New official interview policy

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would you consider acceptable in terms of numbers of minors groomed and abused as a direct or indirect consequence of a one to one interview with a Bishop, that would not outweigh what you perceive to be the benefits?

That's a number game that plays into the "one is one too many" trope. It's not like I, or anyone else, can spit out a number like 72 or something.

I also reject the notion that one-on-one interviews represent de facto grooming, even when nothing untoward takes place or is discussed. 

In the end, for those of us who believe that priesthood keys are real and necessary, there isn't a way to spit out some number or number level. Obviously, everyone would like the number to be zero. But, despite any measures implemented, ranging from modest to extreme, there will still be anecdotal incidents, just like there are in schools, on teams, etc. We don't stop letting children ride in cars, even though abolishing children riding in cars would ostensibly eliminate child death in cars. The perceived benefit outweighs the risk, however unlikely. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

If the allowance of a second adult is a good idea, it was a good idea five years ago, ten years ago. It was a good idea when the Church said this in December 2017 in response to the petition to end one to one interviews:

http://kutv.com/news/local/petition-calls-for-ending-church-leader-interviews-of-sexual-matters-lds-church-responds

Keep in mind that when the Church put this^ statement out in defence of keeping the one to one interviews, it was secretly negotiating with a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a church leader, in an effort to keep quiet the existence of a porn/abuse den in the basement of an MTC and 30 years of protecting the abuser at the expense of the victim.

Now, after the leak about the basement den and MTC Presidents abuse of at least two female missionaries and before the Conference, adding a second adult to one to one interviews is suddenly a good idea. Church Leaders changed their mind between December 2017 and March 2018. And the only difference was the leak.

Public exposure of what the Church is doing in secret brings about positive change.

I think the next petition should be no more early morning seminary! i'd sign that!

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Nevertheless, I am sure that bishop interviews uncover cases of child sexual abuse. 

Although I don't live in Utah, it seems that bishops have abusers turn themselves in regularly in this part of the world.  There are several cases that were reported in the news in the last couple of years. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

If the allowance of a second adult is a good idea, it was a good idea five years ago, ten years ago. It was a good idea when the Church said this in December 2017 in response to the petition to end one to one interviews:

I don't see the above quote as dismissing any possibility of a second adult.  Looks more like responding to a question of completely eliminating any interview.

Almost everyone who has held some nonteacher leadership position I know who I have talked to about this (probably approaching 50 or more) has said their bishops have been allowing a second person when requested for years and everyone they have talked to have reported the same.  Many were shocked when I said I was aware of a bishop who would refused to interview if that was a requirement (didn't share your alias, R).  They saw the change as making an unwritten rule a written rule.

I have high doubts that the Powers That Be were unaware that this widespread option, though not commonly taken advantage of, was out there and has been going on for a decade at least.  One former bishop said he even received training to allow a third person when asked in the 90s.  

Now the option is in the written rules as well as the unwritten version, there should be even greater consistency AND members will become more aware of the option as it appears many who had not been leaders, especially women, were not aware of the unwritten rule.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Calm

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Your interpretation still does not take into account this statement: "first in sex abuse rates of children."

It does, you should read down to point number 3 in my response(I numbered them for you to help you out).

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I question the 2/3 bit about teachers. Washington has had mandatory abuse detection and reporting laws for teachers for many years. You are required to sign an affidavit that you received training at the beginning of every school year. The training is extensive and specific. All 50 states have mandatory reporting laws....by federal mandate. Failure to report is taken very seriously and can include loss of credentials, fines, or time in the slammer.  I find it hard to believe 2/3 of teachers aren’t trained about that. I can believe some  may not have been paying attention during the training meetings.

Btw, while I agree the stat looks odd, it would be great if you have stats to counter it, especially national ones.   The foundation is in South Carolina and maybe they used more local stats for this particularly finding unlike the CDC stats, perhaps they have more trouble getting school districts to comply in the areas they chose for the stats.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would you consider acceptable in terms of numbers of minors groomed and abused as a direct or indirect consequence of a one to one interview with a Bishop, that would not outweigh what you perceive to be the benefits?

Medical deaths may be the third leading cause of death in the US.  (I suspect bishops' interviews are not the third leading cause of child abuse in the US).

