New official interview policy

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Thanks. I don't believe that what I experienced was all that unusual. And I know every kid in my particular peer group at church got the same questions, because the Bishop said he was asking everyone. He was well meaning, I'm sure. These kinds of questions continued in each interview minus one or two. They were also asked at the MTC, and again I think it was a pretty routine practice.

Over the years  I've traded stories with many people. The experience of members reporting having been asked sexually explicit questions is pretty common, in my experience. People seem just as likely to report having been asked as not having been asked, in my experience. That's not a statistic, but it is my experience.

And of course some people have it much worse. Sometimes sexual questions escalate to voyeuristic questions, or physical assault.

Two years ago for my TR I got asked if I look at porn and self abuse, I snorted and then I asked if he likes chocolate covered bees, he laughed and said no, like okay then.... and he continued to ask the questions. I barely know the man, I don't feel comfortable telling him stuff like if I did

Something my MP did was if someone didn't get along with a companion or district was to have everyone in the room and air your grievances, and from experience, awko taco

[RevTestament]

On 3/26/2018 at 8:14 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Being blunt here:

I was sexually abuse as a kid, with 2-deep policies & background checks in place.   For every new lock, a thief gets a new lock-pick.  It's naive to think that any policy any place guarantees safety.  

I am very sorry Jane Doe. From what I know most sexually abused kids are going to keep it inside them until it is bursting to come out. But let me ask. Would it be more likely for it to come to light to an interviewing bishop and maybe a member of the Relief Society presidency or in the presence of an interviewing bishop and an abusive father? That is my concern. From what I know, it is not very likely to come to light in the latter situation. While I agree with you that no policy guarantees safety, I think the former policy is better than the latter for the reasons I give here, and at the same time should serve to alleviate fears of ecclesiastical abuse, which seems to be the impetus for the new policy. However, I really have no idea how often abuse does come to light. Since the Church does have a policy regarding disclosure of abuse to the bishop, it seems it does happen, and my interest is in continuing to make the bishop's office a place of safety and refuge rather than to potentially bring an abuser in there to be a witness.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Big points to the church..and to those who made it an obvious good change..the members.  This means they are listening. Only one regret..and hope it may come this weekend..and apology for the mental/spiritual/physical and privacy  hurt of the children and all adults on both sides.

I see no reason for an apology.  Improving on something does not mean that any ill intent was involved in the prior to the change.  The only people who really should apologize are those who are guilty of abuse. 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

Yes, and it doesn't say what you think it says.

It doesn't say that Utah has the highest rate of child sexual abuse. 

Read the for understanding

What is the numerator?

What is the Denominator?

 

It says "first in sex abuse rates of children." If you think that means "first safest" I think you've badly misinterpreted it.

[Danzo]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

It says "first in sex abuse rates of children." If you think that means "first safest" I think you've badly misinterpreted it.

Silly,

What rate are they talking about?

Hint: it's not the rate of sexual abuse in Utah. Re-Read for understanding. Read slowly if it helps.

[Calm]

It said there were 6900 cases of abuse, 27% were sexual abuse, so about 2300.  Apparently other states have a lower percentage of sex abuse cases and a higher percentage of neglect.  

I am reading it as two states might have the same population, same number of abuse cases...100.  One may have 60% of the cases neglect, another 20%.  That would mean 60 in one and 20 in the other.

On the other hand the first state might have same population, but much lower rate of abuse over all, say 10 cases.  So while its rate of sex abuse of its abuse cases is still 60%, that translates to only 6 cases while the other at 20% rate is 20 cases.

If I am correct, then to compare incidents state to state, you need to skip total abuse and just count sex abuse cases per 100,000 or whatever they use.

If overall abuse rates are higher, high percentages of sex abuse in the total number of abuse cases means high numbers; overall abuse rates are low, then harder to compare.

If we are 8th in overall abuse and 27% of abuse cases being sex abuse cases is a high percentage, then we might not be first, but it seems likely we close to the top.  I am assuming the usual would be to take the total amount 2300 and divide by total population to compare rates.

