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

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not directly relevant, CFR not met.

How do you figure? The Washington Post article stated that the 4% figure for Catholic priests appears lower than the rate for teachers and far below men in general. Isn't that what you asked for? You wanted him to back up a claim that teachers are more likely to abuse than clergy. How would citing that from that article and linking to it be "not directly relevant?"

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Can you agree that it has happened before that a bishop has abused a child in a one-on-one interview?

Certainly. 

 

Quote

Even one time is too much. The tradition is not worth holding on to if it results in even one child being molested.

I think rongo's post addresses this, and it tracks my own thinking as well.

The 'one time is too much' line is only going to be appealing to those who think that there is little or no value to the interview process at all. 

It sounds like we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this particular value judgement. If that's what it ultimately comes down to, then I think we're fast approaching the 'agree to disagree' zone. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/20/2018 at 7:55 AM, 6EQUJ5 said:

... 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.  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.  

CFR for both of your assertions: (1) That Kirton McConkie has "covered up abuse by Bishops too many times"; and (2) that "high ... leadership [in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] is mostly unaware" of these attempted cover-ups.

Thanks in advance.

[cdowis]

One possibility that requires no change in policy == whenever such an interview takes place, have someone sitting directly outside the bishop' office until the interview is concluded.  Their job is to "monitor" the interview, so to speak.  Let the individual know that someone is seated outside until the interview is finished -- giving hem a feeling of safety without any direct violation of privacy.

I know it is very subtle but I feel this would help to avoid an issue when the church leader knows someone is just outside the door and will not leave until the interview is finished.  This requires no  change in policy and can be implemented immediately.

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[SamIam]

On 3/24/2018 at 8:42 AM, cdowis said:

One possibility that requires no change in policy == whenever such an interview takes place, have someone sitting directly outside the bishop' office until the interview is concluded.  Their job is to "monitor" the interview, so to speak.  Let the individual know that someone is seated outside until the interview is finished -- giving hem a feeling of safety without any direct violation of privacy.

I know it is very subtle but I feel this would help to avoid an issue when the church leader knows someone is just outside the door and will not leave until the interview is finished.  This requires no  change in policy and can be implemented immediately.

This is the policy.  When I was a Bishop, my executive secretary was required to be outside my door for all interviews of children and women.  You will note that above most Bishops doors is a speaker to play music with.  In the early nineties we played a little soft, appropriate music, so that the E. secretary could monitor but not discern the nature of the conversation.

[bsjkki]

These measures only prevent (possibly) a physical attack. It does not prevent grooming, inappropriate questions or topics or spiritual or psychological harmful practices by a Bishop.

Edited March 26, 2018 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

These measures only prevent (possibly) a physical attack. It does prevent grooming, inappropriate questions or topics or spiritual or psychological harmful practices by a Bishop.

Did you mean it doesn't prevent grooming,etc. ? 

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you mean it doesn't prevent grooming,etc. ? 

Yes...thanks. Fixed it.

[Gray]

On 3/23/2018 at 5:36 PM, rongo said:

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

 

 

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. 

How frequently are you alone, behind closed, windowless doors with a single student as a teacher?

[Gray]

On 3/23/2018 at 5:43 PM, rongo said:

How do you figure? The Washington Post article stated that the 4% figure for Catholic priests appears lower than the rate for teachers and far below men in general. Isn't that what you asked for? You wanted him to back up a claim that teachers are more likely to abuse than clergy. How would citing that from that article and linking to it be "not directly relevant?"

We're discussing Mormon bishops.

[Gray]

On 3/23/2018 at 7:07 PM, Amulek said:

Certainly. 

 

I think rongo's post addresses this, and it tracks my own thinking as well.

The 'one time is too much' line is only going to be appealing to those who think that there is little or no value to the interview process at all. 

It sounds like we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this particular value judgement. If that's what it ultimately comes down to, then I think we're fast approaching the 'agree to disagree' zone.

Some things, like education, are so necessary that we have to take a few risks. No one can survive in the modern world without an education.

Are you saying our tradition of priesthood interviews exactly as currently practiced is SO FUNDAMENTAL that it's worth ruining some lives each year to not make any changes?  Apparently the church doesn't even think that they're that necessary, given that there's a whole class of kids (kids with gay parents) who are excluded from them.

When theology trumps to real-world well being of children, theology has gone astray.

[changed]

I think interviews should include a male and female adult - perhaps a married couple.  I would think a bishop's wife would be very uncomfortable with her husband having intimate conversations with other women that he was not allowed to share.  Allow members the choice of who they want to be interviewed by, rather than pushing everyone through the same door - would they feel more comfortable talking with two women? or two men? who do they feel comfortable with in the ward?  It needs to be at least two adults with everyone though - for everyone's sake.

