New official interview policy

[Marginal Gains]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

The issue is somewhat bigger than the rare, rogue predatory Bishop (although even one incidence of a Bishop sexually abusing one child should have been enough for an immediate suspension of the one to one interviews with minors, in my opinion). The issue is that, even if the Bishop is trustworthy, the process of an unrelated adult male asking minors personally intrusive questions of a sexual nature in a one on one situation is conditioning that minor and making them more susceptible to predatory males in other situations. The Bishop, through that interview process, is unwittingly grooming that child for someone else to take advantage. Having someone outside the room or in an adjacent room, prevents nothing.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Great move, but the grass movement helped right?

Could be, stranger things have happened. 

[Danzo]

38 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The issue is somewhat bigger than the rare, rogue predatory Bishop (although even one incidence of a Bishop sexually abusing one child should have been enough for an immediate suspension of the one to one interviews with minors, in my opinion). The issue is that, even if the Bishop is trustworthy, the process of an unrelated adult male asking minors personally intrusive questions of a sexual nature in a one on one situation is conditioning that minor and making them more susceptible to predatory males in other situations. The Bishop, through that interview process, is unwittingly grooming that child for someone else to take advantage. Having someone outside the room or in an adjacent room, prevents nothing.

If what you say is correct then it should be easy to show that all people raised in the LDS church have a higher incidence of being abused.

After all, we were all "conditioned" as you say it.  Every one of us has been "groomed".

I guess, as you say the damage has been done and all of us should go home and wait for predatory males to come into our lives, if only we didn't have to grow up being groomed, then we could have a lower incidence of abuse like other non practicing LDS families.

 

What a load of Bovine Feces!

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

So, functionally, this doesn't really change much for me, unless there are requests. My bigger issue would be mandated chaperoning. As written, this is initiated by interviewee request.

I think functionally - everything should change by directive from the first presidency.  Specifically if it were me I would read from the pulpit the changes which pertain to interviews, and like reading someone their gideon/miranda rights you and exec secretary should let the interviewee and parents know when scheduling the interview that they now have a right to be there in-person for the interview and should encourage it.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I think functionally - everything should change by directive from the first presidency.  Specifically if it were me I would read from the pulpit the changes which pertain to interviews, and like reading someone their gideon/miranda rights you and exec secretary should let the interviewee and parents know when scheduling the interview that they now have a right to be there in-person for the interview and should encourage it.

Yuck.

This legalistic liability world we live in is something else, isn't it? 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

Like bskjji wrote, this presents staffing challenges in primary.

 

I texted the primary president this morning asking for recommendations for 5 new teachers.  We'll also need 2 new Sunday school teachers. 

The difficulties I see are that the people we can count on showing up every week already have callings.  Those who don't are the ones who you never know whether they're going to be there or not.  Having just one sister in a class allowed us to have a good teacher who we can depend on to be there in each class.  I believe the consistency is very important for the children as well.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ksfisher

[blueglass]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I texted the primary president this morning asking for recommendations for 5 new teachers.  We'll also need 2 new Sunday school teachers. 

The difficulties I see are that the people we can count on showing up every week already have callings.  Those who don't are the ones who you never know whether they're going to be there or not.  Having just one sister in a class allowed us to have a good teacher who we can depend on to be there in each class.  I believe the consistency is very important for the children as well.

It's already happening in our ward with teacher training Sundays.  Gospel doctrine gets depleted to around 4 or 5 people to staff the primary.  I think it will be good in the long run as we adapt and it will be safer for our kids and youth.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

As soon as the heretics all go away or are......dealt with....

Burning at the stake might be an effective way to deal with them.  Maybe that's what God intended for the Stakes in Zion.  

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Burning at the stake might be an effective way to deal with them.  Maybe that's what God intended for the Stakes in Zion.  

I prefer guillotines but I am not picky. Anything works I suppose.

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I texted the primary president this morning asking for recommendations for 5 new teachers.  We'll also need 2 new Sunday school teachers. 

