Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I resent that. I did not bite. More of a nip or a nibble.

That doesn’t change my opinion. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully Mods can delete it.

You should be able to remove it if you can edit that post still.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That doesn’t change my opinion. 

Nor should it. It was meant as a joke.

I can be mean. Sometimes it is deserved and sometimes not so much.

[theplains]

On 8/16/2019 at 1:33 PM, bluebell said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints launched a new abuse prevention training program for leaders and teachers of children and youth Friday morning.

What prompted the church to come out with this program at this time instead of before (for example,
in the last 10 years) when child abuse by leaders in other religious groups was headline news?

Jim

[Amulek]

11 minutes ago, theplains said:

What prompted the church to come out with this program at this time instead of before (for example,
in the last 10 years) when child abuse by leaders in other religious groups was headline news?

Um, because for the last ten years we have been participating in the BSA which already has a mandatory youth protection course, so why re-invent the wheel?

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Um, because for the last ten years we have been participating in the BSA which already has a mandatory youth protection course, so why re-invent the wheel?

I think it was because Monson was incapacitated. As soon as he died a backlog of projects got approved - thus the rapid changes. I suspect this is just the first step. My guess is that within a few years we have background checks for leaders (Bishopric or higher). The apostles for better or worse have a tradition of unanimity and deference which can make it very difficult when the President is incapacitated. People might start doing things inappropriately on their own or simply refuse to progress until leadership is stable again.  (Think Moyle under McKay which is probably why this reluctance to act developed - although arguably Hinckley under Kimball and Benson did a fair bit)  

Anyway, while Nelson is pretty old, he's set up Oaks to take over if he remains alive but incapacitated. Given Oak's own age that might still cause problems. However it seems like a rather big backlog of changes Oaks and Nelson want are underway. I have to imagine that Oaks is really pushing for better processes here. 

The BSA parallel isn't terribly helpful since that only applied to people working in scouts. It didn't apply to primary in general. By and large I suspect nearly everyone will be required to take the training over the next year. And I bet this is just the beginning of regular online training for callings. It's an obvious thing that the internet opens up that the Church really hasn't taken advantage of well until now. Ideally we'll see training for particular callings appearing over the next few years too.

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The BSA parallel isn't terribly helpful since that only applied to people working in scouts. It didn't apply to primary in general.

That's certainly the case. However, I am of the opinion that the BSA child protection training was required by a sufficient number of ward members in leadership positions so as to make it not worth the church's effort to create it's own, additional program on top of that just to fill in the gaps. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you heard of a primary president being involved in a child abuse scandal? 

 

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it was because Monson was incapacitated. As soon as he died a backlog of projects got approved - thus the rapid changes.

I agree with you in general about the tradition of unanimity among the brethren, and I believe the situation with President Monson was the primary reason for the delay in our (long anticipated) exit from scouting. 

But I don't see how Monson's health would have been an impediment for rolling out the training that was just recently released. 

 

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When called out for suggesting that bishops are always asking teens about masturbation it is explained that they ask about the law of chastity and only inquire if there is a problem or a question or the Spirit prompts them. Then you fall back on the idea that asking if they obey the Law of Chastity is somehow damaging.

Then a few posts later you run back to the assumption that everyone is asking about masturbation presumably because it has shock value. You can participate as you like but I am going to call out and correct your dishonest shock tactics and libelous insinuations about our bishops as well. If you have a problem with that you can stop responding to me.

That is your choice and I do not think it is a wise one but the bishop is going to ask if your child goes in for priesthood advancement or a temple recommend. It will though be the general question and not your masturbation inquiry strawman that you keep throwing out for shock value.

I didn't see a calling-out at all, Nehor. You used hyperbole to call me "judge, jury, and executioner." That seemed more like an attempt at angry distraction, not a genuine critique.

Regarding masturbation, it is considered a sin in the church, the church directly tells the youth so in its materials for the youth. Therefore, when the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is implicitly asking the minor if they masturbate. If the bishop chooses to ask follow-up questions, they will tend to identify whether the minor masterbates or has committed some other act forbidden by the church. This is not libellous fiction, it is part and parcel of the doctrine, policy, and practice of the church. As I will elaborate further to Bluebell, this framework maintained by the church impacts the privacy, and therefore safety, of minor children in the church.

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

The bolded interviews have nothing to do with youth or children--they are only for adults--so I'm not sure how they are relevant to the discussion.

