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

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Don't Catholics have a mandatory requirement to have confession or is just saying how long it has been part of the ritual.  I vaguely remember it being required to take mass.  I may be wrong.

However, if so it would be standard for a Catholic to enter the confessional.  LDS tend to use confession with the bishop,for more serious sins, so having it inna visible place would be problematic imo.

It is a requirement that Catholics receive communion at least once a year, around Easter time, plus or minus.    To receive communion one must be "worthy" meaning that either one has not committed any sins for the year, or that one has been to confession and therefore has had them remitted. https://www.catholicherald.com/Faith/Your_Faith/Straight_Answers/The__Easter_duty__is_still_applicable/

Anyone can attend mass, but taking communion unworthily is considered a very serious sin.  But if one is sinless, theoretically, confession is not required. 

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

I think to most people not used to Mormon practices, it sounds pretty inappropriate.

Oh, I don't know about that. I suspect it largely depends on who you are asking and how you are presenting it. 

People can make pretty innocuous things sound much more inappropriate than they really are. 

 

Quote

Could it be that you're simply used to the practice, and it seems normal to you?

To the extent that our sense of propriety is influenced by the culture we are raised in, I suppose that could be part of it. So much so that it overrides my ability to make realistic judgments about the level of risk my children are being exposed to? I don't think so. 

 

[Guest]

On March 21, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Amulek said:

God only has fallible people to work with here on earth. 

So true, which makes this work such a marvel, and a success story that fills much of the Earth. 

[Analytics]

Just to disclose where I'm coming from, about 20 years ago I had a crisis of faith that included hearing the story of a woman who claimed she was raped by her bishop. Even though I didn't have proof that it really happened, it was thoroughly believable. What bothered me most about the story was an awareness of the teachings and culture that left women especially vulnerable to abuse in the (hopefully) rare occasions that this were to happen. There is a long continuum between a priesthood holder who is a rapist on one end, a creep in the middle, and a pure and noble clergyman on the other. Nevertheless, this was one of the deciding factors in my decision to make a clean break from the church--I did not want to raise my daughters in this environment.

If I were interested in returning to the church, the following policies would make it easier:

1- Don't have mandatory youth interviews.

2- If somebody wants counseling, allow them to go to the man or woman whom they choose--not the person who the church assigned for that role for the entire ward.

3- Don't glorify the priesthood holders as having special powers and authority to question you and judge you in the place of God. Rather, treat them with the same caution and respect that a teacher or other member of the community receives.

4- Disclose in official lessons that on (hopefully) very rare occasions a bishop or other counselor steps out of line. Explain exactly where those lines are, and teach members what they should do if the bishop is out of line or they otherwise make the member feel uncomfortable.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

Oh, I don't know about that. I suspect it largely depends on who you are asking and how you are presenting it. 

People can make pretty innocuous things sound much more inappropriate than they really are. 

To the extent that our sense of propriety is influenced by the culture we are raised in, I suppose that could be part of it. So much so that it overrides my ability to make realistic judgments about the level of risk my children are being exposed to? I don't think so. 

 

I've seen it discussed in a group of mixed Christians of various denominations, and they seemed to think it is inappropriate. There's also a group that has been fighting against sex abuse in the Catholic church that has spoken out against the LDS practice. I think perhaps you have tunnel vision.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally vague, and that is where "absolute truth" comes in.  That standard is so ambiguous it is meaningless.

It is not sound parental judgement to allow one's child to have an interview for a few minutes with a trusted clergyman who is also the father of his own children?  And where is that written in stone?  Sounds like a way to hide abuse to me.

Sorry, where does absolute truth come in? You seem to have tunnel vision too.

 

Quote

If the child is being abused at home, where is the child to go?  If the bishop suspects parental abuse, how is he to interview the child?  He is mandated to report parental abuse and the parents are blocking his ability to talk to the child in such a case.

Teachers are mandated to report abuse. Kids should tell teachers - bishops often don't report. Some bishops are abusers and alone time with children is all the chance they need to abuse.

