults and can decide whether or not they themselves want to submit to this kind of intrusive questioning, parents should do or not do the questioning and teaching.

Does the church really need to be so invasive?

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

How many are we talking about?

Serious question.

Can we put a number on how many bishopric abuse cases are known?

First, even one is too many.  Let's just get that out there.

Second, I really hope you do not intend to make this a numbers game

Third,  Google turned these up pretty quickly.  I don't have time to do more research for you: 

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, 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]

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.^[9]

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.^[10]

http://fox13now.com/2017/10/10/former-lds-bishop-sentenced-for-sexually-abusing-teen-boys/

http://fox13now.com/2017/12/05/lds-ward-second-counselor-arrested-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-daughter/

http://fox13now.com/2017/11/20/group-suing-lds-church-bishop-and-members-for-alleged-sexual-abuse/

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

First, even one is too many.  Let's just get that out there.

Second, I really hope you do not intend to make this a numbers game

Third,  Google turned these up pretty quickly.  I don't have time to do more research for you: 

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, 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]

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.^[9]

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.^[10]

http://fox13now.com/2017/10/10/former-lds-bishop-sentenced-for-sexually-abusing-teen-boys/

http://fox13now.com/2017/12/05/lds-ward-second-counselor-arrested-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-daughter/

http://fox13now.com/2017/11/20/group-suing-lds-church-bishop-and-members-for-alleged-sexual-abuse/

As has been mentioned before, statistically a child is most likely to be abused by a family member.  So it could be argued that a child is safer with a bishop than his or her own family.

But, agreed than even one is too many. 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think this is a question of who is the real authority in the home - parents or the church.  In my opinion, until children are adults and can decide whether or not they themselves want to submit to this kind of intrusive questioning, parents should do or not do the questioning and teaching.

Does the church really need to be so invasive?

You're saying that parents are the authority in the home, which they are, on a thread that deals with bishops interviewing children at church. 

[Teancum]

On 12/12/2017 at 3:11 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I think this is a situation where we must stand up for the Church and its penitential system and defend it against political correctness. 

The law presumes that confessions (where a religion has them) are one-on-one, and that children may be penitents. 

Confessions have to be in private and have to be one-on-one; otherwise, the laws of almost all states would hold that the confession is not privileged and thus must be divulged to a parent or law enforcement or civil litigation.   If I have my Catholic doctrine correct, it is a mortal sin for a priest to divulge a confession.    Confessions should not be denied minors merely because of political agitation which is really just a part of a broad attack on the church by nonbelievers who would never be confessing anything, anyways.  For critics to demand that children not be subject to discussion of sexual misbehavior is to deny them a sacral rite.   School counselors and psychiatrists and other therapists, doctors, nurses and law enforcement officers talk to minors one on one about sexual matters -- why demand that a church cleric not?

Thus, a confession with somebody listening in, with a parent, with a sibling or a spouse, is not a confession under the law.  Could be under the church's rules, but the bishop and the penitent lose all sorts of legal protections.  

Many other faiths have penitential relations like ours.  I represent or have represented four major world faiths in my legal practice, and three of them have one-on-one penitential confessions.  The number of congregants in these other three religions are probably 100 times the size of the LDS church numbers.  

Plus, there are many circumstances in which children are one-on-one with adults, and it would be ludicrous to eliminate these:  school counselor, teacher, sport coach, etc.

Certainly, there is potential for abuse when there is an adult one-on-one with a child talking about sexual sins or sexual abuse.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop?  As a lawyer, I've advised parents and children about sexual abuse and how to deal with it.  What makes me better than a bishop?  Should a child be prevented from speaking with a lawyer privately about sexual abuse?

There is a major flaw in your otherwise reasonable comments.  Confessions in Catholicism, and I assume other religions that require confession as part of repentance, are voluntary.  The annual interviews of youth are not. They are more like an interrogation.  

 

Big difference.

If a youth is troubled by a behavior they view as sin and they want to confess to and LDS bishop I am with you.

Not so much on the annual grilling youth in the LDS Church are subjected to.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As has been mentioned before, statistically a child is most likely to be abused by a family member.  So it could be argued that a child is safer with a bishop than his or her own family.

But, agreed than even one is too many. 

Well, adding an ecclesiastical leader into the equation simply increases the overall probability of abuse since the parental chance is outside of any real control.

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When an active kid tells an interviewer he doesn't know what the LoC is, what he's really saying is "I'm not comfortable talking with you about this."

He didn't say he didn't know what the law of chastity was, he said he didn't know what the word chastity meant.  At the beginning of the interview I'd asked him to let me know if there were any questions he didn't understand, which he did.  If he hadn't been comfortable talking about it I assume he'd just say yes to the question rather than asked what something meant.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Well, adding an ecclesiastical leader into the equation simply increases the overall probability of abuse since the parental chance is outside of any real control.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. 