If I have missed something obvious or not so obvious, please correct me, but it would be nice to have the problem solved tonight of what you are talking about because I am gnawing at it in the corner of my mind trying to figure out your point.

add-on:  I was trying to do research to get state comparison of numbers by population, but my head isn't there tonight.  Danzo will have to explain where he is going with this and if his focus leads to different conclusions.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Calm

[RevTestament]

58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Silly,

What rate are they talking about?

Hint: it's not the rate of sexual abuse in Utah. Re-Read for understanding. Read slowly if it helps.

It plainly says the rate of sexual abuse among abused children is highest in Utah. However, I would stress that is known cases. The story concludes: "But child abuse is difficult to count and victims are often unable to speak out or get help." I think it would be quite important to know what percentage of these cases are found out in bishop interviews with children, since most other states are not going to have particularly high numbers here. I know from personal experience many, if not most cases of sexual abuse simply go unreported in other states, and therefore don't get included in the stats. Maybe the rate of reporting in Utah is much better exactly because of bishop interviews. If so, then allowing an abusive parent into the interviewing process will probably have a big impact on "the rate of abuse" figures as the abuse goes more underground and undiscovered. So in this sense I don't see the rates reported in this article to be conclusive. They may reflect better reporting rates in Utah, which overall helps children more, and makes Utah safer for children rather than the sex abuse capital - without knowing more, I don't think there is a way of knowing if Utah really has a bigger problem than other states.

[Calm]

For those wishing to learn how to help prevent child abuse, I came across an online training program (they also offer group training in person) that looks pretty reputable.  They are not rated on Charity Navigator, but are listed.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=571095108

I believe the online training is $10.  May last 2 hours as that is how long the training presentations I read about were.

I plan on taking it when I have more mental energy to devote to it, the site has quite a bit of material for free, especially stats.  The more stats I read from everywhere the more I get concerned for my grandkids even if they are definitely on the better end of the stats.

https://www.d2l.org/get-trained/

[Calm]

While most news is focusing on interview changes, The Hill focused understandably given its interest on the clarifications on advice for abusive relationships:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/380434-mormon-church-changes-policies-on-abusive-relationships

"The Mormon church has changed its policies on domestic abuse and now advises leaders against encouraging members to stay in abusive relationships.

Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) announced Monday that they had revised the church’s policies on preventing and responding to abuse.

“Our hearts and prayers go out to all who are affected by this serious problem,” the church's First Presidency wrote in the announcement.

The church added two key lines related to how leaders should respond to abuse.

“Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe,” the guidelines now read, according to BuzzFeed. "Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.”

The change comes after reporting on domestic violence allegations against then-White House staff secretary Rob Porter. Both of Porter's ex-wives said that their LDS bishops encouraged them to remain married to Porter, despite the alleged abuse.

Following the Porter scandal, nearly two dozen Mormon women told BuzzFeed that church leaders counseled them to stay in abusive relationships."

From the interview (Anderson Cooper) I watched of his first wife iirc, she said she wasn't able to explain she had been abused to begin with, didn't have the language at the time he advised her to stay if I understood her correctly.  The bishop was the one who told her to get the restraining order so I am not sure he qualifies if he didn't know it was abusive and then when he did told her to separate physically at least."

Edited March 28, 2018 by Calm

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It said there were 6900 cases of abuse, 27% were sexual abuse, so about 2300.  Apparently other states have a lower percentage of sex abuse cases and a higher percentage of neglect.  

I am reading it as two states might have the same population, same number of abuse cases...100.  One may have 60% of the cases neglect, another 20%.  That would mean 60 in one and 20 in the other.

On the other hand the first state might have same population, but much lower rate of abuse over all, say 10 cases.  So while its rate of sex abuse of its abuse cases is still 60%, that translates to only 6 cases while the other at 20% rate is 20 cases.

If I am correct, then to compare incidents state to state, you need to skip total abuse and just count sex abuse cases per 100,000 or whatever they use.

If overall abuse rates are higher, high percentages of sex abuse in the total number of abuse cases means high numbers; overall abuse rates are low, then harder to compare.