Edited March 26, 2018 by changed

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

We're discussing Mormon bishops.

Right.

And you issued a CFR, which Danzo answered with a WaPo article stating that the estimated rate of molester Catholic priests was 4%, which the article said was far lower than the rate for molester teachers. When it is pointed out that, extreme and rare examples of LDS molester bishops aside, it is probably also far, far below the rate for molester teachers, you cry "irrelevant," and say that we are discussing Mormon bishops. Well, that's the whole point of comparing to teachers or Catholic priests --- to try to see how these publicized groups compare as far as relative risk. But when an attempt is made to compare them, you object, saying that "we're discussing Mormon bishops." 

Then why did you issue Danzo the CFR on that?

You see how your CFR just goes in a big circle, even when answered. That's one thing I hate about CFRs. They are often issued when the person issuing them has no intention of allowing them to be met --- even when they are fully met. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, changed said:

I would think a bishop's wife would be very uncomfortable with her husband having intimate conversations with other women that he was not allowed to share. 

Most bishops' wives (like, nearly 100%) are not uncomfortable with their husbands discussing repentance and confessional details with other women that he is not allowed to share.

Allow members the choice of who they want to be interviewed by, rather than pushing everyone through the same door - would they feel more comfortable talking with two women? or two men? who do they feel comfortable with in the ward?  It needs to be at least two adults with everyone though - for everyone's sake.

Sure. If people don't believe in priesthood keys or think that they are not real or have no validity. For people who do, though, this suggestion isn't tenable. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Right.

And you issued a CFR, which Danzo answered with a WaPo article stating that the estimated rate of molester Catholic priests was 4%, which the article said was far lower than the rate for molester teachers. When it is pointed out that, extreme and rare examples of LDS molester bishops aside, it is probably also far, far below the rate for molester teachers, you cry "irrelevant," and say that we are discussing Mormon bishops. Well, that's the whole point of comparing to teachers or Catholic priests --- to try to see how these publicized groups compare as far as relative risk. But when an attempt is made to compare them, you object, saying that "we're discussing Mormon bishops." 

Then why did you issue Danzo the CFR on that?

You see how your CFR just goes in a big circle, even when answered. That's one thing I hate about CFRs. They are often issued when the person issuing them has no intention of allowing them to be met --- even when they are fully met. 

Here's the statement that caused me to say CFR:

 

Quote

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.

 

I'm not sure what Catholic stats have to do with it. He made a claim about church leaders and abuse rate. In context, LDS church leaders. We have no stats on that - that was my point.

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure what Catholic stats have to do with it. He made a claim about church leaders and abuse rate. In context, LDS church leaders. We have no stats on that - that was my point.

It was the stats on teachers that made the article relevant. 

Not a CFR here, but rather, just looking for your opinion. Do you think that less than 4% of Mormon bishops are or have molested youth? Or, do you think it's much higher?

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It was the stats on teachers that made the article relevant. 

Not a CFR here, but rather, just looking for your opinion. Do you think that less than 4% of Mormon bishops are or have molested youth? Or, do you think it's much higher?

I feel like whatever number I came up with would be a wild guess. But we know it happens, and we know that some bishops who are not molesters also ask inappropriate questions. We also know current interview standards don't even follow minimal safety standards enacted by the BSA. So whatever the percentage might be, we're making it easier, through our policies, for creeps to have access to victims. Even if the number of creeps is very small.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

These measures only prevent (possibly) a physical attack. It does not prevent grooming, inappropriate questions or topics or spiritual or psychological harmful practices by a Bishop.

My thoughts as well. 

[Danzo]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

These measures only prevent (possibly) a physical attack. It does not prevent grooming, inappropriate questions or topics or spiritual or psychological harmful practices by a Bishop.

There are no measure the church could take to prevent grooming, by a bishop.

If the person can't do it at the bishop's office, they will do it somewhere else.

It's not like these people are saying, "Well, because of X policy I'll just stop being a child molester."  

Has the number of people being molested gone down because of changes at BSA, the church, the school, etc? Or has it just changed locations?

[Physics Guy]

In that Washington Post article, I didn't notice a percentage figure for molesters among school teachers. There was a figure of about 2500 discipline actions over 5 years. The article includes an estimate of 50 million American children in school each year, which would seem to require at least a million teachers. Even if we assume that there would be 2500 teachers fired for abuse every five years and that the same million teachers would be teaching for fifty years, that gives a fifty-year rate of 2.5%, well below the figure for Catholic priests given in the same article. More realistic assumptions would probably make the teachers' figure substantially lower still.

