Sam Young Back in the News

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

(KUTV) — A former Latter-day Saints bishop, now excommunicated, is back in Salt Lake City to spread his message to "protect every child" from sexual abuse, and to announce a march on the same weekend as General Conference this fall.

A bearded Sam Young wore a shirt and tie, along with shorts and hiking boots, as he gathered with others at a downtown club on Sunday. He had the bearing of a hiker, rather than an ecclesiastical minister.

It looks like there were about 23-24 people in the audience.  Plus, Sam Young was wearing, well, a flag as a cape:

This seems a little . . . off.  (FWIW, the Trib's article on this same story does not include any references to or pictures of Mr. Young's regalia.)

[smac97]

More (I kept ketting a "403" error):

Back to the article:

Quote

Just over a year ago, the Church released "new guidelines" allowing a parent to accompany a minor into those sessions, but Young said that change was not enough. He went on a hunger strike that lasted for weeks to protest the interviews.

Now, he has widened his work through protecteverychild.com to assure kids are safe inside religious institutions, and the march from the City and County Building to the State Capitol on Oct. 5 is part of that effort.

“We are going to be preparing for at least 5,000 people,” Young said. “We’re talking about going to the moon again. Well that’s a cool thing, but our children are even more important.”

I am curious as to how many people will turn out for this march.

Edited July 29, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

From the Trib's article:

Quote

Until Aug. 3, a news release stated, coalition members also will ascend Wasatch Front mountains to “emphasize the point that society should be shouting from the mountaintops the importance of protecting children from sexual predators in their religious communities."

Mr. Young's sole gripe against the Church is that it has its bishops conduct interviews with youth.  He wants those stopped completely (a cure that may be worse than the disease, since bishops are often instrumental is detecting and reporting child abuse, and there are, AFAICS, essentially no reported instances of bishops assaulting children in bishop interviews).  And yet here he is referencing "sexual predators" in "religious communities."  IOW, he seems to be drawing a one-to-one comparison between bishops and "sexual predators."  Again.

Back to the Trib article.

Quote

During Sunday’s announcement, two women leading SNAP and the Zero Abuse Project shared personal examples of their childhood sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

“I was taught, as many children in other religions are, that church leaders are men of God,” said Judy Larson, SNAP vice president and a member of the group’s Utah board, “stand-ins for whichever deity your faith worships, men to be trusted, listened to and obeyed.”

Forcing children to discuss their sexual behaviors with adult men, Larson added, is a gateway for physical abuse and “a noncontact category of sexual abuse.”

Except that this is not what bishops' interviews are for.  And the Church has published guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency).  Also consider From Section 7.4 of Handbook 1:

Quote

7.4 Protecting against Misunderstandings

When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

"Avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood" probably means, most of the time, discussion of "things of a sexual nature."

Of course, sometimes the youth might bring such issues up.  Such matters can, and almost always are, handled by bishops with tact and decorum and dignity.   And sometimes such disclosures can be vitally important, such as when a youth discloses to the bishop that he or she has been or is being abused.

And yet Sam Young and his ilk are moving heaven and earth to scare the bejeebers out of LDS kids by painting all bishops as "sexual predators."

[smac97]

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

She also called for more accountability within churches, including revocation of their tax-exempt statuses and legislation requiring them to fulfill annual “child safety audits.”

Stuff like this makes Sam Young and his compatriots are starting to sound and act like a threat to religious liberty.  It creates questions as to their true motives.  Are they really interested in the welfare of children?  Or are they simply out to pursue vendettas against religious groups they dislike?  

Quote

Similarly, Joelle Casteix, a founding member of the Zero Abuse Project board, called for changing the statutes of limitation on survivors being able to file civil lawsuits against churches harboring abuse.

I have mixed feelings about this.  I want victims of childhood abuse to have their day in court, but I am a bit leery to calls for "changing the statutes of limitation" from a group that includes "Boise’s James, Vernon & Weeks law firm," a for-profit enterprise that stands to make a lot of money off suing religious groups based on an expanded limitations period.  And good luck to any such religious group in marshaling evidence in defense of itself years and years after the fact.