The difficulties I see are that the people we can count on showing up every week already have callings.  Those who don't are the ones who you never know whether they're going to be there or not.  Having just one sister in a class allowed us to have a good teacher who we can depend on to be there in each class.  I believe the consistency is very important for the children as well.

I'm trying to decide how big is too big for a primary class. Can spouse's sit in during class time without being called to serve in Primary for the full two hours? Can we have classroom attendants who don't prepare and are not called but are a presence? This works for senior primary because people can still attend Priesthood, Young Men's, Young Women's and RS and fulfill other callings. 

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Other adults are now allowed in the room, yahoo!  Church caves to outside pressure and common sense again!  Grass roots up revelation is alive and well.  All joking aside I’m very happy about this news.  

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

When reading the documents it still looks like young men interviewing for mission at 18 years old are adults and must interview alone as well as older men.  The section on pg2, that "Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood (see Handbook 1, 7.4)."  has no additional detail on what this means.  I looked up HB1 7.4 and it repeats the same thing and adds no clarification to what questions can be asked.  Still can drive a truck through this and missionary candidates will be asked all kings of things.  In the new standard set of missionary questions it still is not specific on what the bishop can or cannot ask about.  For example question3. "What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have fully repented of past transgressions?"  The missionary candidate could then ask - what transgressions do I need to confess to you?  This is where there is no guidance in the HB1 other than if it's on your mind then you should probably confess it.  

Question5.  "Full-time missionary service requires living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards?  a. The law of chastity 

In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent? "  This pulls the interviewer into long lists of serious transgressions which as of today require confession HB1 sec 4.5.2 on Worthiness lists the following, "Repentance of Serious transgressions, "A person who has been guilty of adultery, fornication, heavy petting (sexually stimulating caressing and touching), homosexual activity (?), other sexual perversions (? ? ?), serious violation of civil law, or other serious transgressions (? ? ?)  must repent before he or she may be recommended for missionary service.  A prospective missionary must also overcome any addictions before being considered for missionary service."  There's the line "any addictions" which again pulls the untrained interviewer into murky waters, which then leads to a section on confession and refraining from sin which could mean arbitrary abstinence guidelines of 3 years, 1 year, 6 months, ?  Who knows.  This is deep compulsivity psychology which church officials have entirely different views on when compared to published medical/psychology experts.   

As pertains to "what has been discussed"  This is poorly written - what bishop has any idea what the detail behind "what has been discussed" could possibly mean?  It could mean oral sex, it could mean self stimulation, it could be asking if the young man has ever had an erection or wet dream, it could mean a crazy question about bestiality or fantasizing about concubines?   HB1, section 7.1.7 gives instructions to leaders, "when discussing moral cleanliness, the bishop adapts the discussion to the understanding of the youth.  He also ensures that the discussion does not encourage curiosity or experimentation."  This is 1 one single paragraph, that needs 2 - 4 years at least of professional training on child development, counseling, psychology, CBT, ACT, to even come close to dealing with properly.  

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by blueglass

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I'm trying to decide how big is too big for a primary class. Can spouse's sit in during class time without being called to serve in Primary for the full two hours? Can we have classroom attendants who don't prepare and are not called but are a presence? This works for senior primary because people can still attend Priesthood, Young Men's, Young Women's and RS and fulfill other callings. 

Personally, I feel that if you're asking someone to be in the class every week then they should be called and set apart.

I don't like the idea of different people being present in a class every week.  I think consistency is important for the children.

The handbook does ask that "Primary teachers and nursery leaders remain with the children during the entire Primary time on Sunday, including sharing time and breaks."  (Handbook 2 11.2.5)  To me this precludes the practice of someone being with the children for class time and then attending other meetings during sharing time.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ksfisher

[stemelbow]

I figured this was always an option.  We made it an option.  I have heard, though, of bishop's who try and stop parents from participating, so this is good.

What bothers me is though.  The Church always only acts after there is pressure in a public realm to do so.  And then it is always the least amount of movement it can come up with.  Its a sad thing to see the church act as if it's far more concerned about itself than it is about the welfare of it's people.  