[ttribe]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. 

Probability is additive.  Let's say, every child walks through life with a 3% of being sexually abused by a parent (not a real number; just off the top of my head).  Then, for LDS children, we add in another 2% of being abused by an ecclesiastical leader (also not a real number). That means that the LDS child has a 5% risk, whereas the non-LDS child is still at 3%.  Does that make sense?

[Jeanne]

Have a lesson in church....priesthood leaders...RS ....Stake Conference...General...whatever...stress that parents...please talk to your children ..open upo that communication..have interviews with them...and when one has any interview with church, the Bishop, Priest, or any authority of said church should say to any sexual question...have you talked to your parents???  If not...call the parents in...this is such a no brainer.  I feel the same way about schools taking the step that parents should..but if we all worked together..kids will have someone to talk to...an option..and first the family.  Parents should always be involved in one capacity or another..first.

[ksfisher]

Just now, ttribe said:

Probability is additive.  Let's say, every child walks through life with a 3% of being sexually abused by a parent (not a real number; just off the top of my head).  Then, for LDS children, we add in another 2% of being abused by an ecclesiastical leader (also not a real number). That means that the LDS child has a 5% risk, whereas the non-LDS child is still at 3%.  Does that make sense?

It does.  But also every day that child goes to school or to a friends house adds to that probability.  Every day the child walks down the street and a car passes by adds to it.  Every day that the child is alive adds to the probability.

 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

First, even one is too many.  Let's just get that out there.

Second, I really hope you do not intend to make this a numbers game

Third,  Google turned these up pretty quickly.  I don't have time to do more research for you: 

Everyone agrees that "one is too many." Despite everybody's best efforts, and even with eliminating interviews altogether, there will still be occurrences. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit: does the benefit of the interviews outweigh the hypothetical chance that abuse might occur? 

I think everyone knows where they fall on that. Some would say, "Yes! There is absolutely no value or reason at all for them! Get rid of them!" Others would say that they should continue in some shape or form, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk. 

I was just curious how many actual instances we are talking about. It looked like you could find, what, 10 or so? Given 30,000 + bishops with an average of five years tenure, I wonder how the likelihood compares to, say, auto accidents or whatever. Isn't "one child death in a car accident one too many?" Yet, we allow our children to ride in cars, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk that they might be in a car accident.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Everyone agrees that "one is too many." Despite everybody's best efforts, and even with eliminating interviews altogether, there will still be occurrences. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit: does the benefit of the interviews outweigh the hypothetical chance that abuse might occur? 

I think everyone knows where they fall on that. Some would say, "Yes! There is absolutely no value or reason at all for them! Get rid of them!" Others would say that they should continue in some shape or form, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk. 

I was just curious how many actual instances we are talking about. It looked like you could find, what, 10 or so? Given 30,000 + bishops with an average of five years tenure, I wonder how the likelihood compares to, say, auto accidents or whatever. Isn't "one child death in a car accident one too many?" Yet, we allow our children to ride in cars, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk that they might be in a car accident.

Oh, good heavens.  I already told you that I turned those up with a 2 minute search.  I've made no claim of it being 100% of the knowable population.  Your car accident example is a non-starter given we use things called seatbelts to dramatically reduce the likelihood of injury.  Show me the "seatbelt" equivalent in these interviews.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good heavens.  I already told you that I turned those up with a 2 minute search.  I've made no claim of it being 100% of the knowable population.  Your car accident example is a non-starter given we use things called seatbelts to dramatically reduce the likelihood of injury.  Show me the "seatbelt" equivalent in these interviews.

Having a parent in the room with their child.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Everyone agrees that "one is too many." Despite everybody's best efforts, and even with eliminating interviews altogether, there will still be occurrences. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit: does the benefit of the interviews outweigh the hypothetical chance that abuse might occur? 

I think everyone knows where they fall on that. Some would say, "Yes! There is absolutely no value or reason at all for them! Get rid of them!" Others would say that they should continue in some shape or form, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk. 

I was just curious how many actual instances we are talking about. It looked like you could find, what, 10 or so? Given 30,000 + bishops with an average of five years tenure, I wonder how the likelihood compares to, say, auto accidents or whatever. Isn't "one child death in a car accident one too many?" Yet, we allow our children to ride in cars, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk that they might be in a car accident.

You do realize that there are real victims, not merely hypothetical ones, right? There's a callousness to this discussion that really disturbs me as if these poor victims/survivors are acceptable losses or collateral damage and that no improvement to the system should even be attempted. I don't get it.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Having a parent in the room with their child.