And it sounds like nowhere did Sam Young or any of his compatriots acknowledge the recent changes enacted by the Church regarding interviews with children.  Why, it's almost as if Sam Young isn't really interested in the subject matter (since no serious-minded advocate for changes in the Church's policies about interviewing children would utterly ignore . . . changes in the Church's policies about interviewing children).

Edited July 31, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

I apologize for publishing the OP in multiple posts.  I kept getting a "403" error unless I broke it up into smaller pieces.  Weird.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I apologize for publishing the OP in multiple posts.  I kept getting a "403" error unless I broke it up into smaller pieces.  Weird.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Some word or phrase is triggering the 403. I start using synonyms for phrases or words I think might be triggering it and I can usually make it work in a few tries.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some word or phrase is triggering the 403. I start using synonyms for phrases or words I think might be triggering it and I can usually make it work in a few tries.

I didn't change the text, I just broke the post into groupings of paragraphs and quotes, and that allowed me to publish the whole.  Weird.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't change the text, I just broke the post into groupings of paragraphs and quotes, and that allowed me to publish the whole.  Weird.

Could be a change in sequence. I had one post that would not work until I put an extra line break between two paragraphs. The filter works in mysterious ways.

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Young's sole gripe against the Church is that it has its bishops conduct interviews with youth.  He wants those stopped completely (a cure that may be worse than the disease, since bishops are often instrumental is detecting and reporting child abuse, and there are, AFAICS, essentially no reported instances of bishops assaulting children in bishop interviews).  And yet here he is referencing "sexual predators" in "religious communities."  IOW, he seems to be drawing a one-to-one comparison between bishops and "sexual predators."  Again.

I think the concern is grooming and sexually explicit talk in interviews. Not just abuse. I think there's some validity there. I don't know what percentage of bishops are ham fisted or lacking in social nuance, but I'd not be surprised to find out it's as high as 5% or even higher. For those bishops how they talk about sex might be damaging to people even if such wasn't their aim. 

While like you I think the cost of getting rid of interviews is higher than the benefits, I also think better training and particularly role playing is important for bishops here. I also think Stake Presidents should be much more on the ball regarding inappropriate Bishops. 

You're correct that a Bishop hasn't assaulted anyone in an interview. But we do know about that Bishop a couple of years ago in Springville or Mapleton that drugged and assaulted young men. Likewise last year that Bishop in Lehi who wasn't just a predator but had apparently actually run a prostitution ring in St. George while a police officer. It's completely understandable when members hear news stories like that to lose a lot of the benefit of doubt with respect to Bishops.

[Storm Rider]

This generation is so full it itself. They and they alone can save the world by holding a protest - because the rest of us, poor, stupid humans, just cannot handle it without them to guide us. If  you are going to protest, I am already over you. No, you don't have a novel approach; you are not God's gift to humanity; and your message is not new or vital to the existence of the rest of the human race. 

This poor man bores me. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This generation is so full it itself. They and they alone can save the world by holding a protest - because the rest of us, poor, stupid humans, just cannot handle it without them to guide us. If  you are going to protest, I am already over you. No, you don't have a novel approach; you are not God's gift to humanity; and your message is not new or vital to the existence of the rest of the human race. 

This poor man bores me. 

By this generation do you mean older Gen Xers or Boomers? Sam Young is not exactly a spring chicken and probably is one of the two.

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the concern is grooming and sexually explicit talk in interviews. Not just abuse. I think there's some validity there. I don't know what percentage of bishops are ham fisted or lacking in social nuance, but I'd not be surprised to find out it's as high as 5% or even higher. For those bishops how they talk about sex might be damaging to people even if such wasn't their aim. 

While like you I think the cost of getting rid of interviews is higher than the benefits, I also think better training and particularly role playing is important for bishops here. I also think Stake Presidents should be much more on the ball regarding inappropriate Bishops. 

