High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I see no reason why @Meadowchik should bother responding to your CFR.

People who claim to have identified a problem and the specific cause of that problem are in a special position of responsibility the moment they call on people to act based on their assertions. If they cannot demonstrate the causal relationship they are arguing, they should be ignored. Not doing so results in all kinds of variations of the the 'witch hunt'.

If I tell you that the cause of our economic troubles is the Gypsies, it doesn't matter how many people I can parade in public claiming to have been harmed by Gypsies. You need me to demonstrate the direct, logical and causal relationship between Gypsies and specific economic troubles. If I can't provide that, you have every right to be skeptical. And any attempt to put the burden of proof back on you -- 'CFR that the Gypsies aren't causing our economic troubles' -- would be lame. And should be ignored, pointed out to others, and quite possibly mocked.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, if that is actually what they are saying/writing. I suspect that is probably an accurate description of a number of members who haven't jumped on this particular bandwagon.

But this in no way supports your argument that the internal logic of a social movement cannot be discerned by carefully analysing the words and actions of the movement's leader/s.

The one quote provided is not evidence of a “careful analysis”.  When a careful and unbiased analysis is presented, then I’ll concede such discernment. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

People who claim to have identified a problem and the specific cause of that problem are in a special position of responsibility the moment they call on people to act based on their assertions. If they cannot demonstrate the causal relationship they are arguing, they should be ignored.

Yep... and Nehor should be held to the same standard. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... and Nehor should be held to the same standard. 

No, he shouldn't.

Deflecting the burden of proof is what people with hollow arguments do.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, he shouldn't.

Deflecting the burden of proof is what people with hollow arguments do.

Haha.  Funny.  I’ve sat here and watched Nehor deflect the burden of proof.  And you providing rationale for such deflection.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Haha.  Funny.  I’ve sat here and watched Nehor deflect the burden of proof.  And you providing rationale for such deflection.

Thanks, mate. I actually just LOL-ed. You do realise who in this exchange are demanding changes based on their claims to have identified a problem and its supposed cause, right?

Edited November 8, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate. I actually just LOL-ed. You do realise who in this exchange are demanding changes based on their claims to have identified a problem and its supposed cause, right?

I’m not.  I’m just asking that board guidelines be followed. 

[InCognitus]

What if a bishop has to interview a gypsy?  

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

CFR

This is asserted endlessly as if substantiated and proven. I would argue it is a really bad opportunity.

It is logical:

1. Sexual predators exist and seek victims.

2. Churches are not immune from having sexual predators among their membership and lay clergy.

3. Thus, a sexual predator in a clergy position can use it to do what they do: identify, groom, abuse, and cover up, so they can then repeat the process.

What is it about these interviews which make it valuable for a predator? They have a way to get close to targets. They have a way to talk about the target's sexuality. This enables the predator to use these discussions for their own satisfaction, but to also build inroads for physical attempts, whether during the interview itself or elsewhere.

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. Bishop interviews are probably close to the worst time. The child or teen is probably on edge already unless they are older or confident (making them a worse target). Someone, usually many someones, are right outside the door. Often they have a key to the office and could come in unexpectedly. The duration of an interview is usually not long, especially with youth. If the parents are at all conscientious they will talk to the child or teen afterwards just to check in. It is almost a perfect storm of not being good for abuse except for the one on one nature.

If I were looking for an opportunity to sexually abuse a teen or child I would target at a camp out or an activity and not something as public as an interview.

The complaint that was voiced earlier (not in this quote) that talking to kids about chastity trains them to trust authority in talking about sex is also silly. School teachers teach Sex Ed. Parents hopefully teach before that. All authority figures. Both teaching much more. I hope you are not suggesting that they would be better off learning from peers instead of authority figures.

Talking sex education in general is very different from talking about an individual's personal sexuality and experiences.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But this in no way supports your argument that the internal logic of a social movement cannot be discerned by carefully analysing the words and actions of the movement's leader/s.

It may or may not be. Apply that to the church, to Joseph Smith, to all of us posting here, to everyone. And remember that you do so with your own implicit bias, as do we all.