[why me]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You realize that these TV shows were a fiction right? 

The reality about abuse is that this has been a part of the human condition for as long as humans have existed.  I'd like to think we're getting better at recognizing abuse and of making society a safer place for everyone.  To me, these changes are evidence of us moving in a positive direction.  Naivety about abuse and fictionalized portrayals on TV are fun, but they aren't real.  

I think that the amount of abuse that we are seeing in our society has more to do with the sexualization or pornofication of our society. It has become very sexualized. Television shows do tend to mirror the values that we have. As a child, I was raised to believe in god, go to confession if I sinned and to be aware that god is watching over me. I was taught good values in the catholic church. And the shows that I watched mirrored those morals. Much different today where the values that we see in the media tend to influence people today.

The missionaries do have to have a third person when they do missionary discussions with the opposite sex. Not so in the past. Much has changed because of the sexualization and pornofication of our lifeworld.

Edited March 27, 2018 by why me

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

If what you say is correct then it should be easy to show that all people raised in the LDS church have a higher incidence of being abused.

After all, we were all "conditioned" as you say it.  Every one of us has been "groomed".

I guess, as you say the damage has been done and all of us should go home and wait for predatory males to come into our lives, if only we didn't have to grow up being groomed, then we could have a lower incidence of abuse like other non practicing LDS families.

 

What a load of Bovine Feces!

I doubt there are any statistics for Mormons specifically. But Utah has ranks eighth in child abuse and first in sex abuse rates of children, according to this story:

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children

Assuming that's accurate, I think that merits a VERY serious look at what LDS practices might be contributing to Utah's child molestation rate.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I doubt there are any statistics for Mormons specifically. But Utah has ranks eighth in child abuse and first in sex abuse rates of children, according to this story:

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children

Assuming that's accurate, I think that merits a VERY serious look at what LDS practices might be contributing to Utah's child molestation rate.

 

I think it merits a VERY serious look when you accuse people of grooming.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think it merits a VERY serious look when you accuse people of grooming.

Some youth interview practices do have some commonalities with grooming, especially interviews that include sexually explicit questions. By normalizing this kind of behavior it seems logical that young people will be more vulnerable to intentional grooming by others. Perhaps that's one reason why Utah has the highest rate of sexual abuse in the nation. It could also have to do with Mormons being very trusting of other Mormons - which may have made Utah the capital for affinity fraud as well. Worth considering.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

7 hours ago, why me said:

Of course there can be measures in place where the other person can not hear the interview. Some kind of earphones as an example. However, we have reached a sad state affairs when people cannot be trusted anymore or people need to protect themselves against possible accusations. It shows that societies are slipping into relative chaos when it comes to moral codes, norms and habits.

People never could be trusted, more are just aware of it now and hopefully this has caused a drop in actual abuse and not just reports of them (I linked earlier somewhere to a site that had the stat there with an almost 47% drop in identified abuse incidents from 1993 to 2006).

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I doubt there are any statistics for Mormons specifically. But Utah has ranks eighth in child abuse and first in sex abuse rates of children, according to this story:

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children

Assuming that's accurate, I think that merits a VERY serious look at what LDS practices might be contributing to Utah's child molestation rate.

 

I'm wary of these kinds of stats because it's hard to know what they really represent.  Is the ranking because there is more sexual abuse in Utah, or is it because more sexual abuse cases are known and prosecuted in Utah?  Is this an issue of more problems than other states, or an issue of more known problems than other states?  It's so hard to say.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm wary of these kinds of stats because it's hard to know what they really represent.  Is the ranking because there is more sexual abuse in Utah, or is it because more sexual abuse cases are known and prosecuted in Utah?  Is this an issue of more problems than other states, or an issue of more known problems than other states?  It's so hard to say.

Is there any reason to think Utah is better at reporting child abuse than other states?