But I do understand what you are saying.  I think our disagreement comes from the idea that because bishop youth interviews are gates to participate in church ordinances, they can keep kids who don't do them from participating in the social aspects of the church.  I disagree that participating in the ordinances of the gospel are social milestones.  I know that some people can view them like that, but they are wrong to do so.  

And as I said before, we have a lot of youth who don't do bishop interviews and their social participation has not been negatively impacted.  The only thing that they can't do is go to the temple, but that has not impacted anything social for them because they don't want to go to the temple.  None of them believe the truth claims of the church.

It's definitely worthwhile and I really like the changes the church is making.  I think that our responsibility as adults is to stay close to the spirit, not trust someone with our children just because of the calling they have, and communicate with our children about everything.

I think it is wonderful that you take this (bolded) attitude. However, I think one would be remiss to not see that the expected path in the church is to follow those milestones. Veering from this is understood to be problematic in the church, rather than just another good and healthy choice or behavior.

I have been glad to see changes in the church's approach. I am grateful for them personally, as I have seen the impact of positive changes in individual lives. 

That said, the reason I connect bishop interviews to milestones is because of the systemic nature of the church as it relates to grooming and sexual abuse. There are predators everywhere, even among church leadership, but (not to downplay its seriousness but) even if there weren't, the bishop interviews as they stand create easier opportunities for predators outside of the leadership and outside of the bishop's office. A bishop interview normalizes the act of an adult asking a minor about intimate personal aspects of their life, and can, by design, lead to asking intimate details, too. Thus, that minor is being taught that it is okay, under some circumstances, to share that private information with adults. This nuanced boundary can make it more difficult for a minor to identify boundary violations.  Therefore, a child growing up in the church, following its traditional path, will become conditioned to accept nuanced personal boundaries.  That's why I do not pry, as a mother. I want my children to know that their personal sexuality is inviolate, and I want those mental warning flags to wave fiercely in their minds if their boundaries are being violated.

So I think that, protecting children in the church means more than watching for abuse within the church. It also includes watching for how the church shapes children to respond to situations, and it means trying to help children be less vulnerable to predatory behavior.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You're not alone, this newswoman mentioned it only took her 12 minutes: https://www.abc4.com/news/top-stories/a-look-inside-the-churchs-new-abuse-prevention-training-what-parents-and-professionals-are-saying/ Another thing they mentioned was where do people go if it's a leader that does the harm. My first thought was to the police, but an active believing member would probably have a hard time going to the police if it's their church leader. 

 

 

Yes, as the abuse hotline is only meant for the use of (male) priesthood leaders, that leaves a neglected gap. Where do we go when the leader is the abuser or if they are not responding appropriately to abuse? Law enforcement is an obvious answer that people will use more frequently, but where do members go to alert the church itself in the bad case?

Edited August 21, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Amulek]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding masturbation, it is considered a sin in the church, the church directly tells the youth so in its materials for the youth. Therefore, when the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is implicitly asking the minor if they masturbate.

By this logic, whenever the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is also "implicitly asking" the minor if they participate in gang rapes, gay orgies, and child pornography.

Is that really how your mind parses the question, "Do you live the law of chastity?" 

No, I think Nehor was correct in his assessment that you just keep bringing up masturbation, specifically, largely for shock value. 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That said, the reason I connect bishop interviews to milestones is because of the systemic nature of the church as it relates to grooming and sexual abuse.

Didn’t you just try to call me out for hyperbole?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't see a calling-out at all, Nehor. You used hyperbole to call me "judge, jury, and executioner." That seemed more like an attempt at angry distraction, not a genuine critique.

Regarding masturbation, it is considered a sin in the church, the church directly tells the youth so in its materials for the youth. Therefore, when the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is implicitly asking the minor if they masturbate. If the bishop chooses to ask follow-up questions, they will tend to identify whether the minor masterbates or has committed some other act forbidden by the church. This is not libellous fiction, it is part and parcel of the doctrine, policy, and practice of the church. As I will elaborate further to Bluebell, this framework maintained by the church impacts the privacy, and therefore safety, of minor children in the church.

And when they ask if you are honest in your dealings with others they are (by your logic) asking if you rob banks and steal candy from babies. Do you get horribly histrionic about that too?