You're correct that a Bishop hasn't assaulted anyone in an interview. But we do know about that Bishop a couple of years ago in Springville or Mapleton that drugged and assaulted young men. Likewise last year that Bishop in Lehi who wasn't just a predator but had apparently actually run a prostitution ring in St. George while a police officer. It's completely understandable when members hear news stories like that to lose a lot of the benefit of doubt with respect to Bishops.

Grooming has a specific definition. In my opinion Sam and his followers do not apply that specific definition. 

From his blog:

"Taking minors behind closed doors, beyond the earshot and eyesight of everyone, IS predatory grooming behavior."

** which means every parent, teacher, police officer, Principal, etc who talks to a minor one-on-one, is engaging in "predatory grooming behavior", meaning they are doing so with the intent of sexual abuse

"Asking a minor sexual questions is totally predatory behavior. Almost every bishop is grooming our children for the sexual predators in our leadership ranks, in the neighborhood and anywhere else in society.  The bishops groom kids for those serving above and around them.  Bishops are grooming our youngsters for the predator who might replace him as the next bishop."

** He is saying that Bishops intend that a child be sexually abused.

psychologytoday "Broadly, sexual grooming refers to the behaviors that a child molester employs in preparation for committing sexual abuse against a child."

American Bar Association "Sexual grooming is a preparatory process in which a perpetrator gradually gains a person’s or organization’s trust with the intent to be sexually abusive."

wikipedia "Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."

Edited July 29, 2019 by provoman

[smac97]

On 7/29/2019 at 10:11 AM, clarkgoble said:

I think the concern is grooming and sexually explicit talk in interviews.

And yet he fails to address or acknowledge the changes that the Church has made in the guidelines for such interviews.

And his proposal, to ban all bishop interviews forever, is borne more of a hysteria than of a reasoned argument.

And his vilification of bishops is likely doing more harm than good.  Bishops are often instrumental in detecting and stopping abuse, but Mr. Young is trying to paint them all as "sexual predators," as perverts, as nascent child molesters.  A child listening to Sam Young is likely going to be terrified of speaking to her bishop.  And who can blame her?  

For these reasons, I have a hard time granting a presumption of good faith to Sam Young.

Quote

Not just abuse. I think there's some validity there. I don't know what percentage of bishops are ham fisted or lacking in social nuance, but I'd not be surprised to find out it's as high as 5% or even higher. For those bishops how they talk about sex might be damaging to people even if such wasn't their aim. 

Then the appropriate remedy would, I think, be for the Church to provide further guidelines and training about handling such matters.  And the Church has provided such further guidelines and training.  And Sam Young's response is . . . to ignore the Church's efforts.  To pretend no changes or efforts have been made.  And to continue to characterize all bishops as "sexual predators" and nascent child molesters.

I have previously objected more to Sam Young's means (making horrible accusations about bishops, making unreasoned and unreasonable demands on the Church, etc.) rather than his ends (protecting children).  At this point, however, I'm starting to question even his ends.  Frankly, I question his sincerity.  I'm even starting to have some suspicion about his mental health.  What kind of person, hoping to change minds and persuade others about a very difficult and important topic, would convene a press conference wearing a button-down shirt, a tie, grungy shorts, and a flag as a cape?  

Quote

While like you I think the cost of getting rid of interviews is higher than the benefits, I also think better training and particularly role playing is important for bishops here.

I would be open to that.  Perhaps the Church could publish some videos for bishops that provide some examples on properly handling sensitive topics.

Quote

I also think Stake Presidents should be much more on the ball regarding inappropriate Bishops. 

I agree.  

Quote

You're correct that a Bishop hasn't assaulted anyone in an interview. But we do know about that Bishop a couple of years ago in Springville or Mapleton that drugged and assaulted young men.

I think you may have this story in mind.  He did indeed do some very evil things.  Full stop.  But none of these things involved a bishop's interview, and all of them were in gross violation of the clear guidelines governing interactions with youth.

