Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Hope. I am not saying Bishops should be criminal detectives. Bishops by simply saying "Sexual sins are very serious" could make some criminals feel guilty.  The doctrine "sexual sins are serious" is what the church teaches anyway, and it will never go away. So in other words all I am saying is the potential good of Bishop interviews, but it doesn't mean there aren't problems.  But thank you, finally we are coming to an agreement.  

I’d be in favor of clarifying that the seriousness of sexual sins resides squarely in acts of abuse and illegal sexual activity.  The church has a very poor track record with respect to discussing this topic.

 Consensual sex between adults outside of marriage is many orders of magnitude less serious than actual illegal acts of abuse.  They aren’t even in the same ballpark.  The myths around arrousal and normal exploration and controlling thoughts and the hypersensitive rhetoric surrounding this topic has made it very difficult to have real discussions about what is healthy, what is moral, what is problematic, and how would God want us to act in honesty and respect towards ourselves and others.  

The Mormon baggage on this subject is seriously one of the biggest problems I see in the church today.  I honestly don’t see much light at the end of this dark tunnel.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

but it is never going away. All you could hope for is a reformed interview process

Never say never

[cinepro]

On 2/2/2018 at 4:33 PM, hope_for_things said:

 

The Mormon baggage on this subject is seriously one of the biggest problems I see in the church today.  I honestly don’t see much light at the end of this dark tunnel.  

Yeah, good luck with that...

Quote

“The doctrine of this Church is that sexual sin — the illicit sexual relations of men and women — stands, in its enormity, next to murder.  The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under His solemn and awful condemnation.” (First Presidency Message of October 1942)

If that's "baggage", then it's the kind of bag with a little handcuff attached that goes around the wrist so you don't accidentally lose it.

Edited February 4, 2018 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay?? Do you think Bishop interviews should end?

No, but I do not think your suggestions about having trained counselors sit in makes sense either.

[USU78]

19 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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"

Welcome to the fraternity of those made offenders for lack of an adjective.

"Nearly"

[USU78]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, but I do not think your suggestions about having trained counselors sit in makes sense either.

And might, moreover, completely destroy the priest penitent privilege, for which a fair amount of blood was spilt.

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Welcome to the fraternity of those made offenders for lack of an adjective.

"Nearly"

Not true.  "Nearly" was not in his statement:

Quote

"According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles"

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70172-mormon-bishops-interview-policy-opens-the-door-for-abuse/?do=findComment&comment=1209792804

 

Then he gave a link to support that which states:

Quote

Juveniles themselves commit a considerable proportion of sexual offenses against children, with estimates indicating about a third...

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

CFR

Sorry, Samuel....just now saw this.  Here's a few:

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf

 

[USU78]

Just now, ALarson said:

Not true.  "Nearly" was not in his statement:

Then he gave a link to support that which states:

 

No kidding. You are the one made him an offender for want of an adjective.

"Nearly"

Kindly read for content.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No kidding. You are the one made him an offender for want of an adjective.

"Nearly"

Kindly read for content.

There was no "nearly" in the statement I issued the CFR on.  What do you not understand about that?

Also, there was no "nearly" in the source he provided in answer to the CFR.  It stated "up to 41 percent". 

That is not:  "half of all abusers" as he originally claimed.

Kindly read for content.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 2/2/2018 at 4:15 PM, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Well, not really.  We claim to have Priesthood authority and continuing revelation.  So such extrapolation is both contemplated and expected.

Well, no.  I made no such either/or declarations.  It's both.  Actual revelations about extrapolation and interpretation and application of doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a convenient interpretation of what authority and revelation mean to support your argument. 

"Convenient" here being synonymous for "congruent with the Church's teachings."

It's not particularly surprising to me that the LDS Church privileges the inspired guidance of living prophets and apostles as they read and interpret and apply scriptural precepts to our day, and that they also receive new and continuing revelation.

Quote

If all policies are the product of revelation, then why does the church characterize some past policies as disavowed? 