I have things to say about the church because it's been 40 years of my life. Shutting up about what appears to be obvious problems, just because I am no longer loyal to the institution, seems like a waste of an opportunity. It is especially wasteful because the church has a culture of forbidding criticism. This does make it more difficult to criticize because the chances of being heard are lowered. And it makes it especially important to approach with a solid case, because the tendency of believers to dismiss criticism off the bat is understandably high.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

You just refused to answer a CFR yourself @The Nehor.  I see no reason why @Meadowchik should bother responding to your CFR.

CFR on that.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Haha.  Funny.  I’ve sat here and watched Nehor deflect the burden of proof.  And you providing rationale for such deflection.

CFR.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It is logical:

1. Sexual predators exist and seek victims.

2. Churches are not immune from having sexual predators among their membership and lay clergy.

3. Thus, a sexual predator in a clergy position can use it to do what they do: identify, groom, abuse, and cover up, so they can then repeat the process.

What is it about these interviews which make it valuable for a predator? They have a way to get close to targets. They have a way to talk about the target's sexuality. This enables the predator to use these discussions for their own satisfaction, but to also build inroads for physical attempts, whether during the interview itself or elsewhere.

Logical does not mean proven. Or to mock this kind of guessing:

 

1. Yes.

2. Rare, but yes.

3. Conjecture, and I would argue and have argued that a bishop’s interview is a terrible time to try to manipulate and abuse or prepare for abuse. Babysitting is a better opportunity. It is (in terms of church) high profile, brief, and the child/teen is often awkward and nervous.

There are much better ways to get close to the target. I still have not seen a substantiated case where an interview was used this way. Until then I am not willing to give up the good I have seen a few times where a bishop’s interview led to abuse being revealed and reported on the basis of a hypothetical.

 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I have things to say about the church because it's been 40 years of my life. Shutting up about what appears to be obvious problems, just because I am no longer loyal to the institution, seems like a waste of an opportunity.

I would disagree with anyone who would attempt to censor your right to speak your mind.

That said, I don't think anyone here is doing that.  Rather, I think folks are critiquing the substance of what you are saying.  I think it is wrong to characterize all bishops as nascent perverts and child molesters because some very, very few of them have engaged in misconduct.  I would likewise object to someone trying to broadly disparage all female teachers as nascent perverts and child molesters because some very few of them have engaged in misconduct.  I would likewise object to such prejudicial, even hateful, characterizations of other broad categories of persons.

I think you are buying into the moral panic that Sam Young and others are trying to foment.  I ask you to reconsider that.  

Quote

It is especially wasteful because the church has a culture of forbidding criticism.

No, it doesn't.

Quote

This does make it more difficult to criticize because the chances of being heard are lowered. And it makes it especially important to approach with a solid case, because the tendency of believers to dismiss criticism off the bat is understandably high.

And yet nobody has presented anything like "a solid case."  Instead, we get a pastiche of anonymous, unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated anecdotes by an agenda-driven zealot who hates the Church and is publicly declarying his intention to tear it down.

-Smac

Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It is logical:

1. Sexual predators exist and seek victims.

Yes.  

Quote

2. Churches are not immune from having sexual predators among their membership and lay clergy.

Schools are also not immune.  Nor are medical and mental health facilities.  Nor are families.

And yet nobody is characterizing all schoolteachers, all healthcare providers, all family members as nascent sexual predators, as you are doing vis-à-vis bishops.

Quote

3. Thus, a sexual predator in a clergy position can use it to do what they do: identify, groom, abuse, and cover up, so they can then repeat the process.

So can a teacher, a doctor or nurse, a family member, etc.  

I've commented on this before (referencing Sam Young's dubiously-sourced collection of stories of abuse by bishops):

Quote

I understand the emotions that can be stirred up when reading those stories.  But a few thoughts:

First, those stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Second, the fact that Sam Young seems to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., rather strongly speaks against the merits and reasonableness of his demands, or at least makes me very cautious about them.  Mr. Young isn't looking to persuade others to his position through reasoning and evidence.  He is instead looking to whip people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  He's creating a mob mentality.  A hysteria.  