We will, sadly, always have some people in society in whom we repose trust, and who then violate that trust.  We all know of stories of child abuse committed by siblings, parents, extended family, neighbors, trusted friends, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, and so on.  And yet nobody is suggesting that we declare all of these people to be "sexual predators" and presumptive child molesters, as Sam Young is doing vis-à-vis bishops.

Quote

Likewise last year that Bishop in Lehi who wasn't just a predator but had apparently actually run a prostitution ring in St. George while a police officer. It's completely understandable when members hear news stories like that to lose a lot of the benefit of doubt with respect to Bishops.

Sadly, yes.  The very small number of those who have breached the trust given to them taint the reputation of the thousands of good and decent men who have behaved with decorum and honor.

I and my wife have long had a very clear understanding about her never leaving me alone with small children in our home (other than our own children, that is), including nieces/nephews.  I have the same rule in place for our sons (they are never left alone with smaller children).

I also make sure all doors in the house are always left open when kids are visiting.

I also never change diapers or help little ones go to the bathroom.

I pretty much never pick up or carry visiting children, or have them sit on my lap or anything like that.  High fives, fist bumps, and a very rare side hug is about it.  If a little one wants a hug or to be picked up or whatever, I have my wife or older daughter do it.

I never transport a child or youth anywhere alone.  I either have my wife do it, or I bring one of my older children with me.

I never babysit, and I don't let my sons babysit.

My wife trusts me, and I trust myself.  However, I hope that relatives and friends and neighbors may feel a bit more at ease when they know two adults (one of which is always a woman) is present when their kids are visiting our home.  Plus I want to reduce the risk of misunderstandings and/or false accusations (particularly given the environment being created by the ongoing hysteria-creating antics of Sam Young and his ilk).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 30, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet he fails to address or acknowledge the changes that the Church has made in the guidelines for such interviews.

And his proposal, to ban all bishop interviews forever, is borne more of a hysteria than of a reasoned argument.

Is that what he is now proposing?  I admit I have not kept up with his opinions...

I thought he just objected to any sexual questions taking place with a child or youth in a one-on-one interview.  Is he even against interviews with a Bishop where another adult can be present? 

(Also, I have not seen anyone claim that the touching or physical or sexual abuse actually occurs during an interview.....have they?)

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

This generation is so full it itself. They and they alone can save the world by holding a protest - because the rest of us, poor, stupid humans, just cannot handle it without them to guide us. If  you are going to protest, I am already over you. No, you don't have a novel approach; you are not God's gift to humanity; and your message is not new or vital to the existence of the rest of the human race. 

This poor man bores me. 

Protests have worked for many things, the majority for civil rights. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I apologize for publishing the OP in multiple posts.  I kept getting a "403" error unless I broke it up into smaller pieces.  Weird.

Thoughts?

-Smac

My thoughts are this, yes to the leaders being available if a youth would like to discuss something, or get something off their chest. But ixnay on worthiness interviews at all. Or don't call them that anyhow. They do mental damage to many. So by all means if someone at an older age wants the interview and for it to be one on one, great. But children, definitely not.

Also, you mentioned that these interviews could catch abuse happening, I don't think that is cut and dry, many can go to all sorts of people for that. And I don't believe a bishop is qualified or trained to deal with sexual abuse victims, nor would they get the law involved, when it maybe should be. They would just call the lawyers. Which is something that strikes me as odd. Why are we even in need of lawyers? Can the perpetrators just get handled without that?

Why is the church being sued all the time? Well because they don't get the law involved nor do they tell the victim to go that route. For the longest time the church treated it like a sin/repentence thing not a breaking the law thing and something that needs to be taken care of in jail/prison, if needs be.

I know many think that the highest child sexual abuse record Utah has is because they are reported more than other states, but I believe it is because for many, many years, the children didn't come first in the eyes of the church. The church wanted the abuser to get help, and not be put away.

