Has the time come? IMO YES! To stop YW, YM, Single Women, from meeting alone with Priesthood Leaders. For everyone's sake!

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I think I can give you a glimpse of what might happen.  

This story has been flying around FB and even our EQ mailing list.  Clearly there are some differences of opinion but the overall consensus has been that ward members will withhold their children from Priesthood interviews unless allowed to be present. No exceptions.  

Even if the child would prefer to meet with the priesthood leader alone?

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Enough is enough.  

Hmm.  That sounds rather like "moral panic" rhetoric.

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

2 ward members have shared stories of abuse in their past that came from inappropriate contact with Church leaders.

1. Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests
2. The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media
3. The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern

Check, check and check.

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This situation reminds me of that true true saying: "I don't have a testimony of the history of the Church."  In this case, I don't have a testimony of the Church's law firm.  Kirton and McConkie have covered up abuse by Bishops and others too many times.  

Wow.  That's rather inflammatory.  And utterly unsubstantiated.

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

IMO, high Church leadership is mostly unaware of their activity so I don't blame Church leadership.  But its time for that law firm to go and it is time to stop priesthood leaders from being alone with youth.  

Kirton & McConkie facilitates the reporting of sexual abuse where required by law, such as in this recent story:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

It is the last category above (that is, situations where a bishop is not allowed to disclose instances of purported abuse) which you may have in mind when you accuse K&M of "cover{ing} up abuse."  With respect, I encourage you to give this some further thought and study.  Kirton & McConkie's attorneys are generally good and decent people.  They have no interest in "cover{ing} up abuse," but there are legal issues which can be implicated in some circumstances, issues which may prevent a bishop from reporting, say, a confession of abuse.  K&M simply provides legal advice to make sure that bishops are complying with the law of the land.  Such advice is not fairly or accurately characterized as "cover{ing} up abuse."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, it can be.  But if someone is watching, especially a parent, they might be able to tell if there is something disturbing, especially if they have told their child to look at them or give a certain sign if they want out.  If the bishop was aware of the parent's concern, knowing the parent would cue into any discomfort and likely report it...that would likely be a deterrent. 

There are benefits to having multiple adults in one's life.  The risk of not growing up and being able to relate to others on one's own without having a parent attached to one, speaking for one even...that can lead to big problems (speaking from experience of having a child who was extreme shy).  The vast majority of bishops are safe for kids to talk to and a good way for them to learn to speak up for themselves, imo.

It is eventually going to happen when they go for job interviews, college interviews, etc.

When I read posts about these interviews such as from Rongo or Scott, I doubt they'd agree on even the window. But I'll let them speak for themselves. Rongo expressed he wouldn't do an interview with a parent, I'm guessing that's because he'd want the youth to feel free in confessing any sins and get them off his chest and start the repentance process. I'm sure that window may deter any kid, especially if the parents are looking in from confessing. 

I think we need to structure confessions by teaching them to go straight to their Lord/God and confess. But I guess on another hand, it's good for them to confess to another. 

Such a tough situation, because I see a need and I see how things can go south with these closed doors interviews. 

Hopefully there will be a good solution. 

[Gray]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess if the youth would be comfortable about confessing sins in front of more than the bishop it might work.  However if it only adds an additional barrier than that could be a problem. 

Less of a problem than the risk posed by one-on-one interviews.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It is more than church policy, it is the will of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles.  A bishop is called as a "common judge in Israel."  (D&C 107:54)  He is charged to keep all that is confessed to him in confidence.  None of the callings you've listed in the OP are set apart to do the same.

There is nothing in the scriptures to support bishops proactively asking worthiness questions, as far as I know. Hearing voluntary confessions initiated by the member is another matter.

[bluebell]

I think this problem is as difficult and thorny as it is because so much is at stake on both sides and there is no way to resolve all the legitimate concerns of both sides completely.

Children needed to be protected because a lot is physically, mentally, and emotionally at stake.  Children also need to be able to confess and work towards repentance because a lot is mentally, emotionally, and spiritually at stake.  What won't work is for either side to argue that the concerns of their side are the only concerns that need to be considered and that what they believe to be at stake is the only thing that matters.  

