Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

So, we should make it easier for them to get alone with a child?

Are you aware of any data that suggests child abuse rates are lower as a result of two deep policies?

 

I really don't believe that it is effective or desirable to build a bubble around our children.  

We can't shield them forever from harmful people or situations.  

A child being alone with an adult is a healthy, normal interaction with 99% of adults.  I certainly benefited growing up in my interactions with other adults, often one on one, or in small groups.  I have interacted with minors on a one on one basis many times. It did not put any of the minors I interacted with in any danger.  My children have interacted with adults as well.  Interacting with people (adults or children) I believe is very healthy. You learn what is normal so you can better recognize when things are off. 

There is nothing magical or mystical about segregating people by above 18 and below 18.  People below 18 are just as capable of being good (or abusive) as people over 18.

If not careful we can, in our zeal to protect our children keep them from living.

 

 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think the word "chaperoned" is putting quite the negative spin on the two deep interview, but I know (and understand) that's how you feel.  Do you feel the same about all of those required to adhere to the two deep policy of the church regarding other callings with children and youth (that they are being "chaperoned")? Or are they simply partners and working together?  

Sure, they're being chaperoned there, too. In the case of, say cub leaders, young men's leaders, etc., they are also working together as co-leaders, so it's not just the chaperoning aspect. Depending on the size of the group, there is also a crowd control and supervision component. 

Which isn't to say that parents and leaders aren't "working together" when one-on-one interviews happen.

A two deep interview policy would also be a protection for the adult leader as well.  I know my Bishop would welcome it.

That is the real purpose of two-deep. Sure, it makes it harder to abuse or groom then and there, but it's really about liability and protecting against accusation. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you aware of any data that suggests child abuse rates are lower as a result of two deep policies?

 

I really don't believe that it is effective or desirable to build a bubble around our children.  

We can't shield them forever from harmful people or situations.  

A child being alone with an adult is a healthy, normal interaction with 99% of adults.  I certainly benefited growing up in my interactions with other adults, often one on one, or in small groups.  I have interacted with minors on a one on one basis many times. It did not put any of the minors I interacted with in any danger.  My children have interacted with adults as well.  Interacting with people (adults or children) I believe is very healthy. You learn what is normal so you can better recognize when things are off. 

There is nothing magical or mystical about segregating people by above 18 and below 18.  People below 18 are just as capable of being good (or abusive) as people over 18.

If not careful we can, in our zeal to protect our children keep them from living.

Absolutely!

Also, one criticism from people who don't like the Church is that the interviews "groom" people to accept the patriarchal hierarchy and system. There is truth to that, but I don't accept the bad spin on that. I think watering down the interview process is a step in the direction of weakening regard for and reverence for priesthood keys. Pressure will always be applied towards eliminating interviews altogether. For adults, too. 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you aware of any data that suggests child abuse rates are lower as a result of two deep policies?

 

I really don't believe that it is effective or desirable to build a bubble around our children.  

We can't shield them forever from harmful people or situations.  

A child being alone with an adult is a healthy, normal interaction with 99% of adults.  I certainly benefited growing up in my interactions with other adults, often one on one, or in small groups.  I have interacted with minors on a one on one basis many times. It did not put any of the minors I interacted with in any danger.  My children have interacted with adults as well.  Interacting with people (adults or children) I believe is very healthy. You learn what is normal so you can better recognize when things are off. 

There is nothing magical or mystical about segregating people by above 18 and below 18.  People below 18 are just as capable of being good (or abusive) as people over 18.

If not careful we can, in our zeal to protect our children keep them from living.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Should we make it easier for abusers to have alone time with children? If there's an abuser in my ward, he's not going to have any alone time with my child so long as there is a 2 deep policy adhered to.

As a corollary, should we put lions in the petting zoo? After all, they could always escape from their cage anyway.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You didn't answer my question. Should we make it easier for abusers to have alone time with children? If there's an abuser in my ward, he's not going to have any alone time with my child so long as there is a 2 deep policy adhered to.

As a corollary, should we put lions in the petting zoo? After all, they could always escape from their cage anyway.

And where parents or family members or other caregivers are abusers?  If we really want to protect the children we must make a federal law prohibiting any adult from ever being alone with any minor. Anything short of that is just polemics. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You didn't answer my question. Should we make it easier for abusers to have alone time with children? If there's an abuser in my ward, he's not going to have any alone time with my child so long as there is a 2 deep policy adhered to.

As a corollary, should we put lions in the petting zoo? After all, they could always escape from their cage anyway.

Not letting your children have alone time with abusers is always good advice, and I wholeheartedly recommend it.  However, if they are  not abusers there should be less reason for concern.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Danzo

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Pressure will always be applied towards eliminating interviews altogether. For adults, too. 

Based on the chatter in some online apostate forums, I fully expect ministering companionships to be the next target. The end game is the complete dismantling of the Church's teachings (or at least a crippling of its ability to teach them) as well as a complete dismantling of the Church's structures.

I've mentioned before that we have a 'progressive' shadow minister in our national parliament who has gone on record that, in government, she would take steps to ban faiths teaching people that they can change. There goes the entire Christian message of redemption ...

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That is the real purpose of two-deep. Sure, it makes it harder to abuse or groom then and there, but it's really about liability and protecting against accusation. 

I think that's just part of it (and important).  However, what I'm seeing is that more and more, parents simply do not want their young daughters or sons alone in a closed door room with an adult male who may be asking questions of a sexual nature.  We can poke fun at that or say they're being over protective and over reactive......but it's just a fact that this issue is becoming much more important to parents (and others).  It's not just that they're worried about actual physical abuse, they don't even want the situation described above possibly taking place with their child.

[JulieM]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not letting your children have alone time with abusers is always good advice, and I wholeheartedly recommend it.  However, if they are  not abusers there should be less reason for concern.

The problem is that no parent knows who the abusers are ahead of time.  There are a lot of cases of abuse against children from someone the parents believed they could trust.  So now many are feeling they should error on the side of caution.  I definitely believe that most leaders are not abusers!  

 

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not letting your children have alone time with abusers is always good advice, and I wholeheartedly recommend it.  However, if they are  not abusers there should be less reason for concern.

For that reason the two deep policy is a necessary minimum precaution. Since abusers don't tend to advertise.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Not letting your children have alone time with abusers is always good advice, and I wholeheartedly recommend it.  However, if they are  not abusers there should be less reason for concern.

If you have a fool-proof abuser detector handy, please share.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

The problem is that no parent knows who the abusers are ahead of time.  There are a lot of cases of abuse against children from someone the parents believed they could trust.  So now many are feeling they should error on the side of caution.  I definitely believe that most leaders are not abusers!  

 

And I believe that most parents and older siblings are not abusers. Should we err on the side of caution?

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

For that reason the two deep policy is a necessary minimum precaution. 

For parents too? Mandatory background checks?

Edited September 19, 2018 by kllindley

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

For parents too? Mandatory background checks?

This really isn't worthy of a response, but here's the same poor argument applied to a different subect:

Family dogs can be dangerous too, sometimes they turn on you. Therefore it's not worth taking the time to keep your kids safe around strange dogs they encounter in the streets. Just let your toddler play alone with whatever dog they encounter.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

And where parents or family members or other caregivers are abusers?  If we really want to protect the children we must make a federal law prohibiting any adult from ever being alone with any minor. Anything short of that is just polemics.  

Reductio ad absurdum is one of the laziest forms of arguments.

Here, I'll go next. People shouldn't have to wear seat belts because there are also  other dangerous situations in life. What's next, seat belts for living near active volcanoes? 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sustaining the leaders of the Church is a condition for entry to the temple.

Which means that there is no meaningful common consent.

Quote

To the extent "being too vocal" = "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders," yes.

Imagine going to the polls in November. You cast your support for the candidate of your choice. On your way out you are ticked by a policeman for voting for the "wrong" candidate. He says if you do it again or encourage others to do the same it will mean jail time.

 

Quote

Yes, they do.  The "impact" of a sustaining vote is that the body of the Church has been given an opportunity to participate in "common consent," to provide or withhold a sustaining vote.

A vote that has no effect, other than voting the wrong way will get you punished.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Reductio ad absurdum is one of the laziest forms of arguments.

Here, I'll go next. People shouldn't have to wear seat belts because there are also  other dangerous situations in life. What's next, seat belts for living near active volcanoes? 

Stop using Latin terms. Stop it, I say! Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy don’t approve. 

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Which means that there is no meaningful common consent.

Imagine going to the polls in November. You cast your support for the candidate of your choice. On your way out you are ticked by a policeman for voting for the "wrong" candidate. He says if you do it again or encourage others to do the same it will mean jail time.

 

A vote that has no effect, other than voting the wrong way will get you punished.

 

 

CFR that “voting the wrong way will get you punished.”

[kllindley]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

Reductio ad absurdum is one of the laziest forms of arguments.

Here, I'll go next. People shouldn't have to wear seat belts because there are also  other dangerous situations in life. What's next, seat belts for living near active volcanoes? 

 

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

This really isn't worthy of a response, but here's the same poor argument applied to a different subect:

Family dogs can be dangerous too, sometimes they turn on you. Therefore it's not worth taking the time to keep your kids safe around strange dogs they encounter in the streets. Just let your toddler play alone with whatever dog they encounter.

Do you have any actual evidence to support the notion that a child is more likely to be abused by an LDS Bishop than by their parents?

Edited September 19, 2018 by kllindley

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

This really isn't worthy of a response, but here's the same poor argument applied to a different subect:

Family dogs can be dangerous too, sometimes they turn on you. Therefore it's not worth taking the time to keep your kids safe around strange dogs they encounter in the streets. Just let your toddler play alone with whatever dog they encounter.

Why is it a poor argument? Some parents (a good many, in fact) are abusers. 

Complete this sentence: A mandatory “two deep” policy should not apply to parents because _____________ . 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

The problem is that no parent knows who the abusers are ahead of time.  There are a lot of cases of abuse against children from someone the parents believed they could trust.  So now many are feeling they should error on the side of caution.  I definitely believe that most leaders are not abusers!  

 

I know it can be scary, but don't think "trust no one" is a healthy message to send to our children.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Reductio ad absurdum is one of the laziest forms of arguments.

Here, I'll go next. People shouldn't have to wear seat belts because there are also  other dangerous situations in life. What's next, seat belts for living near active volcanoes? 

But one could use the same argument for allowing one on one interviews with minors because some may choose to report abuse to bishops when they wouldn't report it to others.  In this case, the bishop interview is the seat belt.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

For that reason the two deep policy is a necessary minimum precaution. Since abusers don't tend to advertise.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Abusers can be children or adults. So if you really want to be safe, you would have to restrict one on one with anyone at any time.  Especially with parents, who are a significant percentage of abusers.

Spouses should never be alone with each other as well since spousal abuse is also significant.

I don't want my children to have to live that way.

 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Sure!

I believe deeply that priesthood keys are important, and that bishop's interviews are important, too, as designed and constituted. Chaperoning them makes them completely different --- sort of a Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Interviews (observing it by a third party fundamentally changes it). The unchaperoned, traditional interview is not the same thing as the chaperoned one. I didn't want to act in my capacity as bishop with what I consider to be a charade of an interview process. And I say that as a father of four children, boys and a girl. I want my children to also have one-on-one interviews with their leaders.

 

 

I did like doing them. I spoke with parents and youth multiple times about the questions (here is a copy of them, let's talk about what they mean and what you are being asked). Nobody was blind-sided in my interviews, although you always find people (adults, too) who don't understand what is being asked. Part of the job is making sure people understand these things. They are important. 

 

 

I think people can and do differ on this. 

Thanks for responding.  I think that discussing the temple questions, in advance, with youth and parents is wise.  If I ever find myself back in a bishopric, I’ll try to remember that.  (I always dreaded sitting down with a Beehive and asking “Do you live the law of chastity?” Only to have her reply:  What’s that?

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

If you have a fool-proof abuser detector handy, please share.

Life is full of risks.