I didn't say all policies are the product of revelation.  The Church has policies in place for not keeping food in the church kitchen refrigerator overnight.  I doubt that policy arose from "revelation."

On the other hand, maybe it did: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.   Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness." (D&C 58:26-27).

The Lord has revealed to us that He is not going to "command in all things."  Ipso facto, the Brethren function under this revelatory precept when they promulgate the policies of the Church.  Some, but not all things, are "commanded."  Regarding those things about which the Brethren are not "commanded," they are expected to do their best, to "do many things of their own free will."  It is understandable, then, that the Brethren don't get every single decision and policy exactly correct.  They are human, after all.  But I believe they are doing their best, and that they are generally performing their duties quite admirably.

Quote

My suspicion is that you won't go so far as to claim that 100% of all policies throughout history are the product of revelation. 

Your suspicion is well-founded.  I don't claim that.

Quote

But I also suspect that you aren't willing to point out a single current policy that you believe isn't the product of revelation.  

You are correct.  I will not publicly speak against the Brethren.  If I find a policy problematic, I will raise it in the appropriate time, place and manner.  Presenting such things in this forum, populated in part as it is by critics and opponents of the Church, is not the way to go.

Quote

With respect to the bishop's interview process, I personally don't believe it was the product of revelation. 

I strongly suspect it is.  I can think of all sorts of scriptural mandates regarding the bishop's pastoral responsibilities that can form the scriptural predicate for such interviews.

Of course, an individual bishop can mess things up and ask inappropriate or unduly intrusive questions.  We can and should work on such things.

Quote

We have no evidence that it was introduced through revelation. 

I think we do.

Quote

The church hasn't ever even made the claim that this is revelation, something you're doing, but the church hasn't ever done to my knowledge.  

This sort of reductio ad absurdum hairsplitting is not persuasive to me.  At all.

As an attorney, I appear regularly before judges.  Mostly state court judges.  These are "courts of general jurisdiction."  In other words, they have authority to address pretty much any legal dispute that falls within their jurisdiction.  These judges are therefore accorded a very considerable amount of "discretion," or leeway, in their responsibilities.  So when a judge makes a decision on a procedural or some such matter, that's pretty much the end of it.  There is seldom a need for the judge to say "Well, let me quote chapter and verse the specific constitutional or statutory or procedural authority under which I am making this decision."  The exercise of discretion presupposes that the appropriate authority is extant, or else that the matter at issue is not specifically addressed in the constitution, or the state code, or the rules of procedure, such that the judge can proceed as he/she deems fit.

Similarly, as pertaining to matters of church governance, I believe the General Authorities are likewise given some fairly broad discretionary authority.  That authority is specifically and emphatically scriptural (see above), and therefore generally eliminates the need for the Brethren to "quote chapter and verse" before making each and every discretionary decision.

Quote

All we have is your assumption that this tradition, an extrapolation by church leaders, has the imprimatur of revelation.  

No, we have quite a bit more than my assumption.

The Brethren have been commanded, by revelation, to make judgment calls.  To do things without being specifically commanded by God.  Bishop interviews could fall squarely within these parameters (in addition to being grounded in scriptural mandates regarding the pastoral responsibilities of bishops).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Convenient" here being synonymous for "congruent with the Church's teachings."

It's not particularly surprising to me that the LDS Church privileges the inspired guidance of living prophets and apostles as they read and interpret and apply scriptural precepts to our day, and that they also receive new and continuing revelation.

I didn't say all policies are the product of revelation.  The Church has policies in place for not keeping food in the church kitchen refrigerator overnight.  I doubt that policy arose from "revelation."

On the other hand, maybe it did: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.   Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness." (D&C 58:26-27).

The Lord has revealed to us that He is not going to "command in all things."  Ipso facto, the Brethren function under this revelatory precept when they promulgate the policies of the Church.  Some, but not all things, are "commanded."  Regarding those things about which the Brethren are not "commanded," they are expected to do their best, to "do many things of their own free will."  It is understandable, then, that the Brethren don't get every single decision and policy exactly correct.  They are human, after all.  But I believe they are doing their best, and that they are generally performing their duties quite admirably.