Edited August 21, 2019 by The Nehor

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

That's certainly the case. However, I am of the opinion that the BSA child protection training was required by a sufficient number of ward members in leadership positions so as to make it not worth the church's effort to create it's own, additional program on top of that just to fill in the gaps. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you heard of a primary president being involved in a child abuse scandal? 

I'm not sure that's true since it's often hard to get people to take scout callings in Primary. I love Primary and nursery but most people don't.

I think what's helpful is getting as many people to take this training as possible. I know a lot of people are complaining about the length, but honestly we're not dealing with nuclear physics here. 20 minutes is pretty good to identify the dos and don'ts and what to look for. Make it longer and you have the problem of people not doing it or not paying attention. However I also think this is just a first step into the Church having a lot of online training. Which will be a big plus not just for rare but deeply problematic issues but for becoming better teachers and so forth. Or, in terms of mentoring or supervising roles, better training there. I think particularly with teens a  lot more training would be helpful particularly for people without teen kids. (My kids are just hitting the teen years and it's a bit mindbending)

As for women, they don't tend to be abusers as often although it's not clear how much of that is due to reporting/recognition issues. It does definitely happen, but by and large the public is terrified of men not women in part due to the way press covers it. (Violence and abuse is way down but most people think it is way up over the last 20 years)

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

I agree with you in general about the tradition of unanimity among the brethren, and I believe the situation with President Monson was the primary reason for the delay in our (long anticipated) exit from scouting. 

But I don't see how Monson's health would have been an impediment for rolling out the training that was just recently released. 

Again it's who is in charge and how they handle it. Rumblings are that's also being changed by Nelson and Oaks although given the opacity of deliberation among the twelve we'll probably not know for a bit. 

I'm with you - I think these changes would have been helpful years ago and would have prevented these inevitable anti-Mormon appropriation of the issues. I posted something on the T&S twitter feed that must have been quoted somewhere. All the anti-Mormons came out, and it was pretty clear they didn't really care about the issues nor tradeoffs involved but just wanted to use it to bludgeon the Church as evil. Got pretty annoying and for the first time ever I had to start blocking people.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, as the abuse hotline is only meant for the use of (male) priesthood leaders, that leaves a neglected gap. Where do we go when the leader is the abuser or if they are not responding appropriately to abuse? Law enforcement is an obvious answer that people will use more frequently, but where do members go to alert the church itself in the bad case?

While I think leadership gets treated unduly harshly when the vast majority are thoughtful and trying, the reality is that there are bad stake presidents, mission presidents and bishops. I think dealing with that is something the Church really doesn't have a good system for. I'm hoping that these changes will include rethinking that process. The danger of course is that you always have disgruntled people with a chip on their shoulder and of late anti-Mormon activists who attempt to use such processes to undermine people. Balancing things out so you can get to the truth and get people either out of the calling or doing a better job (and mending fences) is tricky but something they need to do.

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it is wonderful that you take this (bolded) attitude. However, I think one would be remiss to not see that the expected path in the church is to follow those milestones. Veering from this is understood to be problematic in the church, rather than just another good and healthy choice or behavior.

I agree, that is the expected path in the church, but the expected reason for following the path in the church is because of testimony and a belief that that's what God wants you do to.  The church specifically teaches against following the path for social reasons.

Quote

That said, the reason I connect bishop interviews to milestones is because of the systemic nature of the church as it relates to grooming and sexual abuse. There are predators everywhere, even among church leadership, but (not to downplay its seriousness but) even if there weren't, the bishop interviews as they stand create easier opportunities for predators outside of the leadership and outside of the bishop's office. A bishop interview normalizes the act of an adult asking a minor about intimate personal aspects of their life, and can, by design, lead to asking intimate details, too. Thus, that minor is being taught that it is okay, under some circumstances, to share that private information with adults. This nuanced boundary can make it more difficult for a minor to identify boundary violations.  Therefore, a child growing up in the church, following its traditional path, will become conditioned to accept nuanced personal boundaries.  That's why I do not pry, as a mother. I want my children to know that their personal sexuality is inviolate, and I want those mental warning flags to wave fiercely in their minds if their boundaries are being violated.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all that.  

Quote

So I think that, protecting children in the church means more than watching for abuse within the church. It also includes watching for how the church shapes children to respond to situations, and it means trying to help children be less vulnerable to predatory behavior.

I completely agree.  We just differ on the best way to do that.