 

Quote

Is it better that the child be interviewed by child protective services instead, or the police than a trusted "father of the ward" ?

Who is to protect children from their parents?

There are at least two sides to everything.

And what does "being used to it" have to do with proving it as inappropriate?  I am used to breathing on a regular basis and feel anxiety when I cannot.

What does "proving" have to do with anything? You're not some kind of silly positivist, are you?

 

Quote

Does that show that breathing is inappropriate?  Evolution has bred into us all kinds of useful practices with survival value and that is why we are "used to them".  Should we just throw way everything we are "used to" as now being inappropriate?

What kind of argument is that?  "You are just used to it- so throw it out"-  ??

It's inappropriate and unnecessarily puts kids at risk, and lowers their defenses against others who might groom them. That's the reason to throw it out.

I consider my first experience with a bishop's interview to have been sexual harassment. I'm sure the bishop didn't see it that way. He was just used to Mormon tradition, which in his case was getting an 11 year old  kid alone in his office and talking graphically about masturbation and bestiality.

Not just one kid, but all the kids. And he thought it was normal. I couldn't believe at the time that my parents would allow this to happen.

It's bad. Throw it out.

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Gray

[mrmarklin]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:02 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Having read, and re-read one story, and having heard more like of such stories, of young women, and even young men meeting alone with Bishops and Stake Presidents, I think it should end. 

I have been calling for and asking why this is (or was) not policy already. When serving in my Bishopric, so long ago, and while I had young daughters, I felt uncomfortable with questions being asked in a closed setting. I spoke about this is my Bishop about it, and he admitted that such meeting make him uncomfortable as well. My suggestions was for Relief Society Presidents, Young Women Presidents, and Young Men Presidents to have expanded calling, where each can meet with the Bishop, when he is meeting alone with Women, Girls and Boys. He liked the idea, but it was not Church policy at the time. 

Any thoughts, good idea, bad idea, what? 

The Catholics have a device called a confessional. The Church could adapt/adopt something similar. 

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

I've seen it discussed in a group of mixed Christians of various denominations, and they seemed to think it is inappropriate.

I've seen Harry Potter discussed in a group of mixed Christians of various denominations, and they seemed to think it was inappropriate as well - though not for any of the reasons any sane person ought to dislike the books (read: Potter Stinks!). So, you know, Harry Potter is inappropriate. Q.E.D. 

Look, as I said before, how something is presented makes a difference. I wasn't there when you witnessed (participated?) in this discussion, but I'm skeptical that the church's side was given a fair shake.

 

Quote

There's also a group that has been fighting against sex abuse in the Catholic church that has spoken out against the LDS practice.

I understand why abuse survivors would be opposed to any practice that puts adults and minors together without any other supervision. They have reason to be especially sensitive to any situation that poses even a small amount of risk for abuse. I think their concerns should inform, but not necessarily dictate, our policies going forward. 

 

Quote

I think perhaps you have tunnel vision.

I'll make you a deal. You hire an actuary to crunch the numbers and come up with the probability that a child will be sexually assaulted by a Bishop during a worthiness interview and we can then compare that risk to other known risks and see which of us has the better grasp on how realistic the danger is.

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Amulek

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I've seen Harry Potter discussed in a group of mixed Christians of various denominations, and they seemed to think it was inappropriate as well - though not for any of the reasons any sane person ought to dislike the books (read: Potter Stinks!). So, you know, Harry Potter is inappropriate. Q.E.D. 

Look, as I said before, how something is presented makes a difference. I wasn't there when you witnessed (participated?) in this discussion, but I'm skeptical that the church's side was given a fair shake.

 

I understand why abuse survivors would be opposed to any practice that puts adults and minors together without any other supervision. They have reason to be especially sensitive to any situation that poses even a small amount of risk for abuse. I think their concerns should inform, but not necessarily dictate, our policies going forward. 