Your suspicion is well-founded.  I don't claim that.

You are correct.  I will not publicly speak against the Brethren.  If I find a policy problematic, I will raise it in the appropriate time, place and manner.  Presenting such things in this forum, populated in part as it is by critics and opponents of the Church, is not the way to go.

I strongly suspect it is.  I can think of all sorts of scriptural mandates regarding the bishop's pastoral responsibilities that can form the scriptural predicate for such interviews.

Of course, an individual bishop can mess things up and ask inappropriate or unduly intrusive questions.  We can and should work on such things.

I think we do.

This sort of reductio ad absurdum hairsplitting is not persuasive to me.  At all.

As an attorney, I appear regularly before judges.  Mostly state court judges.  These are "courts of general jurisdiction."  In other words, they have authority to address pretty much any legal dispute that falls within their jurisdiction.  These judges are therefore accorded a very considerable amount of "discretion," or leeway, in their responsibilities.  So when a judge makes a decision on a procedural or some such matter, that's pretty much the end of it.  There is seldom a need for the judge to say "Well, let me quote chapter and verse the specific constitutional or statutory or procedural authority under which I am making this decision."  The exercise of discretion presupposes that the appropriate authority is extant, or else that the matter at issue is not specifically addressed in the constitution, or the state code, or the rules of procedure, such that the judge can proceed as he/she deems fit.

As pertaining to matters of church governance, I believe the General Authorities are likewise given some fairly broad discretionary authority.  That authority is specifically and emphatically scriptural (see above), and therefore generally eliminates the need for the Brethren to "quote chapter and verse" before making each and every disctretionary decision.

No, we have quite a bit more than my assumption.

The Brethren have been commanded, by revelation, to make judgment calls.  To do things without being specifically commanded by God.  Bishop interviews could fall squarely within these parameters (in addition to being grounded in scriptural mandates regarding the pastoral responsibilities of bishops).

Thanks,

-Smac

Who is accountable if those judgement calls all gor awry and way off base?  God?  Brethren?  or the Bishop?  who is accountable for a judgement call  that may cause a guilt or shame incomprehensible to a child of God?  And so unecessary.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jeanne

[USU78]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

There was no "nearly" in the statement I issued the CFR on.  What do you not understand about that?

Also, there was no "nearly" in the source he provided in answer to the CFR.  It stated "up to 41 percent". 

That is not:  "half of all abusers" as he originally claimed.

Kindly read for content.

41% can reasonably said to be "nearly" half. In any case, that was plainly a secondary point, with the principal point being that there is a significant number of youth offenders of youth.

And you plainly made the poster an offender for lack of a qualifying adjective. And the percentage was plainly a quibble.

That was badly done. You might wish to consider an apology.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

41% can reasonably said to be "nearly" half. In any case, that was plainly a secondary point, with the principal point being that there is a significant number of youth offenders of youth.

And you plainly made the poster an offender for lack of a qualifying adjective. And the percentage was plainly a quibble.

That was badly done. You might wish to consider an apology.

I never have a problem with apologizing when I'm wrong.  But I'm not in this case.

Samuel made a definite claim that was not correct.  He stated:

Quote

"According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles"

Then he gives the link to that study in that same post and it doesn't back up his claim (it states "about a third").

The one third statistic is closer to the actual truth (from the studies I've read) and I provided links:

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

 

So, I suggest you drop this and move on.

Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I never have a problem with apologizing when I'm wrong.  But I'm not in this case.

Samuel made a definite claim that was not correct.  He stated:

Then he gives the link to that study in that same post and it doesn't back up his claim (it states "about a third").

The one third statistic is closer to the actual truth (from the studies I've read) and I provided links:

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

 

So, I suggest you drop this and move on.

As expected.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Who is accountable if those judgement calls all gor awry and way off base?  God?  Brethren?  or the Bishop? 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  It's quite vague.  What is meant by "go awry and way off base?"