 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by bluebell

[Gray]

7 hours ago, MorningStar said:

But then anyone can walk by and you see crying if you're talking about something upsetting. Not very private. 

If one child is saved from being molested in the bishop's office, wouldn't it be worth it?

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is nothing in the scriptures to support bishops proactively asking worthiness questions, as far as I know. Hearing voluntary confessions initiated by the member is another matter.

We believe that our church is led by living prophets and apostles, and not sola scriptura.

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  That sounds rather like "moral panic" rhetoric.

Why are you attempting to downplay the seriousness of the problem? "Moral Panic" applies to things like Satanic Ritual Abuse, not substantiated and established patterns.  It doesn't matter if the problem is relatively rare, it is still a risk and a problem.

Or, would you consider not allowing your 11 yr old girl to spend time alone with her male school teacher simply playing into a "moral panic."  Abuse happens.  It happens in the Church.  Let's stop lying to ourselves that Priesthood leaders are special and above being humans who fail - sometimes in the worst ways possible.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests
2. The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media
3. The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern

Check, check and check.

You seem to think that categorizing something is a way to discredit it.  Moral panic or not, some women and children have been abused by Church leaders in Church settings.  These leaders violated the trust placed in them by the Lord and by members. Your attempt to do anything possible to distract from a very real problem is surprising. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  That's rather inflammatory.  And utterly unsubstantiated.

It is a matter of public record.

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Even if the child would prefer to meet with the priesthood leader alone?

If my teenage son wanted to spend time alone with his female or male science teacher to study or work on a project, I would not allow it.

Same principle applies here.  Children should not be alone with adults. Especially when those situations involve discussion of anything sexual in nature.

Edited March 20, 2018 by 6EQUJ5

[Traela]

Having a chaperone is fine.  However, I would personally have the rule be that the chaperone is not the parent, unless the child specifically requests it.  Use the Primary, YW, or RS president instead.  This would avoid situations in which a minor wants to confess a sin, or talk about a family member's sin, but basically has to announce it to the whole world by saying, "no, I don't want my parent there."  It might even be good if the bishop can ask, "Would you rather have the YW or the RS president be the chaperone?", at which point a very shy child could ask for their mom instead.  I'm pretty sure my daughter would choose anyone except her YW leader (she doesn't like her), but probably would be fine with our RS president.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Traela

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Traela said:

Having a chaperone is fine.  However, I would personally have the rule be that the chaperone is not the parent, unless the child specifically requests it.  Use the Primary, YW, or RS president instead.  This would avoid situations in which a minor wants to confess a sin, or talk about a family member's sin, but basically has to announce it to the whole world by saying, "no, I don't want my parent there."  It might even be good if the bishop can ask, "Would you rather have the YW or the RS president be the chaperone?"  I'm pretty sure my daughter would choose anyone except her YW leader (she doesn't like her), but probably would be fine with our RS president.

 

I like this solution! But would that extra individual keep their mouth shut! 

[Duncan]

One thing too is what would protect a Church leader from false accusations? it would be a he said/she said or a he said/he said situation, it's usually these cases of abuse and these kinds of things that get discovered but how would someone protect themselves from a false allegation? This kind of thing is happening in my ward right now between two of the youth, someone is saying smack online against someone else and what do you do against false allegations?

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We believe that our church is led by living prophets and apostles, and not sola scriptura.

Then why make an appeal to scripture to support the Bishop's divinely mandated role? And where can we find the revelation initiating worthiness interviews? Or is it just another tradition?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Quote

Even if the child would prefer to meet with the priesthood leader alone?  

If my teenage son wanted to spend time alone with his female or male science teacher to study or work on a project, I would not allow it.  Same principle applies here.  

What about the Church's policy of having a "chaperone" outside the bishop's office?  Is that a mitigating factor?

What about the limited duration of a meeting with a bishop (usually just a few minutes, as compared to prolonged and presumably unsupervised "time alone" with a teacher "to study or work on a project")?  Is that a mitigating factor?