Or an apostate father who is liable to hurt an abusive interviewer. 😉

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Having a parent in the room with their child.

 

Yes, that is the proposed seatbelt.  As it stands, I don't see one in the existing policy or practice.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You do realize that there are real victims, not merely hypothetical ones, right? There's a callousness to this discussion that really disturbs me as if these poor victims/survivors are acceptable losses or collateral damage and that no improvement to the system should even be attempted. I don't get it.

I wonder how many non-Mormons would find it acceptable for their minister, priest, or rabbi to discuss sexual behavior with a minor behind closed doors. It is astounding to me that this is accepted as normal by church members (and I include the earlier version of myself). It is doubly bizarre that it’s being defended as appropriate and even necessary. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by jkwilliams

[mnn727]

When I was Ward Clerk and also again when I was Ward Exec Sec, the door between the Bishop's office and the clerk's office was always left ajar. No that we were listening but if anything out of the ordinary happened we would know about it.

Sometimes, I think some Bishops make too big of a deal out of things with little eternal consequences, my last Bishop was like that, and no I really can't go into a lot of details, but two older teens ended up stopping coming to Church when a bit of a lighter hand might have kept them coming.

You can't aid and guide them if they are not there.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wonder how many non-Mormons would find it acceptable for their minister, priest, or rabbi to discuss sexual behavior with a minor behind closed doors. It is astounding to me that this is acceptable as normal by church members (and I include the earlier version of myself). It is doubly bizarre that it’s being defended as appropriate and even necessary. 

Worse, it's not simply being defended as a practice but reasonable safety precautions are being refused and even scorned.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

When I was Ward Clerk and also again when I was Ward Exec Sec, the door between the Bishop's office and the clerk's office was always left ajar. No that we were listening but if anything out of the ordinary happened we would know about it.

Sometimes, I think some Bishops make too big of a deal out of things with little eternal consequences, my last Bishop was like that, and no I really can't go into a lot of details, but two older teens ended up stopping coming to Church when a bit of a lighter hand might have kept them coming.

You can't aid and guide them if they are not there.

About 18 years ago I was in my first bishopric. The bishop was a kind of mentor to me. He was big into asking the mstrbtion and p0rn questions so I thought that's the way it should be done. There was a dust up after he asked these questions of one of the mia maids. The girl's non-member father found out his daughter was asked these questions and refused to allow her to speak with this bishop again. The girl also stopped attending as did the other 3 members of her family.

I remember thinking at the time how sad it was that this family simply couldn't understand the necessity of the bishop asking these questions. After all they were intended for the spiritual welfare of the girl. Why couldn't they just see that? Oh, it's probably because she was guilty of sin and we all know that the guilty taketh the truth to be hard. This bishop used this experience, not as a opportunity for self-reflection or change but to double down and openly discuss the necessity of asking these questions with all youth. No one wanted to be like the unfaithful family so of course we all accepted the need for these questions.

To this day I have no doubt about the bishop's intentions. He was doing what he felt was required and good. It was inconceivable to him that others would sacrifice their salvation by refusing interviews with him. And so it goes...still. Many good, well-intentioned bishops ask inappropriate questions because they feel they are facilitating access to the atonement for these young sinners. I understand the mindset well because I used to share it. Now I just find it harmful and sad that many leaders would prefer to take the tough love approach that drives people away. I've asked this mentor bishop friend of mine about this in recent years and his response was that it's sad the family doesn't attend but his hands are clean because he did his duty. That attitude has caused me to lose a significant measure of respect.

[ttribe]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It does.  But also every day that child goes to school or to a friends house adds to that probability.  Every day the child walks down the street and a car passes by adds to it.  Every day that the child is alive adds to the probability.

 

Of course, but why add to the risk unnecessarily?

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m not using it to argue that all children are like my son. I’m using it to argue that not all children would lie in a TRI if their parent was present, so it’s not fair to assume they all would like Rongo is doing, and just refuse to interview them at all.

What I’m saying is that a policy that doesn’t allow for exceptions does not seem valid or reasonable. 

 

I understand, but how would you imagine that exceptions might be handled, or, even, how one would even recognize that there IS an exception?  Ask the parents: "Is your child an exception?"  "No?"  "All right, then, standard interview."

We could extend this to traffic interactions with the police.  "Officer, I appreciate your efforts at keeping us all safe on the road, but I am a registered Exceptional Driver. You don't need to give me a ticket for that offense."

I'm not trying to make fun of you, BB, but I find it extremely mind-boggling to come up with some mechanism to do things as you think they might be.

I think that there are sufficient grounds for treating everyone the same, rather than setting up some exception protocol.

If I were a bishop (perish the thought), I think I would set up a camera/microphone system in my office to make sure that nobody could accuse me of inappropriate behavior in interviews.