Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

A Deseret News article (2012) reports, "Moon, 43, was accused of failing to notify police about a 17-year-old girl's disclosure that she had been sexually abused by a teenage relative. The bishop also told the girl not to seek a protective order against the teenage boy and the boy's mother when the girl came to him for counsel, according to Duchesne County prosecutors"

Bishop Moon made a big mistake, Moon should have notified law enforcement immediately, he had the opportunity to become a hero. But I wonder how many LDS Bishops are heroes?  I suppose LDS Bishops can help victims who are reluctant to report their abusers. Why? because the vast majority of abuses are never reported to the police, so LDS Bishops can (or have the potential to) help.

I believe Mormon Bishops should have conversations about chastity with older teenagers. I suspect there are many abusers who confess their crimes to  Bishops. Who are the abusers? According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles. Douglas, EM. & Finkelhor, D. (2005, May). Childhood sexual abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf [Google Scholar]. A religious conversation has the potential to make abusers feel the need to confess their crimes.

Obviously LDS interviews need to be reformed to protect the vulnerable, perhaps counselors should supervise Bishop interviews, but I disagree with the idea that LDS Bishops interviews should end. The answer is to reform, not end Bishop Interviews. Perhaps the church should invest a lot of money to educate Bishops and give them proper training.

The anti-Mormon critics are wrong, they should think more carefully what they wish for before making judgements based on their gut feelings. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

You have a lot of good ideas here, Sam, along with some misinformation.  All bishops have a hotline to Church HQ whenever they have a question along these lines (sex abuse), and they and their counselors get regular training in such things.  Also, a bishop can always talk to his stake pres.  So there is no excuse for making a major mistake, such as you describe.  The confidentiality of the bishop's confessional is legally protected, so that he cannot simply report a confession by a molester to the police.  He can immediately remove the molester from his calling, and he can urge the molester to turn himself in.  Same thing for a bank robber, or murderer.  He can't turn them in.  If a victim comes to him, he can urge him or her to report it to the police, and he can even accompany a nervous victim to police HQ for moral support.  If the victim is a minor, it will be important to include an adult relative or friend.  An emergency protective order will probably be needed, and the police can execute one immediately, along with immediate referral to a victim advocate (who is not a police officer).  The victim should be urged to be accompanied by a friend/relative to the ER to do a rape kit, etc.  Evidence should be gathered ASAP.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I believe Mormon Bishops should have conversations about chastity with older teenagers. I suspect there are many abusers who confess their crimes to  Bishops. Who are the abusers? According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles. Douglas, EM. & Finkelhor, D. (2005, May). Childhood sexual abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf [Google Scholar]. A religious conversation has the potential to make abusers feel the need to confess their crimes.

Obviously LDS interviews need to be reformed to protect the vulnerable, perhaps counselors should supervise Bishop interviews, but I disagree with the idea that LDS Bishops interviews should end. The answer is to reform, not end Bishop Interviews. Perhaps the church should invest a lot of money to educate Bishops and give them proper training.

The anti-Mormon critics are wrong, they should think more carefully what they wish for before making judgements based on their gut feelings. 

I'm not sure if you're totally clear on this, but the petition du-jour is protesting the part of the interviews where the Bishops ask teenagers about their sexual activities.  It's not referring to situations where abuse is revealed.

 

Quote

For decades, it has been common place for Bishops and other local leaders to pose questions of a sexual nature to children. There are reports of this happening to children as young as age 8. These questions are being asked by an older man, all alone with the child, behind closed doors and often without the knowledge or permission of the parents. Almost universally, these men have no comprehensive training.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We call on the LDS Church to immediately cease the practice of subjecting children to questions about masturbation, orgasm, ejaculation, sexual positions or anything else of a sexual nature. This applies to all children up to and including age 17. There should be no one-on-one interviews with children. A parent is to be present.

https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/protect-the-children-stop-mormon-masturbation-interviews.html

Edited February 2, 2018 by cinepro

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure if you're totally clear on this, but the petition du-jour is protesting the part of the interviews where the Bishops ask teenagers about their sexual activities.  It's not referring to situations where abuse is revealed.

I understand the concerns, I made it clear I believe the interview process must be reformed,  but I'm not sure if you're clear on " I suspect there are many abusers who confess their crimes to  Bishops. Who are the abusers? According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles. Douglas, EM. & Finkelhor, D. (2005, May). Childhood sexual abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf [Google Scholar]"

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure

Cinepro,

Like it or not there are teenagers who abuse (half of all abusers are teenagers according to study). If a Bishop talks about serious sins to everyone, then there is a chance he talks to an abuser and makes him confess. You get my point? As for the petition I actually agree with most of it, but I doubt there are many Bishops that ask teenagers about specific things like 0rg a sm. I suspect the vast majority of Bishops aren't stupid.