What about youth who may want to address concerns with his/her bishop, but not in front of his father/mother (doctors and therapists likely also run into this situation)?  Is that a mitigating factor?

What about a youth who wants to air concerns or grievances about his/her mother or father, but obviously cannot do so with the parents sitting right there?  Is that a mitigating factor?

Quote

Children should not be alone with adults. Especially when those situations involve discussion of anything sexual in nature.

So a bright line rule?  No exceptions ever?

Do you know of anyone that has such a hard and fast rule?  As I understand it, children are substantially more likely to be victimized by family members (both adults and children), and yet we leave children alone with family members all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

It's a good thing that a parent would never have an ulterior motive for wanting to sit in on a bishop's interview with that parent's child (such as serving as a deterrent to the child taking the bishop into the child's confidence about something harmful the parent may be doing to the child).  Yes, indeedy!  That's a very good thing!  After all, parents always have their children's best interests at heart, without fail and without exception. It's those evil bishops ya gotta look out for, though.    And its a good thing that no juvenile in a bishop's interview has ever confessed to what, but for the juvenile's minority status, would be considered a crime, in which the presence of a third party may well defeat the priest-penitent privilege which otherwise would attach to the conversation with the bishop!  Yes, indeedy, that's a very good thing (but again, gotta look out for them evil bishops!) 

[6EQUJ5]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about the Church's policy of having a "chapereon" outside the bishop's office?  Is that a mitigating factor?

I can only speak for myself but no, this is an unacceptable solution.  Unless another adult is present, there is too much risk for both the child and the Priesthood leader.  Given the seriousness of these issues we need to be equally concerned about protecting leaders from false accusations.  The "Mike Pence Rule" for children/teenagers seems to me to be reasonable.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about the limited duration of a meeting with a bishop (usually just a few minutes, as compared to prolonged and presumably unsupervised "time alone" with a teacher "to study or work on a project")?  Is that a mitigating factor?

Again, I think the risk is simply too high for both members and leaders.  I think we all agree that this type of abuse is extremely rare but it does happen.  Let's eliminate that risk altogether along with the risk of a Priesthood leader being maligned.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about youth who may want to address concerns with his/her bishop, but not in front of his father/mother (doctors and therapists likely also run into this situation)?  Is that a mitigating factor?

More than it being the parent present, I think it is important for another adult to be present.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about a youth who wants to air concerns or grievances about his/her mother or father, but obviously cannot do so with the parents sitting right there?  Is that a mitigating factor?

This is a fair point.  I think requiring two adults present -- a bishop and counselor for example -- addresses this.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So a bright line rule?  No exceptions ever?

 

For my family, I would say any exceptions would be extremely rare. 

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's a good thing that a parent would never have an ulterior motive for wanting to sit in on a bishop's interview with that parent's child (such as serving as a deterrent to the child taking the bishop into the child's confidence about something harmful the parent may be doing to the child).  Yes, indeedy!  That's a very good thing!  After all, parents always have their children's best interests at heart, without fail and without exception. It's those evil bishops ya gotta look out for, though.    And its a good thing that no juvenile in a bishop's interview has ever confessed to what, but for the juvenile's minority status, would be considered a crime, in which the presence of a third party may well defeat the priest-penitent privilege which otherwise would attach to the conversation with the bishop!  Yes, indeedy, that's a very good thing (but again, gotta look out for them evil bishops!) 

If that is the situation, the law should be involved, not the Bishop. It is for his protection as well.

Edited March 20, 2018 by 6EQUJ5

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Why are you attempting to downplay the seriousness of the problem?

I'm not.  At all.  I am questioning the legitimacy and reasonableness of some unseemly reactions to "the problem."

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

"Moral Panic" applies to things like Satanic Ritual Abuse, not substantiated and established patterns.  

I think it can apply here.

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It doesn't matter if the problem is relatively rare, it is still a risk and a problem.

I concur.

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Or, would you consider not allowing your 11 yr old girl to spend time alone with her male school teacher simply playing into a "moral panic."  

I think there are reasonable measures that, if taken, can accommodate both the concerns over safety and the importance of pastoral counseling.

