Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, cherryTreez said:

The only time anyone really pushed the sex talk stuff for me was the stake president when I was getting married. Other than that, I never got asked more than do you keep the law of chasity.  

So of they can't ask about the law of chasity, does that mean no more youth on the temple? Is that what they want? I see no other way because you have to have a way to figure out who is worthy to go into the temple. 

They could give them the material describing worthiness and ask them to self-evaluate based on the material, and refuse to speak to minors about their sexual behaviours, if any.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Reports are that the training is taken easily within 20 minutes or less, which is, in time and content, far less substantial than the Boy Scout training.

Which maybe could be a problem? Shouldn't it be as extensive?

[cherryTreez]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They could give them the material describing worthiness and ask them to self-evaluate based on the material, and refuse to speak to minors about their sexual behaviours, if any.

So it's okay if they are given something to read about sex, but not okay to be asked about it?  I don't get the difference.  Maybe it will be better for all the kids if they have to wait for the temple until they feel grown up enough to answer the recommend questions.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

They could give them the material describing worthiness and ask them to self-evaluate based on the material, and refuse to speak to minors about their sexual behaviours, if any.

So Bishop hands them the Law of Chastity Handbook and asks them to self-evaluate:

Then teen asks what a word means......silence.

Teen weeps a little and starts to confess something.......Bishop stares at them silently and then asks them to leave as they cannot discuss it.

Teen has a question about something and if it relates to worthiness......Bishop says nothing and just signs the Recommend because it is not a big deal but he cannot say anything.

Teen comes in and cries when reading the material because her father has been raping her. Between sobs she explains this.....Bishop cannot verbally comfort her or say anything will be done.

 

That is a stupid policy.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Which maybe could be a problem? Shouldn't it be as extensive?

At least! Especially since current practice is to discuss intimate sexual details with minors.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Which maybe could be a problem? Shouldn't it be as extensive?

Why not twice as extensive because then it will be twice as good? Or four times as extensive and four times as good? Why not a 200 hour mandatory training course? Why limit it to leaders? We should have parents voluntarily turn their kids over to CPS until they complete it just in case.

Nothing would satisfy you because there is always theoretically something more that could be done no matter how much the law of diminishing returns applies.

[Meadowchik]

56 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

So it's okay if they are given something to read about sex, but not okay to be asked about it?  I don't get the difference.  Maybe it will be better for all the kids if they have to wait for the temple until they feel grown up enough to answer the recommend questions.

It actually is fundamentally different for s person to read about something personally, and then just check a yes/no box for the whole shebang of questions. No probing. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

At least! Especially since current practice is to discuss intimate sexual details with minors.

No, current practice is to ask them if they keep the law of chastity. If they have questions then answer them. If they confess something you might have to ask some questions to determine severity. Then current practice is to help them repent and move on.

Are you under the impression that there is a twenty minute grilling session with in depth questioning about various sex practices asked in every interview?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

It actually is fundamentally different for s person to read about something personally, and then just check a yes/no box for the whole shebang of questions. No probing. 

Yeah, it is easier to lie.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So Bishop hands them the Law of Chastity Handbook and asks them to self-evaluate:

Then teen asks what a word means......silence.

Teen weeps a little and starts to confess something.......Bishop stares at them silently and then asks them to leave as they cannot discuss it.

Teen has a question about something and if it relates to worthiness......Bishop says nothing and just signs the Recommend because it is not a big deal but he cannot say anything.

Teen comes in and cries when reading the material because her father has been raping her. Between sobs she explains this.....Bishop cannot verbally comfort her or say anything will be done.

 

That is a stupid policy.

Requiring minors to submit to intimate questions is not the same as answering a minor's questions. It is not the same as listening or then passing on a report of sexual abuse.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why not twice as extensive because then it will be twice as good? Or four times as extensive and four times as good? Why not a 200 hour mandatory training course? Why limit it to leaders? We should have parents voluntarily turn their kids over to CPS until they complete it just in case.