 

I'll make you a deal. You hire an actuary to crunch the numbers and come up with the probability that a child will be sexually assaulted by a Bishop during a worthiness interview and we can then compare that risk to other known risks and see which of us has the better grasp on how realistic the danger is.

 

Can you agree that it has happened before that a bishop has abused a child in a one-on-one interview? Even one time is too much. The tradition is not worth holding on to if it results in even one child being molested.

There is no real reason why they can't change. Interviews can and do happen successfully with two adults present. There isn't even a scriptural basis for the interviews to take place in the first place. This is fungible stuff. Children are more important than tradition.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Can you agree that it has happened before that a bishop has abused a child in a one-on-one interview? Even one time is too much. The tradition is not worth holding on to if it results in even one child being molested.

There is no real reason why they can't change. Interviews can and do happen successfully with two adults present. There isn't even a scriptural basis for the interviews to take place in the first place. This is fungible stuff. Children are more important than tradition.

The "one time is too much" argument is lazy.

If you use that argument, no one would every be allowed to do anything.  Everything has happened at least once.

 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The "one time is too much" argument is lazy.

If you use that argument, no one would every be allowed to do anything.  Everything has happened at least once.

 

It's not lazy. One simply has to weigh the competing importance of a long-standing tradition that is completely changeable, vs the well being of children. By my math the conclusion is obvious. We change the tradition to protect the children. Even if it's only a dozen children a year (not an unlikely figure), it's worth it. Even if it's one child per decade, it would be worth it. People's lives are ruined by this stuff.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not lazy. One simply has to weigh the competing importance of a long-standing tradition that is completely changeable, vs the well being of children. By my math the conclusion is obvious. We change the tradition to protect the children. Even if it's only a dozen children a year (not an unlikely figure), it's worth it. Even if it's one child per decade, it would be worth it. People's lives are ruined by this stuff.

What about the children helped by the current system?

you want to stop helping children?

[Gray]

Just now, Danzo said:

What about the children helped by the current system?

you want to stop helping children?

What children would those be? If they really want to help children, they should encourage minor victims of abuse, from the pulpit, to tell a teacher. Teachers will report to the police. Teachers don't get to decide that the accuser isn't credible because the accused is such a prominent member of the community.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not lazy. One simply has to weigh the competing importance of a long-standing tradition that is completely changeable, vs the well being of children. By my math the conclusion is obvious. We change the tradition to protect the children. Even if it's only a dozen children a year (not an unlikely figure), it's worth it. Even if it's one child per decade, it would be worth it. People's lives are ruined by this stuff.

It all depends on individual opportunity cost calculus. For those who don't think there is really any value in worthiness interviews as constituted, then it's a no-brainer, and the "one is one too many" argument is compelling. For those who think there is real value in worthiness interviews and temple/ordinance gatekeeping, then "one is one too many" is a lazy argument. As you know, and as Danzo pointed out, we would never let our kids go to school or ride in cars ever if we were not willing to allow thresholds of acceptable risk. 

While there are guaranteed to be future cases (not numerically large) of abuse at the hands of Church leaders, even if chaperoning and windows are implemented, for many of us, this small risk outweighs the benefits of one-on-one worthiness interviews. I don't think either side is amenable to having their minds changed. 

I would be fully in favor of limiting interviews to temple and ordinances, and eliminating annual and semi-annual interviews. But, I have upwards of 70 youth in my ward . . .   But, I sense that the "one is one too many" people also don't think bishops should talk to youth about masturbation, pornography, fornication, etc. when initiated by the youth, either. I just got a text last night from a boy in my ward who needs to talk about this, and this has been fully initiated by him. My experience in these types of discussions with "one is one too many" people is that they regard the whole construct of counseling with the bishop to be grooming, even when the bishop is competent and effective, because it supports the notion that such a conversation is appropriate at all. To them, no non-family adults should ever have these discussions at all with any youth, even if initiated by the youth and supported by their parents (which is often the case).

