Report on Catholic Abuse = Cynicism Spreading?

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

But if we’re being honest, most teens and kids would prefer to not have any interviews.  Maybe a few enjoy them (?)

How many would seek them out though if they weren’t scheduled for them?

I liked them as a kid and teen.

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think that’s great!  I really do 😊

As an adult I enjoy most of my interviews now too.  I’m in the YW’s presidency now and I’m just expressing what I’ve seen.  Some YW are shy and dread the interviews (but nothing personal against whoever is conducting them).  I know few who would schedule them on their own and that’s what I was referring to.

I agree that the majority of the kids and youth would just as soon skip the one-on-one interviews.  I know that some we have to really chase down to get them into the office   Then they role their eyes and say "ok"....but most of the time interviews are set in advance now and this doesn't happen quite as often as it used to.  I have seen a few who are actually enthusiastic about meeting (usually the most out going youth), but admit that's kind of rare.

For those who are saying they enjoy the interviews as adults, that's not the point being made as we are discussing child/youth interviews.  I also enjoy most interviews now!

Edited August 16, 2018 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sigh. It's hard for me to understand why so many refuse to accept the obvious.

Bad things have happened when a child/youth is alone with clergy.

Clergy have misused the relationship of trust with both parents and children to enable them to perpetrate

You sidestepped my question and didn't answer, instead trying to obfuscate the issue by talking about the physical space of catholic confessional. I again ask, if the Catholic church claimed, as a matter of policy that clergy and kids/youth would meet together alone, behind closed doors, would you support it.

I know why you are avoiding the question but how about a simple response without trying to change the subject.

I wasn't answering a question you asked, but rather discussing the physical and historical facts of these crimes -- which have not been committed in an LDS bishop's office, nor in a RC confessional.  Those crimes are committed elsewhere, and I think that we would be ahead of the game if we admitted up front where and under what circumstances these crimes take place.  Then we could more likely prevent them.  In scouting, for example, we try to guarantee that there will always be at least two adults with any single kid or group of kids.  Prevention is crucial.  I fully agree that we should not avoid the obvious.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think you quite understand what these people are on about, Robert. Merely discussing the law of chastity in a bishop's office is the 'heinous act' they're protesting against.

Yes.  I understand the hysteria of a Sam Young, and that no bishop can possibly be trusted to say anything.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  I understand the hysteria of a Sam Young, and that no bishop can possibly be trusted to say anything.

Ever read the stories? http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

[The Nehor]

I am ticked at the Catholic Church. This is what comes of setting up a system led by perfidious potpourri (or is it popery, I can never remember).

Taking a nice wholesome state like Pennsylvania and turning it into........nope, I could not keep a straight face.

Edited August 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think that’s great!  I really do 😊

As an adult I enjoy most of my interviews now too.  I’m in the YW’s presidency now and I’m just expressing what I’ve seen.  Some YW are shy and dread the interviews (but nothing personal against whoever is conducting them).  I know few who would schedule them on their own and that’s what I was referring to.

They creeped me out for a long time. Probably because my first bishop asked inappropriate questions.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Ever read the stories? http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

I understand the emotions that can be stirred up when reading those stories.  But a few thoughts:

First, those stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Second, the fact that Sam Young seems to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., rather strongly speaks against the merits and reasonableness of his demands, or at least makes me very cautious about them.  Mr. Young isn't looking to persuade others to his position through reasoning and evidence.  He is instead looking to whip people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  He's creating a mob mentality.  An hysteria.  

Third, Mr. Young's selective outrage is really disconcerting.  Why is he targeting bishops interviews?  Doesn't that seem way down on the list of things we could do to reduce sexual abuse of children?  As I recall, Mr. Young started all of this because a bishop purportedly asked his daughter some inappropriate questions.  Is that all this is, then?  Mr. Young's personal resentments against one bishop's misconduct blown up into a full-blown moral panic?  How else do we account for his utter disregard of the many other, and far more dangerous, factors that lead to sexual abuse of children?