A given case of abuse is more likely to involve a teacher than a priest, because there are a lot more teachers than priests. The Catholic church has a significantly more serious problem with abusive priests than school boards have with abusive teachers, however. And anyway the Roman Catholic clergy and Mormon bishops are different cases in some very important and relevant ways. Data about Catholic priests don't say much about Mormon bishops.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, changed said:

I think interviews should include a male and female adult - perhaps a married couple.  I would think a bishop's wife would be very uncomfortable with her husband having intimate conversations with other women that he was not allowed to share.  Allow members the choice of who they want to be interviewed by, rather than pushing everyone through the same door - would they feel more comfortable talking with two women? or two men? who do they feel comfortable with in the ward?  It needs to be at least two adults with everyone though - for everyone's sake.

This would pretty much do away with the calling of bishop and we could just have a ward chief administrator or a ward manager instead. 

[Tacenda]

I feel lazy for asking, but does anyone have a reference for the 1st woman showing her breasts willingly. I only read where Bishop tore her shirt off. I don't believe he asked to see her breasts and she willingly showed them to him. I didn't hear that anywhere in the interview. But maybe she admitted it to the authorities? I keep thinking it may be the second woman, since she even asked him for a back rub. Or he just said she asked for it, doubt it. And could this 2nd woman be the one with the breast implants, and he asked to see them? But then again, he may have got the 1st woman and the 2nd confused from the sound of it during the interview.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I feel like whatever number I came up with would be a wild guess. But we know it happens, and we know that some bishops who are not molesters also ask inappropriate questions. We also know current interview standards don't even follow minimal safety standards enacted by the BSA. So whatever the percentage might be, we're making it easier, through our policies, for creeps to have access to victims. Even if the number of creeps is very small.

This is absolutely true.

As a bishop I asked the questions I felt I was expected to ask, but I'm filled with regret because I now view those questions as inappropriate. It was largely the way I felt during the act of asking inappropriate questions that changed my mind and helped me realize they were inappropriate. So even though my intentions were good, I'm sure I caused harm and discomfort to some people and I'm ashamed I participated in that.

And what happens next? What if another leader comes down the line and has nefarious intentions? The questions I asked individuals (especially youth) could make them more vulnerable in being groomed by someone else. That possibility disgusts me.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

How frequently are you alone, behind closed, windowless doors with a single student as a teacher?

I can't speak to rongo's personal experiences obviously, but I would say his response to your comment about bishops "hav[ing] greater opportunity [to abuse than teachers]" was spot-on.

Teachers have access to more kids year-in-and-year-out than any bishop ever would. Plus, kids with messed up home lives aren't necessarily going to be attending church, but everyone has to attend school, so teachers end up having access to more vulnerable children as well. And there are just way more opportunities for teachers to spend time alone with kids too.

As I said before, whenever one of these cases pops up, the first question I ask my wife is, "So, was it a coach or a band director?" It isn't a coincidence that those just happen to be the kinds of teachers who are spending lots of unstructured, unsupervised time with students. Don't get me wrong, a lecherous math teacher could just as easily force a student to come in after school for 'tutoring' and rack up hours with them as well. Or a creepy administrator could find a way to spend time alone with students in detention. There are all sorts of legitimate and illegitimate ways this could happen - some of which can be enforced with the power of the state. 

Seriously, it's not even close. And that has been born out in my personal experience as well. 

I have never, in my entire life, lived in a Stake were a Bishop has been involved with abusing one (or more) of the youth.

Conversely, I have never, in my entire life, lived in a city that didn't have at least one case of reported abuse involving a teacher. 

 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I can't speak to rongo's personal experiences obviously, but I would say his response to your comment about bishops "hav[ing] greater opportunity [to abuse than teachers]" was spot-on.

Teachers have access to more kids year-in-and-year-out than any bishop ever would. Plus, kids with messed up home lives aren't necessarily going to be attending church, but everyone has to attend school, so teachers end up having access to more vulnerable children as well. And there are just way more opportunities for teachers to spend time alone with kids too.

As I said before, whenever one of these cases pops up, the first question I ask my wife is, "So, was it a coach or a band director?" It isn't a coincidence that those just happen to be the kinds of teachers who are spending lots of unstructured, unsupervised time with students. Don't get me wrong, a lecherous math teacher could just as easily force a student to come in after school for 'tutoring' and rack up hours with them as well. Or a creepy administrator could find a way to spend time alone with students in detention. There are all sorts of legitimate and illegitimate ways this could happen - some of which can be enforced with the power of the state. 

Seriously, it's not even close. And that has been born out in my personal experience as well. 

I have never, in my entire life, lived in a Stake were a Bishop has been involved with abusing one (or more) of the youth.

Conversely, I have never, in my entire life, lived in a city that didn't have at least one case of reported abuse involving a teacher. 

 

bold mine....

That you know of.