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

"more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S"

Do you plan on avoiding doctors and promoting shutting down medical services?

If not, what do you view as acceptable in terms of numbers of patients injured and killed as a direct or indirect consequence of a doctor providing medical treatment that would not outweigh what you perceive as a benefit?  Apparently you find 250,000 deaths acceptable if you answered "no" to my above question.

PS:  when you can give me stats on those groomed and abused as a direct or indirect consequence of one on one interviews, I will attempt to give you what I would see as acceptable.  You have the stats for medical error in the link, so you don't need to wait.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Lots of churches have youth pastors and others who develop good friendships with the children.

The centralized nature of the Church could help track potential abuse cases if they move around a lot, especially across state lines.  Otherwise not sure we are that different as I don't know how much connection occurs with youth pastors except in one case where one was a good friend and neighbour.

I am not trying to be critical of other churches, but having grown up in the South, and having visited a large number of different churches, I feel I can speak to this. I was raised primarily in the Baptist Church until I joined the LDS Church at age 13. While Baptist churches often have a youth minister, they just don't have the opportunity to learn of sexual abuse. There is no attempt to sit down and talk of sexual habits, and that would be considered inappropriate. However, since the Church has a high standard for its young priesthood holders and for attendees of the temple, this subject is probed in bishop interviews of the youth, and is considered appropriate by most in the Church. Further, the very local organization of the Church makes it much more likely that a child will personally know the bishop and his family than in many of the southern churches. Many of these churches may have a thousand attendees drawn from all over their cities whereas most Utah Church wards consist of 10 or so square blocks. The kids grow up in this area and know most of the families. It is just a whole different level of familiarity and trust. I was not sexually abused, nor abused in any way, but I know of others who were, and not one that I know of ever reported anything to the authorities - largely for the same reasons Jane Doe did not. When asked as adults if they were abused, we find a significant portion of the population says yes - somewhere around 20% or more. But there is just not near that many cases reported to Child Protective Services or other legal authorities, because it's a source of deep personal shame, embarrassment, and stress. 

As I have alluded, I really don't know how many cases of sexual abuse get reported to LDS bishops, but presently they are uniquely positioned to learn of such cases - much moreso than in any other church. Catholic confessionals do not consist of any pointed questions, and victims may not feel they have sinned, so are less likely to mention anything. Because kids normally are not going to say anything until it is bursting to come out of them, it is likely to come out during a time of maximum comfort level and least resistance. I believe LDS bishop interviews are one such time - a familiar face of someone who is perceived as trustworthy and helpful, and allowed to ask if a child has had anyone touch them. I am confident that it is much more likely for a LDS bishop to find out about such abuse as compared to anyone in any other Church - unfortunately, I just don't have the numbers, so I can't say how significant it is.

[Calm]

If bishops start pushing kids to share potential abuse, they better be well trained to do so.

Just adding such a question to an interview could be disasterous, imo.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

That's a number game that plays into the "one is one too many" trope. It's not like I, or anyone else, can spit out a number like 72 or something.

I also reject the notion that one-on-one interviews represent de facto grooming, even when nothing untoward takes place or is discussed. 

In the end, for those of us who believe that priesthood keys are real and necessary, there isn't a way to spit out some number or number level. Obviously, everyone would like the number to be zero. But, despite any measures implemented, ranging from modest to extreme, there will still be anecdotal incidents, just like there are in schools, on teams, etc. We don't stop letting children ride in cars, even though abolishing children riding in cars would ostensibly eliminate child death in cars. The perceived benefit outweighs the risk, however unlikely. 

Theology is different from unavoidable practical considerations. Surely God can accomplish his purposes while eliminating current practices that provide a playground for molesters. There's nothing static about anything in Mormonism.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

It does, you should read down to point number 3 in my response(I numbered them for you to help you out).

It's not cute to pretend people who disagree with you can't read. You very carefully talked around it, and invented a new contrived interpretation that is not given in the actual article to avoid the very obvious problem with your reading.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If bishops start pushing kids to share potential abuse, they better be well trained to do so.

Just adding such a question to an interview could be disasterous, imo.