Fourth, Mr. Young's self-aggrandizement is really a concern to me.  This issue seems to be all about him.  He's always front and center.  Talking to the media.  At the literal center of the marches and protests.  And now he's in the middle of a hunger strike, and claiming that Jesus will descend and sit in a chair next to him. 

Is this really all about concern for the welfare of children?  Or did it start out that way, but then morph into a massive ego trip for Sam Young?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Guest]

On August 15, 2018 at 12:53 PM, smac97 said:

From this news item:

Again, here is a link to the Grand Jury Report.

An excerpt:

Words fails me.

More:

Let's reduce this "playbook" a bit:

• Point 1: Use Euphemisms
• Point 2: Avoid Meaningful Investigations
• Point 3: "In-House" Evaluation of Priests' Mental Health
• Point 4: Don't Explain Removal of Priests
• Point 5: Continued Financial/Housing Support of Priests
• Point 6: Don't Defrock, Transfer
• Point 7: Don't Report Abuse to Police

Some further excerpts (WARNING: these are pretty hard to stomach):

You may be wondering why I am starting a thread about this topic, regarding abuse in the Catholic Church, on a board that is supposed to discuss Mormonism.  I will explain:

Part 1: The "Corianton Effect" - Religious Hypocrisy, Once Uncovered, Can and Often Does Taint / Undermine / Destroy the Faith of Others

My explanation starts in Alma 39, which is a letter from Alma to his son, Corianton.  Corianton has presented himself as a representative of God, but then he committed a grave sexual sin, and then others - the Zoramites - found out about it (emphasis added):

I think part of the enormity of Corianton's misconduct was the effect he had on the Zoramites.  The Zoramites saw the hypocrisy of someone representing and bringing a message from God.  The Zoramites rejected the message because of Corianton's hypocrisy.  Corianton, through his hypocrisy, underminedThe Zoramites' faith, or their ability to have faith.  The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted that message in the eyes of the Zoramites. 

For the sake of convenience, let's call this the "Corianton Effect."  Corianton, fortunately, apparently repented (Alma called Corianton again to the work (see Alma 42:31; also 49:30)).  But the lesson for us remains as to the dangers and caustic effects of hypocrisy.

Part 2: Catholics and Mormons Have Similarities

I think that in our popular culture, Catholics and Mormons have similarities.  Both have exclusivistic truth claims.  Both have a visible and centralized leadership heirarchy.  Both are (or are designed to be) "lifestyle" religions, affecting all aspects of life.  Both present their message as being from God.  Both typify "organized religion."

If from the article, I am just sickened, I am also thrilled that that the  woman raped in the MTC, (as statrd I'm in another Aritcle) can sue the Church. and possibly collect millions, and millions.. I know this will  not restore  faith in the Church and the Priesthood, but I also hope  (if proven)  that her rapist and any who attemped to cover up this sin, spend many, many years in prison, no matter their calling, as well being excommunication. 

My fear is that with that the Catholic Church and  due to the "Vow of celibacy", which is unnatural and for many, unbearable, might be part of the problem. A very close has had  his faith shaken when he found out his Perish Priest had been seeing hookers regularly. But, it is common practice to simply transfer Priests away, rather than deal with the probelem, or have then say a few simple confession  and have them say a  few "Hail Mary," and a couple of, " Our father's, then forgiven. But now science, no others. And then allowed to teach and counsel children, as if nothing ever happened. We as a Church should not, and can not look the other wa,y, least we loose our souls. As science teaches us, that (no matter what) those who prey on children, can never be healed; ever!  So Gid help those 1,000's harm to be healed, and God help us if we cover it up, and God bless those abushed. Please God help then all. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If from the article, I am just sickened, I am also thrilled that that the  woman raped in the MTC, (as statrd I'm in another Aritcle) can sue the Church. and possibly collect millions, and millions..

Of course she can sue the Church.  But can she win?  I think the chances of that are quite low.