Edited August 21, 2019 by bluebell

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I love Primary and nursery but most people don't.

I just have to say that I find this shocking. 

Nursery is arguably the best calling in the church - especially now that it's only one hour long!

 

[MustardSeed]

FWIW, as a recent parent of teens and having worked in yw for the past 7 years, when I hear Law of Chastity I think $ex, Ma$terbation and Porn. 

I also believe that culturally there is an expectation that youth will progress “through the ranks” though missionary age for ym and if they don’t then they must be struggling with something.  It’s not my experience that they are treated poorly. 

I’m sure there’s not supposed to be a social import to any of our church stuff but since we are human there always will be. Imo. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

On 8/20/2019 at 2:23 PM, Calm said:

You should be able to remove it if you can edit that post still.

I tried and went to my post and the edit function was no longer there.

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, Amulek said:

By this logic, whenever the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is also "implicitly asking" the minor if they participate in gang rapes, gay orgies, and child pornography.

Is that really how your mind parses the question, "Do you live the law of chastity?" 

No, I think Nehor was correct in his assessment that you just keep bringing up masturbation, specifically, largely for shock value. 

 

I am not shocked by talking about masturbation, it isn't shocking, it is a fairly normal behavior that is common in a healthy childhood. Contrast that to your other examples. 

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Didn’t you just try to call me out for hyperbole?

I identified your hyperbole. I never claimed to be or acted like "judge, jury, and executioner," Nehor. 

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

FWIW, as a recent parent of teens and having worked in yw for the past 7 years, when I hear Law of Chastity I think $ex, Ma$terbation and Porn. 

I also believe that culturally there is an expectation that youth will progress “through the ranks” though missionary age for ym and if they don’t then they must be struggling with something.  It’s not my experience that they are treated poorly. 

I’m sure there’s not supposed to be a social import to any of our church stuff but since we are human there always will be. Imo. 

What I think is critical is that the youth connect righteousness and following God to also an invasion of privacy by a priesthood leader. If the "good" people are crossing their personal boundaries, it can be more difficult to identify people with bad intent.

[cherryTreez]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't see a calling-out at all, Nehor. You used hyperbole to call me "judge, jury, and executioner." That seemed more like an attempt at angry distraction, not a genuine critique.

Regarding masturbation, it is considered a sin in the church, the church directly tells the youth so in its materials for the youth. Therefore, when the bishop asks the chastity question all alone, he is implicitly asking the minor if they masturbate. If the bishop chooses to ask follow-up questions, they will tend to identify whether the minor masterbates or has committed some other act forbidden by the church. This is not libellous fiction, it is part and parcel of the doctrine, policy, and practice of the church. As I will elaborate further to Bluebell, this framework maintained by the church impacts the privacy, and therefore safety, of minor children in the church.

I had many friends who had sex at 15 or 16. Some had heavy duty make out sessions.  There is far more than masturbation in the Law of chastity that teens are breaking. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I had many friends who had sex at 15 or 16. Some had heavy duty make out sessions.  There is far more than masturbation in the Law of chastity that teens are breaking. 

Yes, of course.

[Amulek]

54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not shocked by talking about masturbation, it isn't shocking, it is a fairly normal behavior that is common in a healthy childhood. Contrast that to your other examples. 

Whether or not you, personally, find something to be shocking has nothing to do with whether or not said something is being used for shock value. I mean, Quentin Tarantino isn't shocked by profanity and violence, but there is a reason why his films are intentionally filled with both. 

But now I'm confused: if masturbation isn't "shocking;" if it's "normal," "common" behavior, then what's the big deal with church leaders talking about it? 

 

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Whether or not you, personally, find something to be shocking has nothing to do with whether or not said something is being used for shock value. I mean, Quentin Tarantino isn't shocked by profanity and violence, but there is a reason why his films are intentionally filled with both. 

But now I'm confused: if masturbation isn't "shocking;" if it's "normal," "common" behavior, then what's the big deal with church leaders talking about it? 

 

As I have said before, it is private. Above, I say to MustardSeed: "What I think is critical is that the youth connect righteousness and following God to also an invasion of privacy by a priesthood leader. If the "good" people are crossing their personal boundaries, it can be more difficult to identify people with bad intent." It's one thing to talk about such bodily functions theoretically and openly, it is another to pry into someone's personal details of their own sexuality.