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My thoughts are this, yes to the leaders being available if a youth would like to discuss something, or get something off their chest. But ixnay on worthiness interviews at all. Or don't call them that anyhow. They do mental damage to many. So by all means if someone at an older age wants the interview and for it to be one on one, great. But children, definitely not.

Also, you mentioned that these interviews could catch abuse happening, I don't think that is cut and dry, many can go to all sorts of people for that. And I don't believe a bishop is qualified or trained to deal with sexual abuse victims, nor would they get the law involved, when it maybe should be. They would just call the lawyers. Which is something that strikes me as odd. Why are we even in need of lawyers? Can the perpetrators just get handled without that?

Why is the church being sued all the time? Well because they don't get the law involved nor do they tell the victim to go that route. For the longest time the church treated it like a sin/repentence thing not a breaking the law thing and something that needs to be taken care of in jail/prison, if needs be.

I know many think that the highest child sexual abuse record Utah has is because they are reported more than other states, but I believe it is because for many, many years, the children didn't come first in the eyes of the church. The church wanted the abuser to get help, and not be put away.

 

[smac97]

Just now, Tacenda said:

My thoughts are this, yes to the leaders being available if a youth would like to discuss something, or get something off their chest. But ixnay on worthiness interviews at all.

How do you propose to address temple recommends for teens?

Just now, Tacenda said:

Or don't call them that anyhow. They do mental damage to many.

I question that.

Just now, Tacenda said:

Also, you mentioned that these interviews could catch abuse happening,

Not just "could."  These interviews do "catch abuse happening."  Quite often, in fact.

Just now, Tacenda said:

I don't think that is cut and dry, many can go to all sorts of people for that.

Such as?

Just now, Tacenda said:

And I don't believe a bishop is qualified or trained to deal with sexual abuse victims,

What does "deal with sexual abuse victims" mean?

Bishops provide pastoral counseling, but usually refer victims out for professional counseling.

Just now, Tacenda said:

nor would they get the law involved, when it maybe should be.

You are claiming that bishops do not follow the law?  Any evidence for this?

Just now, Tacenda said:

They would just call the lawyers.

How is that a problem?  

Just now, Tacenda said:

Which is something that strikes me as odd. Why are we even in need of lawyers?

Because laws are complex.  And they frequently change.  And, as you say, bishops are not "qualified or trained to deal with sexual abuse victims."  Lawyers, however, are qualified and trained to deal with allegations about sexual abuse.  And yet you oppose bishops seeking legal advice.  That seems strange.

Just now, Tacenda said:

Can the perpetrators just get handled without that?

I don't understand what you mean here.

Just now, Tacenda said:

Why is the church being sued all the time?

Any number of reasons. 

Because the Church is perceived as having "deep pockets," by both litigants and some law firms.

Because the Church is interested in protecting its reputation.

Because there are times when individual representatives of the Church have committed a wrong that might make the Church legally liable for the resulting injury. 

Because publicity hounds like Sam Young and McKenna Denson want attention and adulation, and they get it by tearing down the Church.

And on and on.

Just now, Tacenda said:

Well because they don't get the law involved nor do they tell the victim to go that route.

I question that.  A lot, actually.

Just now, Tacenda said:

For the longest time the church treated it like a sin/repentence thing not a breaking the law thing and something that needs to be taken care of in jail/prison, if needs be.

Decades ago.  The Church's current policies and procedures are nothing like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Protests have worked for many things, the majority for civil rights. 

Tacenda, I agree that there are times when a protest is appropriate; however, we in this generation of people protest at the drop of a hat over everything. We protest if someone is going to talk; we protest if another doesn't talk; we protest over wildlife; plants; the right to kill infants; the right not to kill infants; the color we paint buildings; the design of buildings; the building of homes; the lack of homes; the construction of offices buildings; the lack of construction; roads; hospitals; teaching; you name it and we protest it. 