I would have much rather preferred that she reach a negotiated settlement, receive that settlement, and move on with her life.  As it is, she has destroyed the settlement negotiations, undermined her attorneys, destroyed her credibility, made a spectacle of herself and her past misconduct, and forced her attorneys to file a lawsuit that she will almost certainly lose, leaving her with nothing.

2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I know this will  not restore  faith in the Church and the Priesthood, but I also hope  (if proven)  that her rapist and any who attemped to cover up this sin, spend many, many years in prison, no matter their calling, as well being excommunication. 

We don't know what happened.

We don't know if there was any cover-up, or if there was anything to cover up.

I don't think we'll ever know these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, those stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources. 

But, the question was "Have you read the stories"?  Have you?

 

Here are some that are not just anecdotal :

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/mormon-bishop-sex-crime/4829127/

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=11194

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/cumberland-gap-tn/TGFH2B0PPN7J890NL

http://docplayer.net/54058112-The-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

 

There are many cases documented on the Mormon Alliance website (I own a couple of these volumes), here's the link to info on just the abuse cases in Volume One:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/v1.htm:

I'd be happy to post links to their other volumes as well that contain more cases of abuse.

 

And more info:

Quote

 

Selected LDS Church cases:

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.[1]

In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.[3]

In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.[4][5]

In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.[6]

In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.[7]

In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ever read the stories? http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

I read a couple of Sam Young's stories and found them to be largely typical and mild cases of childhood angst, human bishops, and reactions which one could find among any sort of children and young adults in nearly any context.  Perhaps some of Young's  stories are more significant.  If so, he needs to feature them and to label them properly.  Hysteria will accomplish nothing.

I have assembled a much more serious set of actual criminal sexual behavior in Roman Catholic, Mormon, and other religious contexts, and it is those types of stories which Young should be interested in.  I have been adding to that data base for about 30 years, and am familiar with other people who have done so -- including publication of the data online.  These more important incidents include rape and other forms of sexual assault and the circumstances under which they occurred.  I have been particularly interested in ecclesiastical coverups, both piecemeal and organized.  Many of them have involved arrests, lawsuits, and large cash settlements.  Rather than being confidential, many of them are a matter of public record.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, the question was "Have you read the stories"?  Have you?

Not all of them, no.  But enough to figure out that they are "almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources."

Quote

Here are some that are not just anecdotal :

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

A news article about Erik Wayne Hughes being arrested.  Nothing about a conviction, though.  So more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

Quote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/mormon-bishop-sex-crime/4829127/

The charges against Michael Wayne Coleman pertain to "elicit sexual conversations on the internet," apparently involving youths he met through his job as an exchange student coordinator (see here and here).   I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Coleman conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Coleman? 

I also could not find any news articles about Mr. Coleman actually being convicted of any criminal misconduct.

Quote

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=11194

A blog entry about an unnamed bishop in Argentina being accused of sexual abuse.  Nothing about any conviction, though.  Again, more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

Quote

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/cumberland-gap-tn/TGFH2B0PPN7J890NL

A random website referencing a Dr. Gregory Thompson, former dean at LMU and bishop of the Cumberland Gap ward being arrested for video voyeurism.  Nothing about any conviction, though.  Again, more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

Quote

http://docplayer.net/54058112-The-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

A large compendium of mostly anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and/or anonymously-sourced stories.

A lot of news stories about allegations of abuse.

A few meaningful portions, though.  But do any involve abuse arising from bishop interviews?  Apparently not.

Quote

There are many cases documented on the Mormon Alliance website (I own a couple of these volumes), here's the link to info on just the abuse cases in Volume One:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/v1.htm:

Yours is an interesting usage of the word "documented."

For me, "documented" needs to mean a lot more than "Someone wrote something down somewhere at some point."

Quote

I'd be happy to post links to their other volumes as well that contain more cases of abuse.