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[will227457]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have a lot of good ideas here, Sam, along with some misinformation.  All bishops have a hotline to Church HQ whenever they have a question along these lines (sex abuse), and they and their counselors get regular training in such things.  Also, a bishop can always talk to his stake pres.  So there is no excuse for making a major mistake, such as you describe.  The confidentiality of the bishop's confessional is legally protected, so that he cannot simply report a confession by a molester to the police.  He can immediately remove the molester from his calling, and he can urge the molester to turn himself in.  Same thing for a bank robber, or murderer.  He can't turn them in.  If a victim comes to him, he can urge him or her to report it to the police, and he can even accompany a nervous victim to police HQ for moral support.  If the victim is a minor, it will be important to include an adult relative or friend.  An emergency protective order will probably be needed, and the police can execute one immediately, along with immediate referral to a victim advocate (who is not a police officer).  The victim should be urged to be accompanied by a friend/relative to the ER to do a rape kit, etc.  Evidence should be gathered ASAP.

I am pretty sure that this is not correct.  I would like to see a reference that shows this to be true. If I was Bishop and someone came in and confessed to molesting a child to me I would encourage him to turn himself in and let him know that once he left my office I would give him 5 minutes to call the police himself or I would. Heck 5 minutes would be to long I wouldn't want to give him the head start.

Edited February 2, 2018 by will227457

[SamuelTheLamanite]

42 minutes ago, will227457 said:

I am pretty sure that this is not correct.  I would like to see a reference that shows this to be true. If I was Bishop and someone came in and confessed to molesting a child to me I would encourage him to turn himself in and let him know that once he left my office I would give him 5 minutes to call the police himself or I would. Heck 5 minutes would be to long I wouldn't want to give him the head start.

That is my point, and according to research half of all molesters are underage. So if a Bishops has a conversation about serious sins with everyone, then there is a chance Bishops are going to talk to molesters and make them feel the need to confess.

Bishops shouldn't completely stop talking about "anything else of a sexual nature" or serious sins, but I do agree the interview process must be reformed.

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Obviously LDS interviews need to be reformed to protect the vulnerable, perhaps counselors should supervise Bishop interviews, but I disagree with the idea that LDS Bishops interviews should end. The answer is to reform, not end Bishop Interviews. Perhaps the church should invest a lot of money to educate Bishops and give them proper training.

The anti-Mormon critics are wrong, they should think more carefully what they wish for before making judgements based on their gut feelings.

Bishop interviews are an interesting tradition that has developed in Mormonism.  There are no early Mormon revelations or precedents that call for this practice.  To my knowledge there has been no claim of an explicit revelation to support the need for this practice.  It sounds like this tradition has been constructed purely on gut feelings.  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is my point, and according to research half of all molesters are underage.

CFR

(From what I have read and the stats I've seen, it's closer to around 23% .....so I'm interested to see where you're getting your information from.)

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

(From what I have read and the stats I've seen, it's closer to around 23% .....so I'm interested to see where you're getting your information from.)

I read it in a godless book that I am criticizing

[SamuelTheLamanite]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Bishop interviews are an interesting tradition that has developed in Mormonism.  There are no early Mormon revelations or precedents that call for this practice.  To my knowledge there has been no claim of an explicit revelation to support the need for this practice.  It sounds like this tradition has been constructed purely on gut feelings.  

Okay but I shared one reason why it may be unwise to completely end it. Here it is in case you missed it

31 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is my point, and according to research half of all molesters are underage. So if  Bishops have a conversation about serious sins with everyone, then there is a chance Bishops are going to talk to molesters and make them feel the need to confess.

Bishops shouldn't completely stop talking about "anything else of a sexual nature" or serious sins, but I do agree the interview process must be reformed.

. If you think it is a bad reason please tell me why

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I read it in a godless book that I am criticizing

You'll need to supply better sources than that to support your claim that.... 

30 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

according to research half of all molesters are underage.