Then we have this yahoo prancing about in a cape and shorts with a baseball cap. Oh please, someone just slap him. 😉

Edited July 29, 2019 by Storm Rider

[PacMan]

The dude is just losing it.  I really wonder if he has some mental health issues.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Tacenda, I agree that there are times when a protest is appropriate; however, we in this generation of people protest at the drop of a hat over everything. We protest if someone is going to talk; we protest is another doesn't talk; we protest over wildlife; plants; the right to kill infants; the right not to kill infants; the color we paint buildings; the design of buildings; the building of homes; the lack of homes; the construction of offices buildings; the lack of construction; roads; hospitals; teaching; you name it and we protest it. 

I save time and just make one sign:

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My thoughts are this, yes to the leaders being available if a youth would like to discuss something, or get something off their chest. But ixnay on worthiness interviews at all.

I actually almost agree with you here.

I think that the mandatory (or whatever one wants to call the interviews for youth that are initiated by the leaders for all youth....yearly and 6 month interviews) should take place with another adult present (whoever the youth chooses to invite in....one of the youth leaders or a parent, etc.).  I believe this would also be a good protection for the Bishop or leader as well since they initiated the interview.  And...not bringing up anything of a sexual nature (especially questioning about masturbation for example).  Just general worthiness questions such as are in a temple recommend interview for an adult for these interviews.

But I do believe that the Bishop should still be available for one-on-one interviews initiated by anyone who wants to discuss something with him privately.

Edited July 29, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I actually almost agree with you here.

I think that the mandatory (or whatever one wants to call the interviews for youth that are initiated by the leaders for all youth....yearly and 6 month interviews) should take place with another adult present (whoever the youth chooses to invite in....one of the youth leaders or a parent, etc.). 

This is already allowed under the Church's policies.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I believe this would also be a good protection for the Bishop or leader as well since they initiated the interview. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

And...not bringing up anything of a sexual nature (especially questioning about masturbation for example). 

I think bishops can and should, with tact and restraint and decorum, address the Law of Chastity.  It's an important topic.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Just general worthiness questions such as are in a temple recommend interview for an adult for these interviews.

Sounds like we are more or less in agreement.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

But I do believe that the Bishop should still be available for one-on-one interviews initiated by anyone who wants to discuss something with him privately.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is already allowed under the Church's policies.

Yes, of course I know that.  But I believe they should all take place with another adult present (two deep) as standard procedure or policy.  You can disagree and I respect that....I'm just stating how I feel about those mandatory interviews.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think bishops can and should, with tact and restraint and decorum, address the Law of Chastity. 

If asked as is done in a worthiness interview for adults, I agree ("Do you live the law of chastity?").  But initiating a conversation about masturbation or any other sexual topic should be avoided and off limits, IMO.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Grooming has a specific definition. In my opinion Sam and his followers do not apply that specific definition. 

I'm not so much talking about this figure, who I know little about, than people's worries about interviews in general. For instance my son's math teacher just go arrested this weekend. What was his grooming technique? Talking about sex and then moving up to pornographic pictures. So sex talk very much can be a grooming technique particularly when explicit. Bishops who get explicit (and some do - although probably most aren't predatory) can be problematic for many reasons beyond predation.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet he fails to address or acknowledge the changes that the Church has made in the guidelines for such interviews.And his proposal, to ban all bishop interviews forever, is borne more of a hysteria than of a reasoned argument.

I tend to agree, although there are definitely many people who favor getting rid of interviews. Although it's also worth noting that a certain vein within liberal Mormon theology dislikes the idea of proactive questioning regarding worthiness and wants us to be more like Protestants. Again let me emphasize though that I don't really have strong opinions one way or an other on Sam Young.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Then the appropriate remedy would, I think, be for the Church to provide further guidelines and training about handling such matters.  And the Church has provided such further guidelines and training.  And Sam Young's response is . . . to ignore the Church's efforts.  To pretend no changes or efforts have been made.  And to continue to characterize all bishops as "sexual predators" and nascent child molesters.

Again ignoring the Sam Young (and SL Tribune) issues I think the Church could still do better with training. I'd like to see more online training particularly with actors demoing difficult scenarios.