If we are 8th in overall abuse and 27% of abuse cases being sex abuse cases is a high percentage, then we might not be first, but it seems likely we close to the top.  I am assuming the usual would be to take the total amount 2300 and divide by total population to compare rates.

If I have missed something obvious or not so obvious, please correct me, but it would be nice to have the problem solved tonight of what you are talking about because I am gnawing at it in the corner of my mind trying to figure out your point.

add-on:  I was trying to do research to get state comparison of numbers by population, but my head isn't there tonight.  Danzo will have to explain where he is going with this and if his focus leads to different conclusions.

I've been wondering too if it has anything to do with the amount of children compared to adults. Just thinking, for example, that if a parent abuses all their children and has 8 children the rate will come out higher than if 3 parents of 2 each abuse all their children. So the assumption for many might be there are more abusers in Utah when the stats only talk about the number of children. 

Not saying that we should ignore the number of childen by any means or that my example is close to right. Just feel that if one wants to solve problems then one needs to understand the issue correctly.

Danzo - I'd also like to understand better what you are saying. 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Rain

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

Two years ago for my TR I got asked if I look at porn and self abuse, I snorted and then I asked if he likes chocolate covered bees, he laughed and said no, like okay then.... and he continued to ask the questions. I barely know the man, I don't feel comfortable telling him stuff like if I did

Something my MP did was if someone didn't get along with a companion or district was to have everyone in the room and air your grievances, and from experience, awko taco

I know this guy who leads one of the church's weekly 12-step meetings back in Utah. He was telling me that, when his son was serving as an AP in his mission, he convinced the mission president to include mandatory 12-step meetings in their district and zone meetings so that missionaries could use the program to avoid masturbation and "lustful thoughts." To me, that is absolutely insane. Such programs, when they work, have to be voluntary (and I have serious doubts they are appropriate for controlling sexual desire). Can you imagine going to your first district meeting as a missionary and suddenly having everyone talking about their masturbatory habits? Talk about wacko taco. 

[jkwilliams]

I hereby publicly admit I was 100% wrong. When the "Ordain Women" thing was in full swing, I said anyone who thinks they can change the church from within, through grass-roots pressure, is fooling themselves. Sam Young et al. have proven me wrong. I think this is a positive step and a good sign that the Brethren are listening to the members. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've been wondering too if it has anything to do with the amount of children compared to adults. Just thinking, for example, that if a parent abuses all their children and has 8 children the rate will come out higher than if 3 parents of 2 each abuse all their children. So the assumption for many might be there are more abusers in Utah when the stats only talk about the number of children. 

Not saying that we should ignore the number of childen by any means or that my example is close to right. Just feel that if one wants to solve problems then one needs to understand the issue correctly.

Dano - Is also like to understand better what you are saying. 

 

Also if they do population rate in general and not just rate of children to all the children, a large population with fewer children may have a lower rate even if when you just take the population of children, the rate is high.

also if you start out at 700O  cases and your neglect cases drop 100 while sex abuse stays the same, given it is now a larger portion of abuse cases, it appears to have increased when cases did not.  Depending on how close measurements are it may make it appear someone with a lower rate of abuse is higher based on that measurement.

What is important is to look at the numbers and compare similar to similar and it may not have happened in this case, but don't know if it will make Utah look better or worse to use a different measure.

[changed]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

While most news is focusing on interview changes, The Hill focused understandably given its interest on the clarifications on advice for abusive relationships:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/380434-mormon-church-changes-policies-on-abusive-relationships

"The Mormon church has changed its policies on domestic abuse and now advises leaders against encouraging members to stay in abusive relationships.

Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) announced Monday that they had revised the church’s policies on preventing and responding to abuse.

“Our hearts and prayers go out to all who are affected by this serious problem,” the church's First Presidency wrote in the announcement.

The church added two key lines related to how leaders should respond to abuse.

“Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe,” the guidelines now read, according to BuzzFeed. "Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.”

The change comes after reporting on domestic violence allegations against then-White House staff secretary Rob Porter. Both of Porter's ex-wives said that their LDS bishops encouraged them to remain married to Porter, despite the alleged abuse.