 

[ksfisher]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Obviously LDS interviews need to be reformed

This would seem to be an a priori assumption on your part.  One which is not shared by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay but I shared one reason why it may be unwise to completely end it. Here it is in case you missed it

. If you think it is a bad reason please tell me why

I do think this is a very bad reason for bishop interviews.  One of the reasons its so bad is that they are highly unqualified and untrained to have a conversation about sexual molestation with a victim.  You even mentioned this in your OP, and recommended training to help.  But honestly, it would take years of training and experience to become capable in this respect.  

I also find this argument of yours to be an odd reason to conduct bishop's interviews, because I don't think this is a reason that the church has ever even attempted to use as justification for the interview tradition.   Ecclesiastical interviews in the Mormon tradition has never been used as a mechanism to discover sexual abuse to my knowledge, neither has that argument ever been made by church officials as justification for the practice.  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, will227457 said:

I am pretty sure that this is not correct.  I would like to see a reference that shows this to be true. If I was Bishop and someone came in and confessed to molesting a child to me I would encourage him to turn himself in and let him know that once he left my office I would give him 5 minutes to call the police himself or I would. Heck 5 minutes would be to long I wouldn't want to give him the head start.

It's probably different from country to country (and state to state in the US), but you might find this article interesting:

Do members of the clergy have to report abuse? Yes and no

Quote

So what happens if a clergy member learns about an instance of child abuse or neglect during “penitential communications,” like a sacramental confession, when a person confides in a religious leader and expects the information to remain a secret?

When placed in that type of situation, what are a religious person’s spiritual, moral and legal obligations?

It’s a complicated subject, and it made for a lively discussion at a Court-Clergy Conference held Thursday in San Diego. The event, last held in 2015, was organized by Superior Court Judge Laura Halgren and attended by several members of the local bench who led sessions on children in crisis, families in crisis, immigration and human trafficking.

Mandatory reporting was the focus of one session attended by more than 100 people representing a variety of religious denominations.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by cinepro

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You'll need to supply better sources than that to support your claim that....

The book was published by a University Press and it's source is a unh.edu study. Can't get better than that.

How many sources do you need? According to ncjrs.gov "Juveniles account for more than one-third (35.6 percent) of those known to police to have committed sex offenses against minors". However, the 35.6% isn't including juveniles committing offenses against adults (18+ year olds), and the abuses are largely unreported.  So yes, almost half are kids or at least 41%.

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I do think this is a very bad reason for bishop interviews.  One of the reasons its so bad is that they are highly unqualified and untrained to have a conversation about sexual molestation with a victim.  You even mentioned this in your OP, and recommended training to help.  But honestly, it would take years of training and experience to become capable in this respect. 

Okay, let the training begin and put the interviews in hiatus. 

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Ecclesiastical interviews in the Mormon tradition has never been used as a mechanism to discover sexual abuse to my knowledge, neither has that argument ever been made by church officials as justification for the practice.  

and that is why I am saying we need reform. Statistically a child is far more likely to be abused by another child, than he/she is by an LDS Bishop. All I am arguing is that I see a lot of potential for the church to do good. The interviews should be used to discover abuse.   

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, let the training begin and put the interviews in hiatus. 

and that is why I am saying we need reform. Statistically a child is far more likely to be abused by another child, than he/she is by an LDS Bishop. All I am arguing is that I see a lot of potential for the church to do good. The interviews should be used to discover abuse.   

I think you're missing an important component here, and that is the church's concerns about legal liability.  I'm all for more training to help me become more capable if they want to continue this practice of interviewing.  But I don't think the institution would want to officially be in the business of discovering sexual abuse and trying to address it.  I think they will always outsource that to qualified professionals.  

From my perspective, it would be best for church leaders to focus on spiritual guidance, and avoid the topic of sex in interviews completely.  They have no expertise on the subject.  The Christian tradition has a history of policing sexual behavior and its not a glowing history, its fraught with all kinds of abuses. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The book was published by a University Press and it's source is a unh.edu study. Can't get better than that.

How many sources do you need? According to ncjrs.gov "Juveniles account for more than one-third (35.6 percent) of those known to police to have committed sex offenses against minors". However, the 35.6% isn't including juveniles committing offenses against adults (18+ year olds), and the abuses are largely unreported.  So yes, almost almost half are abusers, or at least 41%.

You have supplied no studies that back up what you state ("according to research half of all molesters are underage").  The best you can do is quoting one that states "up to 41%...are said to be juveniles" and then you even misquote that above.

You should withdraw that claim or restate it.....or at the very least stop making this erroneous claim.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have supplied no studies that back up what you state ("according to research half of all molesters are underage").  The best you can do is quoting one that states "up to 41%...are said to be juveniles" and then you even misquote that above.