Why?  It would only prove my point.  What we are talking about here is a bunch of statements that are mostly or entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and/or anonymously-sourced stories

Quote

And more info:

Selected LDS Church cases:

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.[1]

In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.[3]

 

Timothy McCleve abused his victims in their own home:

"Because he brought candy, let them play on his laptop games he brought into the house. He put some games on my computer. You know, got them busy doing fun things," the alleged victims' father spoke to 2 News on condition of anonymity.

 

The girls' father says it went beyond computer games to physical contact, "He would wrestle with them; let them climb all over him. Just having a fun time."

And here:

McCleve was sentenced Wednesday to a pair of one-to-15 year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony. McCleve was the former bishop of the Harrisville LDS Church ward that the girls he sexually abused attended. Police said he would often stop by their home while their parents were away.

I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. McCleve conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. McCleve?

 

Quote

In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.[4][5]

Mr. Kennard sexually abused his adopted daughters in their home.  I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Kennard conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Kennard?

Quote

In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.[6]

Todd Michell Edwards was convicted based on sexual misconduct with teenage girls that took place either at his home or in his car.   How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Edwards?

Quote

In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.[7]

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped this?

Quote

In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases

The charges against Michael Wayne Coleman pertain to "elicit sexual conversations on the internet," apparently involving youths he met through his job as an exchange student coordinator (see here and here).   I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Coleman conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Coleman? 

I also could not find any news articles about Mr. Coleman actually being convicted of any criminal misconduct.

Quite a few non sequiturs you've lined up here.  If you are trying to justify or rationalize Mr. Young's objective (stopping bishop interviews), you are not succeeding.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 16, 2018 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I liked them as a kid and teen.

I still like them.  I even thought them worthwhile earlier in life, when I had to squirm a bit, or a lot.  Luckily, I have always had good bishops.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not all of them, no.  But enough to figure out that they are "almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources."

A news article about Erik Wayne Hughes being arrested.  Nothing about a conviction, though.  So more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

The charges against Michael Wayne Coleman pertain to "elicit sexual conversations on the internet," apparently involving youths he met through his job as an exchange student coordinator (see here and here).   I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Coleman conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Coleman? 

I also could not find any news articles about Mr. Coleman actually being convicted of any criminal misconduct.

A blog entry about an unnamed bishop in Argentina being accused of sexual abuse.  Nothing about any conviction, though.  Again, more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

A random website referencing a Dr. Gregory Thompson, former dean at LMU and bishop of the Cumberland Gap ward being arrested for video voyeurism.  Nothing about any conviction, though.  Again, more or less anecdotal, and certainly not established as fact.

A large compendium of mostly anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and/or anonymously-sourced stories.

A lot of news stories about allegations of abuse.

A few meaningful portions, though.  But do any involve abuse arising from bishop interviews?  Apparently not.

Yours is an interesting usage of the word "documented."

For me, "documented" needs to mean a lot more than "Someone wrote something down somewhere at some point."

Why?  It would only prove my point.  What we are talking about here is a bunch of statements that are mostly or entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and/or anonymously-sourced stories

 

Timothy McCleve abused his victims in their own home:

"Because he brought candy, let them play on his laptop games he brought into the house. He put some games on my computer. You know, got them busy doing fun things," the alleged victims' father spoke to 2 News on condition of anonymity.

 

The girls' father says it went beyond computer games to physical contact, "He would wrestle with them; let them climb all over him. Just having a fun time."

And here:

McCleve was sentenced Wednesday to a pair of one-to-15 year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony. McCleve was the former bishop of the Harrisville LDS Church ward that the girls he sexually abused attended. Police said he would often stop by their home while their parents were away.

I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. McCleve conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. McCleve?

 

Mr. Kennard sexually abused his adopted daughters in their home.  I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Kennard conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Kennard?

Todd Michell Edwards was convicted based on sexual misconduct with teenage girls that took place either at his home or in his car.   How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Edwards?

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped this?