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Abuse happens.  It happens in the Church.  

It happens in the home, too.  Far more often than at church.  As I understand it, a child is statistically more likely to be abused by family member or other child.  And yet children are left with other children or their family members.  All the time.  And nobody is suggesting that the government or some other entity come in an chaperone children in such environments.  

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Let's stop lying to ourselves that Priesthood leaders are special and above being humans who fail - sometimes in the worst ways possible.

Nobody is suggesting anything of the kind.  Yours is a strawman.

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You seem to think that categorizing something is a way to discredit it.  Moral panic or not, some women and children have been abused by Church leaders in Church settings.  

I acknowledge that.  But my reference to a "moral panic" is not a denial that the problem exists, only a critique of some responses to it.

Consider, for example, the widespread "Stranger Danger" concept:

Quote

Stranger danger is the idea or warning that all strangers can potentially be dangerous to children and adults. It is an example of a moral panic that people experience regarding anyone that they are unfamiliar with in society. The phrase stranger danger is intended to sum up the danger associated with adults whom adults or children do not know. The phrase has found widespread usage and many children will hear it during their childhood lives. Many books, films and public service announcements have been devoted to helping children remember this advice. The concept has been criticized for ignoring that most child abductions and harm result not from strangers, but rather from someone the child knows.

...

Constantly warning children of possible danger in the form of strangers has also been criticised as exaggerating the potential threat and unnecessarily spreading mistrust, especially when considering that (for example) in the US, about 800,000 children are reported at least temporarily missing every year, yet only 115 "become victims of what is viewed as classic stranger abductions".

Only 10 percent of the child victimizers in violent crimes are strangers, and sex offenses are the crimes least likely to involve strangers as perpetrators.

In circumstances where the child is in danger for other reasons, avoiding strangers (who might help) could in fact be dangerous itself, such as in the case of an 11-year-old Boy Scout who avoided rescue searchers because he feared they may want to 'steal him'.

According to the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, stranger danger evokes more fear than abusers known to the child. This is because humans have to operate on the basis of trust and reciprocity with acquaintances and it is difficult to view acquaintances as threatening or to fear them.

Stranger danger can also be problematic because it positions children as passive objects of potential threat which allows adults to justify their means of controlling or isolating children. Gill Valentine argues that producing misleading or exaggerated messages about stranger danger results in the notion that public spaces are naturally adult spaces where children must be constantly protected.

Stranger danger has contributed to parents keeping children indoors, resulting in an alleged nature deficit disorder.

I submit that fearmongering of the type being advocated here as to priesthood leaders can lead to consequences similar to "Stranger Danger"-associated problems like those above.

What you are advocating is that children should be taught to presumptively fear and mistrust bishops.  But why stop there?  Why not fear and mistrust all men?  Police officers?  Teachers?  Fathers?  Should they all be treated as inchoate pedophiles and rapists?

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

These leaders violated the trust placed in them by the Lord and by members. Your attempt to do anything possible to distract from a very real problem is surprising. 

You are substantially misreading me.  I am not denying the existence of the problem.  I am critiquing some problems with some of the responses to the problem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I like this solution! But would that extra individual keep their mouth shut! 

I hope so. If we decide on a chaperone system I would not have the parent be the default choice. Just not sure who. I would also give the interviewee the right to have no one else there if they chose.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I can only speak for myself but no, this is an unacceptable solution.  Unless another adult is present, there is too much risk for both the child and the Priesthood leader.  

Why?  How do you measure this "risk?"

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Given the seriousness of these issues we need to be equally concerned about protecting leaders from false accusations.  The "Mike Pence Rule" for children/teenagers seems to me to be reasonable.

I think such accusations are quite rare, and can also be mitigated against.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Again, I think the risk is simply too high for both members and leaders.  I think we all agree that this type of abuse is extremely rare but it does happen.  Let's eliminate that risk altogether along with the risk of a Priesthood leader being maligned.

This seems an awful lot like the rationale behind "Stranger Danger."  Some exceedingly small number of strangers are predatory.  So let's teach children to fear and mistrust all strangers.  Except, as noted in my previous post, "Stranger Danger" had some unintended consequences, didn't it?  The same, I think, could be said of teaching children, in essence, that bishops are innately predatory and untrustworthy.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

More than it being the parent present, I think it is important for another adult to be present.