"Do you live the law of chastity?" is all a Bishop needs to ask. Specific questions are mostly inappropriate and not necessary.  

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

As I have alluded, I really don't know how many cases of sexual abuse get reported to LDS bishops, but presently they are uniquely positioned to learn of such cases - much moreso than in any other church. Catholic confessionals do not consist of any pointed questions, and victims may not feel they have sinned, so are less likely to mention anything. Because kids normally are not going to say anything until it is bursting to come out of them, it is likely to come out during a time of maximum comfort level and least resistance. I believe LDS bishop interviews are one such time - a familiar face of someone who is perceived as trustworthy and helpful, and allowed to ask if a child has had anyone touch them.

 Bishops shouldn't ask specific questions.  However, it is probably true that some do report abuse to Bishops.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If bishops start pushing kids to share potential abuse, they better be well trained to do so.

Just adding such a question to an interview could be disasterous, imo.

I am certainly not implying that Bishops should turn the interviews into a fishing expedition. I don't think they need to ask any questions beyond what they do now. In fact I am not in favor of them asking about masturbation habits. I am merely saying that they do ask certain questions about chastity, and I'm sure sometimes abuse issues come up exactly because chastity is an issue in those interviews. 

Anyway, please do not read anything more than what I have said into my comments.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not cute to pretend people who disagree with you can't read. You very carefully talked around it, and invented a new contrived interpretation that is not given in the actual article to avoid the very obvious problem with your reading.

I read the article.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I am certainly not implying that Bishops should turn the interviews into a fishing expedition. I don't think they need to ask any questions beyond what they do now. In fact I am not in favor of them asking about masturbation habits. I am merely saying that they do ask certain questions about chastity, and I'm sure sometimes abuse issues come up exactly because chastity is an issue in those interviews. 

Anyway, please do not read anything more than what I have said into my comments.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Medical deaths may be the third leading cause of death in the US.  (I suspect bishops' interviews are not the third leading cause of child abuse in the US).

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

"more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S"

Do you plan on avoiding doctors and promoting shutting down medical services?

If not, what do you view as acceptable in terms of numbers of patients injured and killed as a direct or indirect consequence of a doctor providing medical treatment that would not outweigh what you perceive as a benefit?  Apparently you find 250,000 deaths acceptable if you answered "no" to my above question.

PS:  when you can give me stats on those groomed and abused as a direct or indirect consequence of one on one interviews, I will attempt to give you what I would see as acceptable.  You have the stats for medical error in the link, so you don't need to wait.

You make an interesting comparison.

Would you take your child for surgery to a medical institution staffed by untrained volunteers with no medical training, who had been appointed by other untrained volunteers with no medical training? I'm guessing your answer would be no. And unlike the aviation industry, the medical industry doesn't embrace learning from mistakes, it tries to cover things up and sweep things under the carpet, which is why the statistics you point to are so bad. A stat from the book 'Black Box Thinking' (and I'm working from memory) is that a Jumbo Jet's worth of patients die every 24 hours in the US from medical mistakes.

Your example, and thank you for providing it, is exactly why the Church needs to change. Because institutions that focus on covering up mistakes and issues do not improve.

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If bishops start pushing kids to share potential abuse, they better be well trained to do so.

Just adding such a question to an interview could be disasterous, imo.

Absolutely. A Bishops one-to-one interview (even with adults) is taken so seriously by the interviewees, that allowing an untrained volunteer to venture into topics of a sexual nature or otherwise delicate/sensitive/medical etc topic, can only end badly. It's already ending badly.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You make an interesting comparison.

Would you take your child for surgery to a medical institution staffed by untrained volunteers with no medical training, who had been appointed by other untrained volunteers with no medical training? I'm guessing your answer would be no. And unlike the aviation industry, the medical industry doesn't embrace learning from mistakes, it tries to cover things up and sweep things under the carpet, which is why the statistics you point to are so bad. A stat from the book 'Black Box Thinking' (and I'm working from memory) is that a Jumbo Jet's worth of patients die every 24 hours in the US from medical mistakes.

Your example, and thank you for providing it, is exactly why the Church needs to change. Because institutions that focus on covering up mistakes and issues do not improve.