The charges against Michael Wayne Coleman pertain to "elicit sexual conversations on the internet," apparently involving youths he met through his job as an exchange student coordinator (see here and here).   I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Coleman conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Coleman? 

I also could not find any news articles about Mr. Coleman actually being convicted of any criminal misconduct.

Quite a few non sequiturs you've lined up here.  If you are trying to justify or rationalize Mr. Young's objective (stopping bishop interviews), you are not succeeding.

Thanks,

-Smac

I actually find it sickening to read through all the cases that Alarson posted and then to read your response is just more sickening for me, smac. There’s enough posted to at least consider a need for more possible changes or more protections put in place.  But you can disagree.

I guess you believe most of these people were lying or were falsely accusing?

I can’t read any more of your responses so I’ll stay off this thread.  This is a very personal topic for me (and I’m not lying about that).

Edited August 16, 2018 by JulieM

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They creeped me out for a long time. Probably because my first bishop asked inappropriate questions.

I don't remember any other questions Bishop Hill asked me as a 12 year old other than questions about mastarbation.  He was my bishop for most of my teen years.  Every year, I knew the question and subsequent discussion about self abuse would come up.  Honestly, I thought it was just normal to be asked those questions in each bishop interview because that is all I had known.  And no, he never tried to do anything sexual to me.

As it turned out, his oldest daughter ended up pregnant my senior year.  Maybe as a father, he should have been more in tune with what his own kids were up to rather than asking 12 year old boys about sexual issues.  Yeah I thought he was kinda of creepy as well.

[Jeanne]

It is with great love and hope that most mormon members do not think like Smac.  That what seems to be his narrow road should be as broad and encompossing as God's love, compassion and empathy.

No personal insults.

[smac97]

Just now, JulieM said:

I actually find it sickening to read through all the cases that Alarson posted and then to read your response is just more sickening for me, smac. 

Why is that?  What have I said that is morally problematic?

Just now, JulieM said:

There’s enough posted to at least consider a need for more  possible changes.  But you can disagree.

Sure.  I can agree with that.

Just now, JulieM said:

I guess you believe most of these people were lying or were falsely accusing?

I understand the emotions that can be stirred up when reading those stories.  But a few thoughts:

First, those stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Second, the fact that Sam Young seems to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., rather strongly speaks against the merits and reasonableness of his demands, or at least makes me very cautious about them.  Mr. Young isn't looking to persuade others to his position through reasoning and evidence.  He is instead looking to whip people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  He's creating a mob mentality.  A hysteria.  

Third, Mr. Young's selective outrage is really disconcerting.  Why is he targeting bishops interviews?  Doesn't that seem way down on the list of things we could do to reduce sexual abuse of children?  As I recall, Mr. Young started all of this because a bishop purportedly asked his daughter some inappropriate questions.  Is that all this is, then?  Mr. Young's personal resentments against one bishop's misconduct blown up into a full-blown moral panic?  How else do we account for his utter disregard of the many other, and far more dangerous, factors that lead to sexual abuse of children?

Fourth, Mr. Young's self-aggrandizement is really a concern to me.  This issue seems to be all about him.  He's always front and center.  Talking to the media.  At the literal center of the marches and protests.  And now he's in the middle of a hunger strike.  Is this really all about concern for the welfare of children?  Or did it start out that way, but then morph into a massive ego trip for Sam Young?

Just now, JulieM said:

I can’t read any more of your responses so I’ll stay off this thread.  This is a very personal topic for me (and I’m not lying about that).

I am flummoxed.  I do not think I have said anything untoward or improper.  

We can reduce abuse, we can implement safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse, but such abuse will never be completely eliminated.  That's the nature of living in an fallen and imperfect and sinful world.