Following the Porter scandal, nearly two dozen Mormon women told BuzzFeed that church leaders counseled them to stay in abusive relationships."

From the interview (Anderson Cooper) I watched of his first wife iirc, she said she wasn't able to explain she had been abused to begin with, didn't have the language at the time he advised her to stay if I understood her correctly.  The bishop was the one who told her to get the restraining order so I am not sure he qualifies if he didn't know it was abusive and then when he did told her to separate physically at least."

 

so... bishops are now allowed to tell people "you should probably get a divorce, you should probably leave this relationship" ... does that include also include telling women "you should probably go get a job...you need to support yourself and not be dependent on anyone"... as well as telling women "you have a role to protect yourself and protect your chidlren... you need to be a protector and a provider" - because that is what is entailed in telling someone they should leave their husband.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours 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!

Classy as usual   Thanks for raising the tone of the discussion.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours 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. 

The size question is good. Obviously there will be classes that need to be combined because of staffing requirements. I think it will be a mixed bag whether that is good or bad, but I think mostly good. Many kids get rather tired of being in small classes with the same 5-10 kids for their entire primary/youth existence. Broadening it out should be good. Our problem is that our classrooms are the size of closets. I don't know how many classes can be combined simply because of the lack of adequate classroom space.

These changes will create some logistical pain for sure, but in the end will be worth it.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The size question is good. Obviously there will be classes that need to be combined because of staffing requirements. I think it will be a mixed bag whether that is good or bad, but I think mostly good. Many kids get rather tired of being in small classes with the same 5-10 kids for their entire primary/youth existence. Broadening it out should be good. Our problem is that our classrooms are the size of closets. I don't know how many classes can be combined simply because of the lack of adequate classroom space.

These changes will create some logistical pain for sure, but in the end will be worth it.

The small classroom size is a problem. We are going to try going 'big' because I know the kids would love to be combined with everyone from their age group. We will see how it goes.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, changed said:

so... bishops are now allowed to tell people "you should probably get a divorce, you should probably leave this relationship"

That's not what the policy says. When responding to abuse, it states "...the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe."

You can leave a home (or apartment or whatever) without leaving your marriage. 

 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The small classroom size is a problem. We are going to try going 'big' because I know the kids would love to be combined with everyone from their age group. We will see how it goes.

Depending on the cohort and age group, this can be . . . challenging. You kind of can't have a really big Sunbeam class.

My wife and the rest of the primary presidency met for four hours yesterday cleaning out the closet and submitting/proposing names. Thank goodness it's conference weekend! That gives bishoprics a little more time to extend calls and releases!  

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Classy as usual   Thanks for raising the tone of the discussion.

Do all people raised in the Catholic church have a higher incidence of being abused? I have no idea, but that doesn't mean the Catholic church hasn't had a problem with sexual abuse. The question isn't so much about statistics as it is about implementing procedures to minimize the risk of abuse. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I hereby publicly admit I was 100% wrong. When the "Ordain Women" thing was in full swing, I said anyone who thinks they can change the church from within, through grass-roots pressure, is fooling themselves. Sam Young et al. have proven me wrong. I think this is a positive step and a good sign that the Brethren are listening to the members. 

Negative nellie here, but it seems the church listens more when things go public. But then again there is the November policy that the church hasn't changed and there is some public outcry but maybe not big enough. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Negative nellie here, but it seems the church listens more when things go public. But then again there is the November policy that the church hasn't changed and there is some public outcry but maybe not big enough. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but even the November policy was walked back a little in response to public outcry. 

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but even the November policy was walked back a little in response to public outcry. 

The church always puts its finger in the political and social wind as any sales organization does.  We all know it will change due to public pressure.

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Classy as usual   Thanks for raising the tone of the discussion.

After the comment I responded to, the tone could only go up.  Are you proud of all the grooming you did?

No personal insults.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

Silly,

What rate are they talking about?

Hint: it's not the rate of sexual abuse in Utah. Re-Read for understanding. Read slowly if it helps.

If you have some kind of alternate explanation based on ratio of sex abuse to other types of abuse, you need to back it up and explain away "first in sex abuse rates of children."