If the Church was meant to operate as a hospital, it would be a hospital,  It is not, it is a church.  A church group learns different ways, has a different purpose, addresses people's different needs,  Sometimes that need is stability.  

Define first what a church must do to justify its existence and then let's see if you have a point.

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

That's a number game that plays into the "one is one too many" trope. It's not like I, or anyone else, can spit out a number like 72 or something.

I also reject the notion that one-on-one interviews represent de facto grooming, even when nothing untoward takes place or is discussed. 

In the end, for those of us who believe that priesthood keys are real and necessary, there isn't a way to spit out some number or number level. Obviously, everyone would like the number to be zero. But, despite any measures implemented, ranging from modest to extreme, there will still be anecdotal incidents, just like there are in schools, on teams, etc. We don't stop letting children ride in cars, even though abolishing children riding in cars would ostensibly eliminate child death in cars. The perceived benefit outweighs the risk, however unlikely. 

But what we do is make sure that Car Drivers go through a properly certified training programme operated by a qualified professional before they drive a car.

[Marginal Gains]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the Church was meant to operate as a hospital, it would be a hospital,  It is not, it is a church.  A church group learns different ways, has a different purpose, addresses people's different needs,  Sometimes that need is stability.  

Define first what a church must do to justify its existence and then let's see if you have a point.

You made the comparison between the Church and the medical profession, not me.

The question isn't about a Church justifying its existence - It's simply about reducing the risk of grooming and sexual abuse by stopping untrained volunteer unrelated adult males from asking minors personal questions of a sexually intrusive nature. Given that scandals, like the one coming out of Texas right now, suggest the Church has learnt nothing about how to qualify and supervise the actions of its appointed untrained adult volunteers in relation to the children of members.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-church-primary-teacher-arrested-in-texas-for-sexual-assault-of-a-child

Edited March 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

You made the comparison between the Church and the medical profession, not me.

No, I did not.  I used the medical profession to explain the principle of comparing risks to benefits when making judgments of value.

You apparently didn't understand.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 

No, I did not.  I used the medical profession to explain the principle of comparing risks to benefits when making judgments of value.

You apparently didn't understand.

Uh-oh. 

Now you've done it, Cal!

Never tell Marginal Gains he didn't understand something.  He was exposed to high doses of radiation in a lab once, and now, when he's in high dudgeon, he turns into A Big, Green, Angry MONSTER, popping all of the buttons on his shirt ...

Oh, no ...

Here it comes ...  

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

No, I did not.  I used the medical profession to explain the principle of comparing risks to benefits when making judgments of value.

You apparently didn't understand.

So, what’s the benefit you see in Bishop one to one interviews with minors that’s worth the risk of even one child being sexually abused?

Why did Church leaders defend the policy (of one to one interviews with minors) against the petition back in December 2017 (prior to the leak but whilst secretly trying to settle the victims case that it had failed to deal with in 30 years and whilst also trying to litigate to prevent secret recordings being allowable...), and then 3 months later, make a policy change allowing for parents to be present in the interview after the leak and immediately before Conference? Revelation perhaps?

Edited March 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Kenngo1969]

Marginal Gains,

I was going to go to work today, but since I might be involved in a traffic accident on the way, I think I'll stay home instead.  If my employer calls me wondering why I didn't show up, can I give my superiors your [real] name and contact information?  (You don't have to broadcast it to the whole board. A PM will be sufficient.  Thanks in advance for the day off!  Woo-whoo!  )

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Marginal Gains,

I was going to go to work today, but since I might be involved in a traffic accident on the way, I think I'll stay home instead.  If my employer calls me wondering why I didn't show up, can I give my superiors your [real] name and contact information?  (You don't have to broadcast it to the whole board. A PM will be sufficient.  Thanks in advance for the day off!  Woo-whoo!  )

Not at all a good comparison, IMO.  How does an adult driving to work (who has a driver's license to drive....I'm assuming you do...) compare to a youth being alone in a room with an untrained adult male who may ask inappropriate sexual questions behind closed doors?  I believe the point that some are making here is that there is a need for more training (and I agree) and a need for less sexual questioning of a child or youth while being alone with an adult male (and I agree). 

How does that even compare to an adult driving to a work in the morning?