 

My remarks here pertain to the demands of Sam Young.  I think they are pretty irrational in their focus on bishop interviews.  By sheer numbers, a child is far, far more likely to be abused by a family member.  See this Psychology Today article:

Most of the perpetrators of child abuse (neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse) were family members. For example, 80.8% of (instance-based count, rather than person-based) perpetrators were parents, 5.9 percent were relatives other than parents, and 4.4 percent were unmarried partners of parents. In addition, the perpetrators included sibling, victim’s boyfriend or girlfriend, babysitter, other caretakers, and strangers. There is no indication that the pattern of offenders of sexual abuse, which accounted for 9.1% of the cases, differed from the general one. The data is also consistent with the practitioners’ observation about sex abuse perpetrators. As reported in American Psychological Association website, the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child.

If Mr. Young is serious about "even one victim is too many" rhetoric, then why isn't he demanding that children be taken from their families?  What isn't he demanding that children be taken out of school, lest they be at risk of being abused by a teacher or a coach?  Why isn't Mr. Young demonizing family members and teachers/coaches the same way he has been demonizing LDS bishops?  Why is he ignoring the elephant in the room?  

 

The answer, I think, may be in the next paragraph of the above article:

However, this reality has not set in for some people because only sex crimes perpetrated by strangers or persons with special status (e.g., coach, teacher) tend to receive the news media’ attention.  High (low) level publicity of an event in the media is often mistaken as high (low) frequency of the event. If the news media could pay more attention to family violence and to physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused child victims at home, they would make a greater contribution in keeping children safe and healthy.

Mr. Young's crusade is, I think, based less on reasoned analysis, and more on emotion and vitriol.  It is reactionary, not introspective or reasoned.  It's an appeal to emotion, to mass panic and hysteria, and perhaps even to outright animosity and prejudice against the LDS Church.  It is not a rational and proportionate approach to addressing the abuse of children (as evidenced by Sam Young leapfrogging over the vast majority of abuse being committed by family members, which he doesn't address at all).

 

I can't help but compare Mr. Young's overwrought behavior to other trial-by-media-circus messes we've seen, such as the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions (along with the numerous other "Day-care sex-abuse hysteria" cases in the 80s and 90s).  There's even a term that has been coined for it: Moral Panic.  See here:

A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".

 

The media are key players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic. Stanley Cohen states that moral panic happens when "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory paedophiles, belief in ritual abuse of women and children by satanic cults, the War on Drugs, and other public health issues.

This sounds an awful lot like what Mr. Young is doing.  A bit more:

According to Stanley Cohen, who seems to have borrowed the term from Marshall McLuhan[], there are five key stages in the construction of a moral panic:

1. Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests
2. The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media
3. The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern
4. There is a response from authorities and policy makers
5. The moral panic over the issue results in social changes within the community

Let's break this down a bit:

• Stage 1: "Someone [or] something ... [is] defined as a threat."  Sam Young is defining bishops and bishop interviers as a threat to children and youth.  
• Stage 2:  "The threat is then depicted ina simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media."  Sam Young is using placards which pair a menacing predator (mountain lions, representing bishops) with scared/disgusted children (the victims of bishops) and the Church (the purported ennabler of the abuse). Like this:

 

• Stage 3:   "The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern."  Sam Young is moving heaven and earth to "rouse public concern."  Marches.  Protests.  Petitions.  Hunger strikes.
• Stage 4:   "There is a response from authorities and policy makers."  The Church has responded publicly to Mr. Young's concerns.
• Stage 5:   "The moral panic over the issue results in social changes within the community."  The Church has modified and clarified its policies for interviews, apparently to some extent in response to Mr. Young.

What Mr. Young is doing seems like an almost by-the-numbers Moral Panic.  Consider the historic examples of moral panics in the U.S. given in the above article:

• 20th–21st century: public health
• 1950s: switchblades
• 1970s–present: increase in crime
• 1970s–present: video games and violence
• 1970s–present: war on drugs
• 1980s–1990s: Dungeons & Dragons
• 1980s–1990s: Satanic ritual abuse
• 1980s–present: HIV/AIDS
• 1990s–present: sex offenders
• 2000–present: human trafficking
• 2016 - present: suicide communities

Most of these are founded in some legitimate concern.  But they then the "panic" sets in and we see hysterics and unreasoned, reactionary, over-the-top demands that society "do something."  