Nothing would satisfy you because there is always theoretically something more that could be done no matter how much the law of diminishing returns applies.

Might as well not wear a seatbelt at all, is that the gist?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Requiring minors to submit to intimate questions is not the same as answering a minor's questions. It is not the same as listening or then passing on a report of sexual abuse.

Then quit generalizing in a clear attempt to libel bishops in general. Reading your comments you would think bishops are asking in-depth questions to start off with. It also undermines everything you say because to most members who have been in interviews you sound like a fool trying to correct a non-existent problem.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, current practice is to ask them if they keep the law of chastity. If they have questions then answer them. If they confess something you might have to ask some questions to determine severity. Then current practice is to help them repent and move on.

Are you under the impression that there is a twenty minute grilling session with in depth questioning about various sex practices asked in every interview?

I know that probing questions about sexual experiences are, as you agree, part of the process when deemed necessary by the lay interviewer.

[cherryTreez]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It actually is fundamentally different for s person to read about something personally, and then just check a yes/no box for the whole shebang of questions. No probing. 

I was never asked anything other than do you keep the law of chasity as a youth. Dh said the same thing. I guess I don't understand what's going on unless it's part of them needing to repent. 

So if they don't keep the law of chasity. They answer no to the paper given them, they what happens? They can't talk about it to the Bishop because that's not okay now. So they live with it and can't properly repent until they are an adult?  Does it magically change at 18? 21? 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then quit generalizing in a clear attempt to libel bishops in general. Reading your comments you would think bishops are asking in-depth questions to start off with. It also undermines everything you say because to most members who have been in interviews you sound like a fool trying to correct a non-existent problem.

Perhaps you're reading to much in between the lines, or perhaps you underestimate the damage of sitting in a room with a spiritual authority, then submitting to ANY question pertaining to your sexual activity. I know it is accepted as normal in the church, but being the norm doesn't make it good.

[cherryTreez]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Requiring minors to submit to intimate questions is not the same as answering a minor's questions. It is not the same as listening or then passing on a report of sexual abuse.

But they can't talk about sexual things with them, right?  It's wrong for an adult to talk about it to a teen. That's what I get from you.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I was never asked anything other than do you keep the law of chasity as a youth. Dh said the same thing. I guess I don't understand what's going on unless it's part of them needing to repent. 

So if they don't keep the law of chasity. They answer no to the paper given them, they what happens? They can't talk about it to the Bishop because that's not okay now. So they live with it and can't properly repent until they are an adult?  Does it magically change at 18? 21? 

Maybe the problem is that the church continues to insert itself in the repentance process beyond what is helpful and beyond what Christ taught?

[cherryTreez]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe the problem is that the church continues to insert itself in the repentance process beyond what is helpful and beyond what Christ taught?

So a free for all on everything? No more temple recommends needed for anyone because we can all just do what we feel is best? 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Might as well not wear a seatbelt at all, is that the gist?

No. It is a repudiation of the idea that because more could be done to prevent a problem or injury it always should be done. A risk analysis of wearing a seat belt and the inconvenience it creates and the time it consumes compared to the risk it mitigates shows it is a good idea to wear a seat belt. Now imagine someone points out that car crash fatalities could be prevented by putting on an uncomfortable 80 pound rubber suit with bladders filled with gelatinous substances. It takes 10 to 15 minutes to put on and take and is incredibly uncomfortable and the sweating it often causes means you also need to rehydrate and preferably shower after every car ride. However it will prevent 3% of current automobile fatalities. Should we require it?

That is the extreme. The church course is much less so. Doubling the length of the church’s course is less of an inconvenience but you also hit diminishing returns quickly. The longer you make the course the less likely they are to retain it all. Add in more scenarios and they are more likely to be unsure of what they should do. Now you could mitigate that with more repetition but then you are taking more time and exacerbating the “remember it all” problem. The ideal would be to change it up every three years or so so the material is not identical so the person taking it has to think a bit and broaden their knowledge while focusing on the same key elements.