Given the Church's stepping on rakes with how it and spokesmen have handled this current thing (the Church's handling of this has been ham-handed, blatantly damage-controlling, as shoes keep dropping on a daily basis), and the outcry encapsulated by the OP, I would not be surprised if the Church implemented drastic interview measures soon. My wife and I were talking about this, and I think I would ask to be released at that point. As she said, "You're three years into your second turn as a bishop. Maybe it would be time to let other people deal with this." It would put me in a bind if the Church officially ordered chaperoning, because I have strong feelings about the importance of worthiness interviews through priesthood keys. And, given multiple conversations I've had with Church counsel, I know how strongly they feel about the importance of confidentiality within the confessional. As soon as there is another person in that conversation --- no matter who that person is --- the legal and moral foundation for clergy privilege is destroyed. That's what makes me whipsaw back to being skeptical that major changes can or will be made.

I think everyone can agree that Eric Hawkins does not have an enviable job, though . . . 

[Danzo]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

What children would those be? If they really want to help children, they should encourage minor victims of abuse, from the pulpit, to tell a teacher. Teachers will report to the police. Teachers don't get to decide that the accuser isn't credible because the accused is such a prominent member of the community.

You are very fortunate to  live a very sheltered and innocent life.  I hope your life doesn't give you the  experiences to show you just how naive that comment is.  The teacher is more likely to be the abuser than the church leader.

Someone damaged like that is very much in need of of help only Christ and his atonement something a person who holds keys and is authorized to represent the savior.

I have a very personal relationship with someone who experienced abuse as a child and was helped through the healing  process by her branch president.  

This branch president was a farm laborer with no formal "professional" training.  She and I are both grateful for the love, kindness hope and spiritual renewal provided by this person. I am eternal grateful to the lord for him.

You and your kind under the guise of "One time too many" would strip children like her of the benefit of this kind of help.

Let me tell you something That "one time is too much" is going to happen, no matter what precautions are in place.  The only thing you might do is change the location. 

People like that are not going to go "Gee, I was going to abuse this child but heck, now that there is a rule in place, I'm not going to do it anymore." If the church is not a good location, another location will be found.

Children need the help and assistance only a bishop can provide. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

What children would those be? If they really want to help children, they should encourage minor victims of abuse, from the pulpit, to tell a teacher. Teachers will report to the police. Teachers don't get to decide that the accuser isn't credible because the accused is such a prominent member of the community.

"If these numbers are representative of the student population nationwide, 4.5 million students currently in grades K-12 have suffered some form of sexual abuse by an educator, and more than 3 million have experienced sexual touching or assault."

Relying on primarily on teachers to report abuse is problematic since they may be abusers themselves.  Creating multiple opportunities for a child to feel safe enough to report seems to me to be wise.  How to do so within the Church setting needs to be worked on, but I don't think the answer should be it is someone else's problem/job.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"If these numbers are representative of the student population nationwide, 4.5 million students currently in grades K-12 have suffered some form of sexual abuse by an educator, and more than 3 million have experienced sexual touching or assault."

Relying on primarily on teachers to report abuse is problematic since they may be abusers themselves.  Creating multiple opportunities for a child to feel safe enough to report seems to me to be wise.  How to do so within the Church setting needs to be worked on, but I don't think the answer should be it is someone else's problem/job.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

 

I've heard enough stories of minors being victim blamed by their bishops and the abuse being covered up that I don't think it's a viable option as it stands. At least teachers have training in their duty as mandatory reporters. Bishops have no idea what they're doing, generally speaking. And of course there is no reason to think teachers are more likely to abuse than bishops. But bishops have greater opportunity.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

You are very fortunate to  live a very sheltered and innocent life.  I hope your life doesn't give you the  experiences to show you just how naive that comment is.  The teacher is more likely to be the abuser than the church leader.

CFR please

 

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Someone damaged like that is very much in need of of help only Christ and his atonement something a person who holds keys and is authorized to represent the savior.

I have a very personal relationship with someone who experienced abuse as a child and was helped through the healing  process by her branch president.  