 

As a father of six, I have a vested interest in doing "something."  I have every desire to see my children, and everyone else's children, kept safe from abuse.  But Mr. Young's approach is counterproductive, perhaps even destructive.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

..............................

There are many cases documented on the Mormon Alliance website (I own a couple of these volumes), here's the link to info on just the abuse cases in Volume One:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/v1.htm: ...............................

The Mormon Alliance (Lavina F Anderson, and friends) have done a helpful job in assembling all sorts of incidents into those three volumes, but they must be used with care and additional research to see what the eventual outcome of many of those cases was.  Helpful, but not definitive.  By grouping and labeling such incidents, one can learn something about the patterns of pedophile behavior and plan preventive measures.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is with great love and hope that most mormon members do not think like Smac.  That what seems to be his narrow road should be as broad and encompossing as God's love, compassion and empathy.

Spencer is a lawyer, and lawyers are interested in facts not assertions or anecdotes -- which are not acceptable in a court of law.

We live in a highly sexualized society, a society in which a dad putting his arm around his son's shoulders is immediately suspected of being a pedophile.  In which good friendships become suspected homosexual liaisons.  No one is safe from suspicion, and no real evidence is necessary to prove anything.  Perhaps modern humans deserve that fate, but it seems so sad that a mere accusation is now taken as fact.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I actually find it sickening to read through all the cases that Alarson posted and then to read your response is just more sickening for me, smac. There’s enough posted to at least consider a need for more possible changes or more protections put in place.  But you can disagree.

I guess you believe most of these people were lying or were falsely accusing?

I can’t read any more of your responses so I’ll stay off this thread.  This is a very personal topic for me (and I’m not lying about that).

Yes, same for me.

I couldn't even stomach reading his entire response and have to wonder if what he wrote in his opening post...:

Quote

 

I hope the abusers referenced in the above article are deprived of their access to potential victims.  And I hope they repent.  And I hope they are brought to justice such as is allowed by law.

I hope the victims referenced in the above article find comfort and peace

 

......only applies for him if he's referencing cases of abuse in the Catholic Church.

 

I'll be moving on from this thread as well and won't be returning to it.

Edited August 16, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is with great love and hope that most mormon members do not think like Smac. 

What is it about my thinking that you find to be problematic?

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That what seems to be his narrow road should be as broad and encompossing as God's love, compassion and empathy.

What does "narrow road" mean?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

Yes, same for me.

I couldn't even stomach reading his entire response and have to wonder if what he wrote in his opening post...:

......only applies for him if he's referencing cases of abuse in the Catholic Church.

I'll be moving on from this thread as well and won't be returning to it.

Wow.  This personalized stuff is really weird.

I have said nothing untoward or improper.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is with great love and hope that most mormon members do not think like Smac.  That what seems to be his narrow road should be as broad and encompossing as God's love, compassion and empathy.

Amen.  Well stated.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

It is with great love and hope that most mormon members do not think like Smac.  That what seems to be his narrow road should be as broad and encompossing as God's love, compassion and empathy.

Spencer is a lawyer, and lawyers are interested in facts not assertions or anecdotes -- which are not acceptable in a court of law.

I think we should all spend more time evaluating "facts," and to privilege them over "assertions or anecdotes."

That's just common sense.

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We live in a highly sexualized society, a society in which a dad putting his arm around his son's shoulders is immediately suspected of being a pedophile. 

And our society also appears to be finding it a bad thing to use reason and evidentiary analysis when evaluating complex and difficult issues like the one under discussion here.

At least, that seems to be the criticism of Jeanne and ALarson.

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In which good friendships become suspected homosexual liaisons.  No one is safe from suspicion, and no real evidence is necessary to prove anything. 

All the more reason to focus on facts, not emotions.

Evidence, not unadorned assertions or anecdotes.

Thanks,

-Smac