You should withdraw that claim or restate it.....or at the very least stop making this erroneous claim.

Wait! Is 41% not the same as 50% ? I'm confused.

 

[provoman]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have a lot of good ideas here, Sam, along with some misinformation.  All bishops have a hotline to Church HQ whenever they have a question along these lines (sex abuse), and they and their counselors get regular training in such things.  Also, a bishop can always talk to his stake pres.  So there is no excuse for making a major mistake, such as you describe.  The confidentiality of the bishop's confessional is legally protected, so that he cannot simply report a confession by a molester to the police.  He can immediately remove the molester from his calling, and he can urge the molester to turn himself in.  Same thing for a bank robber, or murderer.  He can't turn them in.  If a victim comes to him, he can urge him or her to report it to the police, and he can even accompany a nervous victim to police HQ for moral support.  If the victim is a minor, it will be important to include an adult relative or friend.  An emergency protective order will probably be needed, and the police can execute one immediately, along with immediate referral to a victim advocate (who is not a police officer).  The victim should be urged to be accompanied by a friend/relative to the ER to do a rape kit, etc.  Evidence should be gathered ASAP.

For a victim reporting to a Bishop, State law would determine if the Bishop is required to notify the police

[SamuelTheLamanite]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have supplied no studies that back up what you state ("according to research half of all molesters are underage").  The best you can do is quoting one that states "up to 41%...are said to be juveniles" and then you even misquote that above.

You should withdraw that claim or restate it.....or at the very least stop making this erroneous claim.

Okay I apologize for not being very precise. I should have said "41%" not half. ALarson, it is clear more than 35% are children. The 35% is problematic because abused committed by minors is mostly unreported. Like it or not the evidence is clear Alarson.  The evidence shows that almost half are kids.

"Juveniles account for more than one-third (35.6 percent) of those known to police to have committed sex offenses against minors"

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

(From what I have read and the stats I've seen, it's closer to around 23%

CFR

[SamuelTheLamanite]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're missing an important component here, and that is the church's concerns about legal liability.  I'm all for more training to help me become more capable if they want to continue this practice of interviewing.  But I don't think the institution would want to officially be in the business of discovering sexual abuse and trying to address it.  I think they will always outsource that to qualified professionals.

Not saying Bishops should replace professionals, all Bishops have to do is to talk about how serious sexual sins are. A religious discussion can have a powerful effect on criminals. 

So Hope, what is more likely to happen? A) The church ends the Interviews for minors B) The church reforms the interview process

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I do think this is a very bad reason for bishop interviews.  One of the reasons its so bad is that they are highly unqualified and untrained to have a conversation about sexual molestation with a victim.  You even mentioned this in your OP, and recommended training to help.  But honestly, it would take years of training and experience to become capable in this respect.  

I also find this argument of yours to be an odd reason to conduct bishop's interviews, because I don't think this is a reason that the church has ever even attempted to use as justification for the interview tradition.   Ecclesiastical interviews in the Mormon tradition has never been used as a mechanism to discover sexual abuse to my knowledge, neither has that argument ever been made by church officials as justification for the practice.  

I agree, and wish people would read the stories. Children/teens are very vunerable to things in their life. They can misconstrue things in their minds. They can believe they are the worst people in the world if they masturbate, and it spirals out of control. I read a story recently that a bishop or counselor brought up masterbation to a young girl about to be baptised. She had no idea what it meant until he went over it with her. It started behaviours in her that probably would have never happened. She looked him up later to find out that he had been convicted of a sexual crime later on. 

We cannot play Russion roulette with these individuals that bishops/counselors can even know how to put things, or say things that won't hurt someone. And there are so many stories that these interviews bring up things that the youth had never heard of before and then they think if they've ever touched themselves they are this sinful person. Or some that will look up a word and then it opens up pornography they'd never ever heard or seen before. 

But I agree the idea these instances aren't the majority of interviews. And agree it may catch someone doing harm, but there are cases that are out of the roof on harm done by these leaders as well...so what to do, what to do.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Tacenda

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not saying Bishops should replace professionals, all Bishops have to do is to talk about how serious sexual sins are. A religious discussion can have a powerful effect on criminals. 

So Hope, what is more likely to happen? A) The church ends the Interviews for minors B) The church reforms the interview process

I'm not great at predicting the future.  I could see an end to any questions of a sexual nature in the interviews.  I would love to see an end to the interviews all together, as I mentioned earlier there is no scriptural or revelatory precedent for this tradition.