What "judgment calls" are you speaking of?

There are all sorts of "judgment calls" that can have unpleasant but necessary and correct effects on the lives of people.  

Of course, there are also situations when a "judgment call" is made in good faith, but the results are so manifestly bad that the decision is determined to have been flawed (and, if possible, is reversed).

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Who is accountable for a judgement call  that may cause a guilt or shame incomprehensible to a child of God? 

Again, way too vague.  What does this mean?  "Who is accountable" to whom?  

What if the "judgment call" is correct and results in adverse effects on "a child of God?"

I have a friend who some years ago was sent to prison after being convicted on some serious criminal charges.  His wife and children have really had a hard time of it.  Emotionally, financially, socially, etc.  Do these adverse effects mean that the judge's decision to send him to prison "{went} awry and way off base?"  Do we stop enforcing laws because they "may cause a guilt or shame?"  Should emotions trump justice?

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And so unecessary.

Again, way too vague.  I have no idea what metric you are using to determine whether a particular "judgment call" is "unnecessary."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Then he gives the link to that study in that same post and it doesn't back up his claim (it states "about a third").

The one third statistic is closer to the actual truth (from the studies I've read) and I provided links:

It says "account for more than one-third (35.6 percent) of those known to police "

41% is closer to the truth because abuse crimes committed by children are rarely reported to police. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[changed]

after a really bad situations with quite a few children - at the hands of a high priest in the bishopric who is now in jail - we no longer allow our children to participate in PPI's.  They still have interviews, but they are not one-on-one interviews, all interviews are conducted with a parent present.  There are several in our ward doing this now, and it is no big deal.  

Just FYI to everyone out there - if PPI's make you uncomfortable, you can ask, and have, someone else go into the interview with you.

We have also talked with our kids about what constitutes appropriate questions - they know not to answer, or stay in any meetings involving any sexually explicit or probing questions that make them feel uncomfortable.  

Most people, most of the time are fine - and our kids know this is not just a church issue, it is for everyone issue - teachers at school, police officers, it does not matter who it is, they are NEVER to go into a room with another adult where it is just the two of them.  period.  

Edited February 4, 2018 by changed

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It says "account for more than one-third (35.6 percent) of those known to police "

41% is closer to the truth because abuse crimes committed by children are rarely reported to police. 

Samuel, I mainly disagreed with this statement you made:

Quote

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.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70172-mormon-bishops-interview-policy-opens-the-door-for-abuse/?do=findComment&comment=1209792804

 

The stats that I've seen published are closer to 23%-25%....not closer to 41% and most especially not the "half of all abuser" that you stated.  

Here are a few:

Quote

Not all perpetrators are adults—an estimated 23% of reported cases of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18.

https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#prepetrators

 

Quote

23% of reported cases of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

Quote

 

Juvenile sex offenders comprise more than one-quarter (25.8 percent) of all sex offenders 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

 

 

If you have any studies that have been published which have stats supporting your claim that 50% (half) all sex abuse cases are perpetuated by juveniles, I sincerely would be interested in looking at them.

Edited February 4, 2018 by ALarson

[SamuelTheLamanite]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Juvenile sex offenders comprise more than one-quarter (25.8 percent) of all sex offenders 

ALarson, are you aware it is out of context?

Quote

Juvenile sex offenders comprise more than one-quarter (25.8 percent) of all sex offenders and more than one third (35.6%) of sex offenders against juvenile victims

Alarson, we have to be very careful about the statistics on serious topics

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

with the principal point being that there is a significant number of youth offenders of youth.

Yes, it is a surprising statistic. I suspect most people are not aware 

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

ALarson, are you aware it is out of context?

Alarson, we have to be very careful about the statistics on serious topics

No, what he posted was what was directly related to or relevant to what you said (that half of ALL abusers are juveniles).  

Your additional info isn’t the same comparison because it’s just those against juveniles (that’s not ALL).

(And it still isn’t “half”).

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by JulieM

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Link Didn't work

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

I apologize for the confusion

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:42 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said: