My first and only Sam Young resignations*

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

Members believe in following the laws of the land, right?  If you are in America there are mandated reporting laws:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/

Yes.  And the Church obeys these laws.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

I would think the church would fall under the same laws as counselors, social workers, and others who deal with children. 

It is.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

If someone comes into a bishop's office and tells them they have been abused...

Then compliance with mandatory reporting laws is the order of the day.

This happens.  All the time.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

or someone "repents" of molesting or otherwise illegal activity - legal actions do need to be taken.

This is a different circumstance from the first one.  Generally speaking, mandatory reporting laws do not apply to a person confessing to misconduct.  The priest/penitent privilege usually applies.  There are many, many good reasons for this.

Moreover, there are plenty of ways in which a bishop in such circumstances can help detect and stop abuse.  This happens all the time.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

For evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing.

The Church is doing something.  A lot of things, actually.  But critics and opponents seen incapable of acknowledging that.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

If you do not put these insane / mentally ill / physically disturbed - and that is what this is - people in jail, you are contributing to the abuse of future victims.  

You keep talking as if the Church has the ability to "put ... people in jail," and then faulting it for not doing so.  Where are you getting this idea?

And what are your thoughts about D&C 134:10?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Most of that has been implemented for years already. About the only thing missing is the online training, but even there quite a few have had that due to scouting requirements. I do think it'd be useful to have more generally. The Bishop one on one meetings are the one exception but that's already been changed but I think is a bit more complicated for various reasons.

Clark, are you suggesting that there is presently a program in the church that requires all youth leaders to receive youth protection training and recertify on a regular basis? If there is I must have missed it somehow. Yes, those who work with cub/boy scouts have received the scouting youth protection, but those who work with girls, haven't. And when the church drops scouting altogether that online training piece won't even exist. The church doesn't really do any of the things I shared that the UMC does.

Quote

Rongo:

I think things are heading that way for the Church, so be patient. I think we'll get full youth protection training, chaperoned interviews, windows in bishop's doors, the works, eventually. I'm not happy about it, but that's the way I see the wind blowing. Patience, HappyJack!  

We can't afford to be patient. Being patient puts kids at risk. 10 years ago I first asked to have windows installed in all the doors at the church. Do you know how many have been updated since then? 1...kind of. The FM group added a peep hole in the nursery room door, but none of the other classes have windows of any kind. At the time I was told to be patient that the cost was prohibitive. If only the church were more financially stable, they could provide windows in all the classroom doors.  

 

Quote

Gray:

1- Windows in every door  - not in my ward, certainly

2- 2 deep leadership in every class/activity with children/youth 18 and under  - not really enforced in my ward. Certainly not in bishop's interviews. And not if one of the teachers doesn't show up.

3- no one-on-one pastor/youth interactions  - we're still doing that

4- EVERY person in the congregation who teaches a class or group or even substitutes must first complete a 2 hour online or in person youth protection training.  - we haven't done this

 

Rather than most of this having been implemented, I'd say most of it hasn't been implemented.

This is exactly my experience as well. We haven't taken any of these steps in my area, though I believe new building are being built with windows in classroom doors. No primary worker goes through training unless they work with scouts. No YW leaders go through any kind of training. It's negligent of the church not to make immediate changes.

Edited September 24, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

1- Windows in every door  - not in my ward, certainly

You might wish to contact your SP on the issue. I'm pretty sure all buildings were to have been retrofitted in this regard some years ago. Ours was. Of course this is a problem in some areas without chapels. But in those cases more limited resources make almost everything difficult.

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

-2 deep leadership in every class/activity with children/youth 18 and under  - not really enforced in my ward. Certainly not in bishop's interviews. And not if one of the teachers doesn't show up.

Again they are supposed to be enforcing it. And in Bishop interviews it's optional for the parent. A letter was read on this over the pulpit some months back.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/first-presidency-releases-new-guidelines-for-interviewing-youth?lang=eng

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

3- no one-on-one pastor/youth interactions  - we're still doing that

Again a violation of Church policy.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

4- EVERY person in the congregation who teaches a class or group or even substitutes must first complete a 2 hour online or in person youth protection training.  - we haven't done this

As I said that's the one part not done. Although again anyone who has been in scouts has completed this.

So it sounds more like your ward is simply violating Church policy left and right.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

You might wish to contact your SP on the issue. I'm pretty sure all buildings were to have been retrofitted in this regard some years ago. Ours was. Of course this is a problem in some areas without chapels. But in those cases more limited resources make almost everything difficult.

Does your bishop's office have a window?

 

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Again they are supposed to be enforcing it. And in Bishop interviews it's optional for the parent. A letter was read on this over the pulpit some months back.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/first-presidency-releases-new-guidelines-for-interviewing-youth?lang=eng

If it's only optional then we haven't implemented what they had in place at the other church.

 

 

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Again a violation of Church policy.

No, church policy still allows for this. A second person in the bishop's interview is only optional, not mandatory.

 

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said that's the one part not done. Although again anyone who has been in scouts has completed this.

So it sounds more like your ward is simply violating Church policy left and right.

The only area seems to be where classes are involved. Church policy is pretty weak, that's the issue.

[changed]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And the Church obeys these laws.

It is.

Then compliance with mandatory reporting laws is the order of the day.

This happens.  All the time.

This is a different circumstance from the first one.  Generally speaking, mandatory reporting laws do not apply to a person confessing to misconduct.  The priest/penitent privilege usually applies.  There are many, many good reasons for this.

Moreover, there are plenty of ways in which a bishop in such circumstances can help detect and stop abuse.  This happens all the time.

The Church is doing something.  A lot of things, actually.  But critics and opponents seen incapable of acknowledging that.

You keep talking as if the Church has the ability to "put ... people in jail," and then faulting it for not doing so.  Where are you getting this idea?

And what are your thoughts about D&C 134:10?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

What is the church doing then?  No one helped me or my family.  This is not some theoretical thing for me - this is the last year of my life, what I personally experienced.  In the last year:

I confronted our bishop for giving a TR to someone who should NOT be in the temple - (this person was then called in again, and TR taken away....  I wonder why the spirit did not stop them from getting their TR in the first place?)

confrontations over callings - those callings should have never been handed out in the first place.  Callings from God???  I don't think so.

these HP's were performing baptisms, going to the temple, interviewing kids, working with kids - how does this happen?

No spiritual guidance - no background checks - no YPT policies in place - 

What do you propose to do in order to stop HP's from abusing power?  

Read SY's stories, I am not the only one who has experienced this kind of stuff.

The reality is - the spirit is not leading everyone, many callings are not coming from the spirit, so another source of protection is needed.

It is not uncommon for a single pedophile to molest hundreds of kids.  Look at all the sex offenders in your neighborhood - this is not uncommon, and yes, they are attending your ward.... so... the church needs to do what every other organization does with regards to response training, and reporting practices.... the church is a very attractive place for a pedophile to settle down in as it is - pedophiles seek out situations like this.

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does your bishop's office have a window?

I'm pretty sure it does as does the SP's.

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

If it's only optional then we haven't implemented what they had in place at the other church.

No, church policy still allows for this. A second person in the bishop's interview is only optional, not mandatory.

Fair point, although I think optional is a better position although it does increase Church's liability.

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

The only area seems to be where classes are involved. Church policy is pretty weak, that's the issue.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean the Church should be more hard core enforcing this on Stake Presidents, then I'd agree. However it seems like it's been emphasized quite a bit. There just haven't been penalties for SPs not enforcing it. Not knowing the particularities of your stake it's hard to say much there. It's possible they're waiting for a renovation of the building to do it all at once.

Edited September 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Well, as my 2nd counselor said, we also still don't have an elders quorum presidency, and General Conference is only two weeks away. We're coming up on six months for that. 

It's been really hard on my counselors. 

Wow.  That's crazy.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's crazy.

And that's kind of the nice way to put it  

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm pretty sure it does as does the SP's.

Glad at least some have them.

 

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Fair point, although I think optional is a better position although it does increase Church's liability.

It increases church liability and risk for kids as well.

 

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you mean. If you mean the Church should be more hard core enforcing this on Stake Presidents, then I'd agree. However it seems like it's been emphasized quite a bit. There just haven't been penalties for SPs not enforcing it. Not knowing the particularities of your stake it's hard to say much there. It's possible they're waiting for a renovation of the building to do it all at once.

I'm not sure. Our air conditioning hasn't even worked properly for at least 13 years. They did just renovate the carpets. They put a window on the nursery after it not having one for decades, but nothing on the bishop's office.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Another interesting think I didn't know until this: when I was called as a counselor in YM (+ deacons advisor and scoutmaster), my new ward couldn't put me in the callings in the system . . . because I was still listed as a bishop somewhere else. I didn't know that, but then, how often does that happen? I also have simultaneous access to two different stake lists, but I still have full access to my former ward's finances and full Leader and Clerk Resources. 

Hopefully any day now that I lose access . . .  I just hope they figure it out before tithing settlement. They already did the August audit with a stake presidency counselor filling in for the bishop, but I don't think that's strictly "kosher." 

Your former stake president needs to get things in gear, it seems.

 

[provoman]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Clark, are you suggesting that there is presently a program in the church that requires all youth leaders to receive youth protection training and recertify on a regular basis? If there is I must have missed it somehow. Yes, those who work with cub/boy scouts have received the scouting youth protection, but those who work with girls, haven't. And when the church drops scouting altogether that online training piece won't even exist. The church doesn't really do any of the things I shared that the UMC does.

We can't afford to be patient. Being patient puts kids at risk. 10 years ago I first asked to have windows installed in all the doors at the church. Do you know how many have been updated since then? 1...kind of. The FM group added a peep hole in the nursery room door, but none of the other classes have windows of any kind. At the time I was told to be patient that the cost was prohibitive. If only the church were more financially stable, they could provide windows in all the classroom doors.  

 

This is exactly my experience as well. We haven't taken any of these steps in my area, though I believe new building are being built with windows in classroom doors. No primary worker goes through training unless they work with scouts. No YW leaders go through any kind of training. It's negligent of the church not to make immediate changes.

10 years asked for windows on the doors. 

Wasn't it about 10 years ago when the Church required two adults in classrooms OR one adult with widow on the door or the door open?

Does the Church require windows on the doors? Does the Cgurch require two adults in classrooms?

[provoman]

Just now, ERMD said:

Your former stake president needs to get things in gear, it seems.

 

[Jest] Well with the 2 hour Church and and each ward only meeting every other week announcement coming in October Conference 2018,  what is the rush? [/Jest]

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

1- Windows in every door  - not in my ward, certainly

While most of the classrooms in my building had windows a couple of them still didn't.  We put in a request with the FM group and, while it did take a couple of month, they now have windows.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

nothing on the bishop's office.

I hope this will never happen.  Can you imagine someone meeting with the bishop, very emotional and talking about some difficult things, and having a parade of people come and look in the window?

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I hope this will never happen.  Can you imagine someone meeting with the bishop, very emotional and talking about some difficult things, and having a parade of people come and look in the window? 

Even worse, imagine a bishop molesting someone during church, and no one knows it's happening.

[ksfisher]

Just now, Gray said:

Even worse, imagine a bishop molesting someone during church, and no one knows it's happening.

I guess we can continue to assume the worst about bishops.

Edited September 24, 2018 by ksfisher

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I hope this will never happen.  Can you imagine someone meeting with the bishop, very emotional and talking about some difficult things, and having a parade of people come and look in the window?

I think it will happen and I believe that members will have enough decency and respect to not "parade" by peeking in.  It's a great precaution though against any leader who even thinks about doing something inappropriate behind closed doors.  I also hope they implement a mandatory two deep policy regarding youth/child interviews (for the same reason).  As I've stated before, I feel this protects the leaders as well.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

nothing on the bishop's office.

The bishop's door in my parent's ward recently had a window put in.

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess we can continue to assume the worst about bishops.

Not at all, just look at windows from a cost benefit perspective. The worst that can happen is so bad that it doesn't really justify the small benefit of not having windows.

You probably won't get an accident and don't need that seat belt. Not having it lets you feel more comfortable. But the worst case scenario is so bad that it still justifies the "cost".

Edited September 24, 2018 by Gray

[bluebell]

Just wanted to clarify that the window is situated where you can see the bishop, but you can't see who he's speaking to.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Over the last three years, the wife (she comments on Facebook on the community page) accumulated more and more facial piercings and tattoos.

I would think that her comments are more relevant than her body art. Has she written anything that makes you assume the following?

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm assuming that this law firm is the "quit mormon" one, and I'm also assuming that the Sam Young resignations were a key factor in the precise timing.

Surely not everybody who has resigned recently used the Sam Young situation as a factor. Coincidental things do happen, and since many members are resigning (I won't use the word droves) you shouldn't assume that a recent situation was a factor in the one that was comunicated to you.

[why me]

2 hours ago, Walden said:

I was a former member who slowly went inactive over the years due to lack of belief and finally resigned officially after the church's call to action in California over the Prop 8 stuff. I hadn't been a believing member for a few years, but I didn't officially resign because I knew it would break by TBM parent's hearts....I figured I wasn't attending and didn't believe, so what was the point in hurting my parents over something I deemed inconsequential. I got regular, friendly visits each month from my home teacher, who I was friendly with, but beyond that I had no affiliation with the church. When the LDS church came out vocally/actively/politically from the pulpit in support of Prop 8, I turned in my official resignation to SLC, who in turn reached out to my parents (instead of me) in an effort to guilt me into rescinding my resignation. Despite my parents tears and pleading, I went through with the resignation. To me, it was a matter of integrity.

And no, I did not leave in order to sin, nor did I accumulate any tattoos or take up drinking/drugs, etc. after my official exit. To this day, I have no tattoos, nor do I drink (not even occasionally), and I have a very happy, healthy monogamous marriage with the love of my life.

I think that you should consider yourself fortunate to have had the lds church in your and also that the lds church gave you and your family a wonderful value structure to still grasp on to. Many former members do keep the lds values in their life. Maybe at times one must give credit where credit is do.

[why me]

I find it all very interesting that people resign over various issues such as Young, Dehlin, Prop 8, etc. It makes me wonder just what kind of spiritual experiences the lds claim to have, testify about at meetings over and over again, then leave over an issue. So, I then need to assume that their spiritual experiences were not so important as they claimed as members or that such experiences are rationalized away upon leaving. So, am I to believe that when I hear a lds person give their testimony, I can just discontent it because of the likelihood that this member will leave eventually over an issue?

Does spiritual experiences have any meaning for lds people?

[Benk]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I hope this will never happen.  Can you imagine someone meeting with the bishop, very emotional and talking about some difficult things, and having a parade of people come and look in the window?

Over where I am (not US), all the bishop's offices have windows. The instruction (and common sense approach) is for the bishop to sit in view of the window and the person with whom he is meeting to sit in a position not viewable to anyone inconsiderate enough to look in. In terms of the person's privacy, it's not an issue. In terms of protection for the person who's in there, it's a great thing. 

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Clark, are you suggesting that there is presently a program in the church that requires all youth leaders to receive youth protection training and recertify on a regular basis? If there is I must have missed it somehow. Yes, those who work with cub/boy scouts have received the scouting youth protection, but those who work with girls, haven't. And when the church drops scouting altogether that online training piece won't even exist. The church doesn't really do any of the things I shared that the UMC does.

We can't afford to be patient. Being patient puts kids at risk. 10 years ago I first asked to have windows installed in all the doors at the church. Do you know how many have been updated since then? 1...kind of. The FM group added a peep hole in the nursery room door, but none of the other classes have windows of any kind. At the time I was told to be patient that the cost was prohibitive. If only the church were more financially stable, they could provide windows in all the classroom doors.  

 

This is exactly my experience as well. We haven't taken any of these steps in my area, though I believe new building are being built with windows in classroom doors. No primary worker goes through training unless they work with scouts. No YW leaders go through any kind of training. It's negligent of the church not to make immediate changes.

All youth (YM/YW) leaders in our area (Texas) are required to take youth protection training.  A question I have is, is there evidence this does any good?  Requiring it be done looks good, and may or may not decrease the liability of the organization (I doubt it), but does it really help?  I can anticipate the "if it only prevents one case, then it's worth it" responses, but is there evidence of the one case?  

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I work in an evidence-based world.