Typically when considering a move, if an area is known as high crime, I don't usually think, "maybe this area isn't high crime - maybe they're just better at reporting crimes".

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

Is there any reason to think Utah is better at reporting child abuse than other states?

I don't know.  The article you linked to said this-

Carrie Jensen of Prevent Child Abuse said Utah has tougher laws than other states and may pursue child abuse more vigorously and that might help explain the high rates.

We know that sexual abuse is underreported but we don't know by how much in each state.  I think you'd have to be able to measure that before you could make a claim that any state was best or worse at sexual abuse among kids.  

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The issue is somewhat bigger than the rare, rogue predatory Bishop (although even one incidence of a Bishop sexually abusing one child should have been enough for an immediate suspension of the one to one interviews with minors, in my opinion). The issue is that, even if the Bishop is trustworthy, the process of an unrelated adult male asking minors personally intrusive questions of a sexual nature in a one on one situation is conditioning that minor and making them more susceptible to predatory males in other situations. The Bishop, through that interview process, is unwittingly grooming that child for someone else to take advantage. Having someone outside the room or in an adjacent room, prevents nothing.

I disagree.  First of all, such questioning is too infrequent (once every six months or annually) to amount to effective conditioning or to a precursor for effective grooming.  Secondly, bishops are replaced regularly, and in cases where youth had no challenges which necessitated that they meet with the bishop, insofar as I am aware, counselors may do six-month interviews (that's the way it worked in my ward when I served as my bishop's executive secretary: insofar as I know, there is no Church policy prohibiting that, and I was in favor of doing everything I could myself, as well as of enlisting the help of others, to reduce my bishop's workload).  And second of all, properly conducted, such questioning is not unduly intrusive. 

Granted, different people have different personalities, ways of building rapport with others, and so on.  While often, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excoriated for having a lay ministry, I think the regular infusions of "new blood" that occur in leadership actually is one of the Church's great strengths.  Grooming necessitates regular, frequent contact, often over months, and perhaps over years.  I'm sure you'll simply write me off as naive or as not caring about THE CHILDREN, but I simply don't see annual or semiannual interviews (which may be conducted by different people) as an effective precursor to grooming.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  The article you linked to said this-

Carrie Jensen of Prevent Child Abuse said Utah has tougher laws than other states and may pursue child abuse more vigorously and that might help explain the high rates. ...

Oh, what does she know?!

Everybody knows that the only possible reason for a higher rate of something being reported (especially when where talking about child abuse in Utah, which is the very center of all things evil in the entire Universe!) is a higher incidence of the thing being reported!

Silly Bluebell!  

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm sure that no one will be allowed in the interview that the youth (or person being interviewed) does not feel comfortable having in the room with them.  So far, we have had a parent in the room when requested.

I guess we will see if there is more direction on this.

I'm not so much thinking about youth. I suspect those interviews will be the easiest ones to accommodate. 

I'm thinking more along the lines of, how do you ensure the safety of the leader if you allow the interviewee to do the choosing; if someone else makes the selection, how then do you protect the leader from being conspired against by the attendees. 

Take, for example, that woman not too long ago who secretly recorded her interviews with the stake president. During her second interview, she made a claim that the stake president had said X. The stake president stated that he didn't recall ever saying X. And he was right. He never did say X. He was vindicated by the previous recording. 

Now, what if there had never been a recording. What if, instead, the woman went to meet with the stake president and, under the new policy, was able to bring along (under one interpretation) anyone she felt comfortable having in the room with her - which, in her case, may well be another disaffected or former member. Following the interview, the two conspire to claim that the SP said or did something objectionable. Obviously, we would have no way to know if they were conspiring or telling the truth. So, honestly, who are you going to believe in that scenario? 

 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I disagree.  First of all, such questioning is too infrequent (once every six months or annually) to amount to effective conditioning or to a precursor for effective grooming

 

What makes you think that? I remember most of mine very well, meaning they stood out in my mind well enough not to be lost to me decades later. I still remember the creepy feeling from the first one and several subsequent ones. They made a deep impact.