Okay.  How would you deal with the impact of this other person's presence on the priest/penitent privilege?

And who would this other adult be?

And wouldn't some youth, perhaps already reluctant to disclose troubling issues to a bishop, become even more reluctant to do so in the presence of another person?

And how would you propose to explain to the youth the necessity of the othe person's presence in the room?

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Quote

What about a youth who wants to air concerns or grievances about his/her mother or father, but obviously cannot do so with the parents sitting right there?  Is that a mitigating factor?

This is a fair point.  I think requiring two adults present -- a bishop and counselor for example -- addresses this.

A counselor in the room, but not just outside the door?  That seems like something of a distinction without a difference.

And again, how do you deal with the impact of the counselor's presence on the priest/penitent privilege?

And again, wouldn't some youth, perhaps already reluctant to disclose troubling issues to a bishop, become even more reluctant to do so in the presence of another person?

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

For my family, I would say any exceptions would be extremely rare. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

If one child is saved from being molested in the bishop's office, wouldn't it be worth it?

Yes it would be worth it.  I’m with Papa and many others who agree the time has come to remove youth worthiness interviews from the Mormon process.  

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Yes it would be worth it.  I’m with Papa and many others who agree the time has come to remove youth worthiness interviews from the Mormon process.  

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

Well, if you or anyone else is interested you could sign this petition.

Here's a link to many stories of abuse... http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

Edited March 20, 2018 by Tacenda

[Guest]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Doctrinally, I see no reason for it. I see the wisdom in it, depending on the physical, emotional and spiritual situation. For physical safety we have doors that can stay open and/or with windows on them. For emotional safety, we have parents and guardians who can accompany the child. For spiritual safety, we have keys of discernment and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Should wisdom fail we have the legal system. Should fear prevail, we have D&C 83:4, “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” The Church is a support to the parents and family so their wishes should be honored, or the interview conducted by someone they trust in the line of priesthood leadership. So, I don’t think a one-policy-fits-all is applicable in protecting our youth from pervert bishops, real, imagined or in the popular appearance of things.

You just live in an age now, when accusations are almost as damning as the crime. Steps can be taken that both protect the child or adult, and the leader at the same time. Simply leaving the door open becomes a problem when someone is confusing serious sins to their Bishop, and a door with a window (which is now the norm on most doors, but the Bishop's) is that anyone looking in, always causes the teacher to stop their class to see what the person wants. A second person (of course if the person wants a second person) can solve 99% of any such problems. Recordings would be out of the question, as all would fear this information getting out. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, MorningStar said:

But then anyone can walk by and you see crying if you're talking about something upsetting. Not very private. 

If the bishop's office opens into the clerk's office, the clerk's office could be locked.

Another option would be to have some sort of FaceTime with the sound off, the camera positioned to tell the distance and allow for a sign that it needs to stop from either to be seen by a watching parent or other adult.

[Jane_Doe]

18 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You just live in an age now, when accusations are almost as damning as the crime. Steps can be taken that both protect the child or adult, and the leader at the same time. Simply leaving the door open becomes a problem when someone is confusing serious sins to their Bishop, and a door with a window (which is now the norm on most doors, but the Bishop's) is that anyone looking in, always causes the teacher to stop their class to see what the person wants. A second person (of course if the person wants a second person) can solve 99% of any such problems. Recordings would be out of the question, as all would fear this information getting out. 

I really don't understand this push.  If you are truly try to build a system that "keeps" predators out, why do you ever allow a child to be alone with their parent?  After all, statically parents are MUCH more likely to be perpetrators than a ecclesial authority.  And after you've forbidden a parent from being alone with their kid, the next likely perpetrators are siblings- so no siblings being alone.  And then no grandparents/uncles/aunts/cousins.  Heck, just no ever being alone ever.  

.... Or teach you children was is approbate, when to get help (for themselves or a friend), and keep communication channels open.  And then go actually live life.