This branch president was a farm laborer with no formal "professional" training.  She and I are both grateful for the love, kindness hope and spiritual renewal provided by this person. I am eternal grateful to the lord for him.

You and your kind under the guise of "One time too many" would strip children like her of the benefit of this kind of help.

Do you have any clinical data that says abuse victims are more likely to be helped by farmer Bishop than by a trained professional?

 

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Let me tell you something That "one time is too much" is going to happen, no matter what precautions are in place.  The only thing you might do is change the location. 

 

 

That's not an excuse to abandon precautions, which is exactly what is done in the bishop's interview.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

You are very fortunate to  live a very sheltered and innocent life.  I hope your life doesn't give you the  experiences to show you just how naive that comment is.  The teacher is more likely to be the abuser than the church leader.

CFR please

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-myths-about-clergy-sexual-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

"4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html

 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you have any clinical data that says abuse victims are more likely to be helped by farmer Bishop than by a trained professional?

Just personal experience.

Any Clinical data that you know about?

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not an excuse to abandon precautions, which is exactly what is done in the bishop's interview.

Whatever precautions should not stop the ecclesiastical interviews. 

Just like we shouldn't stop people from going to doctors (or professional therapists, or teacher) just because there is a possibility they might do something bad. 

We should stop the good people do just because of a remote fear of something bad that might happen.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-myths-about-clergy-sexual-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

"4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html

 

Not directly relevant, CFR not met.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just personal experience.

Any Clinical data that you know about?

Directly related to farmers giving victims of abuse counseling? No. But I'd be surprised if trained professionals didn't fair better than random guys from all walks of life.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Whatever precautions should not stop the ecclesiastical interviews. 

Why is that?

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just like we shouldn't stop people from going to doctors (or professional therapists, or teacher) just because there is a possibility they might do something bad. 

Doctors heal people. What do interviews accomplish?

 

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We should stop the good people do just because of a remote fear of something bad that might happen.

 

What makes you think the interviews are good?

 

I'm pushing back a bit hard, but I'm not necessarily saying interviews should stop altogether. I think at very least though one-on-one interviews should stop for minors.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

CFR please

This was issued to Danzo, but as a teacher and a bishop, I have to say that your claim:

But bishops have greater opportunity [than teachers]

is not my experience at all. I get flirted with and even propositioned as a teacher, and I have *way* more opportunities to be alone with or groom victims in a traditional sense (as opposed to the new definition of youth interviews being de facto grooming simply by existing) in school settings than in 8+ years as a bishop in two wards. The opportunities to bond with students  is much greater than it is as a church leader, too. We have students who become disciples of certain teachers, and it is clear that charismatic and influential teachers who want to can easily cross red lines. Church leaders, on the other hand, have to work a lot harder and create situations that are clearly very wrong for abuse to be able to happen and continue happening. I think it's a lot easier for teachers to take advantage of their rapport with students and to use situations in a school or after school club/sport/band/drama/project/field trip/etc. setting that seem more natural and not as clearly red-lined as it is for church leaders.

I'm not minimizing that Bishop apparently preyed on vulnerable women, women who were emotionally or mentally vulnerable. But even they should have known that receiving "frisky" back rubs in his home or going down into a dripping, concrete floored, exposed plumbing room with a bed and TV/VCR to talk with the MTC president about your troubles is past the line of acceptability or propriety. That's what I'm getting at. The situations that church leaders would have to bring about seem so bizarre as to defy description. Remember that seminary teacher who held tryst in a boxcar in south Provo? To imagine anything like that happening in a locked bishop's office in an interview setting also defies description. All of the examples I am aware of for church leader sexual abuse happened in weird settings, because the church and the office make no sense and are so fraught with risk that they serve as a natural deterrent. 

I think the real sticking point for the "stop all interviews now!" is that they have a revulsion for all youth interviews, period --- even from "good" bishops. They see them as fundamentally inappropriate, even when there is nothing untoward from the bishop. So, they seize on the low-hanging fruit of anecdotal extremes (which admittedly exist) to push for total abolition.