It is also a sign of hubris how dismissive some people here are and whine about how nothing is enough. The church brought in child protection experts who have experience in what the most important things to teach are and the effects of giving too much information and how it influences things in the rare cases where the rubber meets the road and something happens.

Taking into account our relative ignorance how are these knee jerk pronouncements that this action are insufficient imagined to have be insightful? Why? An uncharitable person such as myself would be inclined to suspect it is tied to a general kneejerk impulse to criticizing the church at every opportunity.

Another thought is the BSA has a much higher per capita incidence of abuse then the church but you are recommending we use their program?

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

But they can't talk about sexual things with them, right?  It's wrong for an adult to talk about it to a teen. That's what I get from you.

I think an adult can responsibly listen and then pass on reports of sexual abuse, but a competent organisation will provide adequate training so the leader can recognize and respond to a report. 

I'd say, let's not conflate that with the adult actually requiring a minor to confide sexual information. Even a yes/no to the law of chastity question is confusing sexual information. That's why a self-evaluate answer yes/no to ALL the questions would be imo more appropriate. Add on one "do you feel comfortable attending the temple at this time," to help buffer the minor's privacy.

Why, cuz it's not the church's business to require the information and never was.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

So a free for all on everything? No more temple recommends needed for anyone because we can all just do what we feel is best? 

If God's laws are laws of love and not fear, then "teach them and let them govern themselves."

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe the problem is that the church continues to insert itself in the repentance process beyond what is helpful and beyond what Christ taught?

Oh please, the scriptures are full of commands to confess your sins. Many in the Doctrine and Covenants with Christ himself speaking.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

If God's laws are laws of love and not fear, then "teach them and let them govern themselves."

Love is not letting people damn themselves by participating in ordinances when they are unready. Love is helping people confess and repent their sins.

Permissive love is not God’s love or real love between humans for that matter.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No. It is a repudiation of the idea that because more could be done to prevent a problem or injury it always should be done. A risk analysis of wearing a seat belt and the inconvenience it creates and the time it consumes compared to the risk it mitigates shows it is a good idea to wear a seat belt. Now imagine someone points out that car crash fatalities could be prevented by putting on an uncomfortable 80 pound rubber suit with bladders filled with gelatinous substances. It takes 10 to 15 minutes to put on and take and is incredibly uncomfortable and the sweating it often causes means you also need to rehydrate and preferably shower after every car ride. However it will prevent 3% of current automobile fatalities. Should we require it?

That is the extreme. The church course is much less so. Doubling the length of the church’s course is less of an inconvenience but you also hit diminishing returns quickly. The longer you make the course the less likely they are to retain it all. Add in more scenarios and they are more likely to be unsure of what they should do. Now you could mitigate that with more repetition but then you are taking more time and exacerbating the “remember it all” problem. The ideal would be to change it up every three years or so so the material is not identical so the person taking it has to think a bit and broaden their knowledge while focusing on the same key elements.

It is also a sign of hubris how dismissive some people here are and whine about how nothing is enough. The church brought in child protection experts who have experience in what the most important things to teach are and the effects of giving too much information and how it influences things in the rare cases where the rubber meets the road and something happens.

Taking into account our relative ignorance how are these knee jerk pronouncements that this action are insufficient imagined to have be insightful? Why? An uncharitable person such as myself would be inclined to suspect it is tied to a general kneejerk impulse to criticizing the church at every opportunity.

Another thought is the BSA has a much higher per capita incidence of abuse then the church but you are recommending we use their program?

I agree with you in theory about the existence of diminishing returns, but in this case, the "training" seems, from those who have taken it, to be extremely minimal. Like maybe 20 minutes total if you take extra long.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh please, the scriptures are full of commands to confess your sins. Many in the Doctrine and Covenants with Christ himself speaking.

Confess to Christ in prayer, to injured parties you've injured, to public authorities when you've broken the public law.