Third, Mr. Young's selective outrage is really disconcerting.  Why is he targeting bishops interviews?  Doesn't that seem way down on the list of things we could do to reduce sexual abuse of children?  As I recall, Mr. Young started all of this because a bishop purportedly asked his daughter some inappropriate questions.  Is that all this is, then?  Mr. Young's personal resentments against one bishop's misconduct blown up into a full-blown moral panic?  How else do we account for his utter disregard of the many other, and far more dangerous, factors that lead to sexual abuse of children?

Fourth, Mr. Young's self-aggrandizement is really a concern to me.  This issue seems to be all about him.  He's always front and center.  Talking to the media.  At the literal center of the marches and protests.  And now he's in the middle of a hunger strike.  Is this really all about concern for the welfare of children?  Or did it start out that way, but then morph into a massive ego trip for Sam Young?
...
We can reduce abuse, we can implement safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse, but such abuse will never be completely eliminated.  That's the nature of living in an fallen and imperfect and sinful world.

My remarks here pertain to the demands of Sam Young.  I think they are pretty irrational in their focus on bishop interviews.  By sheer numbers, a child is far, far more likely to be abused by a family member.  See this Psychology Today article:

Most of the perpetrators of child abuse (neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse) were family members. For example, 80.8% of (instance-based count, rather than person-based) perpetrators were parents, 5.9 percent were relatives other than parents, and 4.4 percent were unmarried partners of parents. In addition, the perpetrators included sibling, victim’s boyfriend or girlfriend, babysitter, other caretakers, and strangers. There is no indication that the pattern of offenders of sexual abuse, which accounted for 9.1% of the cases, differed from the general one. The data is also consistent with the practitioners’ observation about sex abuse perpetrators. As reported in American Psychological Association website, the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child.

If Mr. Young is serious about "even one victim is too many" rhetoric, then why isn't he demanding that children be taken from their families?  What isn't he demanding that children be taken out of school, lest they be at risk of being abused by a teacher or a coach?  Why isn't Mr. Young demonizing family members and teachers/coaches the same way he has been demonizing LDS bishops?  Why is he ignoring the elephant in the room?  

 

The answer, I think, may be in the next paragraph of the above article:

However, this reality has not set in for some people because only sex crimes perpetrated by strangers or persons with special status (e.g., coach, teacher) tend to receive the news media’ attention.  High (low) level publicity of an event in the media is often mistaken as high (low) frequency of the event. If the news media could pay more attention to family violence and to physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused child victims at home, they would make a greater contribution in keeping children safe and healthy.

Mr. Young's crusade is, I think, based less on reasoned analysis, and more on emotion and vitriol.  It is reactionary, not introspective or reasoned.  It's an appeal to emotion, to mass panic and hysteria, and perhaps even to outright animosity and prejudice against the LDS Church.  It is not a rational and proportionate approach to addressing the abuse of children (as evidenced by Sam Young leapfrogging over the vast majority of abuse being committed by family members, which he doesn't address at all).

I pose these same questions to you.

Why aren't you demanding that all children be taken from their families?

What aren't you demanding that children be taken out of school, lest they be at risk of being abused by a teacher or a coach? 

Why aren't you demonizing all family members and teachers/coaches the same way you are been demonizing all LDS bishops?

Quote

What is it about these interviews which make it valuable for a predator?

The answer is obvious.  

What is it about family members which are so enticing to predators?  

Some people abuse their children, so are you prepared to publicly declare that all family members are nascent perverts and child molesters?

Some teachers abuse children, so are you prepared to publicly declare that all teachers are nascent perverts and child molesters?

Or is it just the bishops of the Church that merit such a pernicious presumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

Schools are also not immune.  Nor are medical and mental health facilities.  Nor are families.

And yet nobody is characterizing all schoolteachers, all healthcare providers, all family members as nascent sexual predators, as you are doing vis-à-vis bishops.

So can a teacher, a doctor or nurse, a family member, etc.  

I've commented on this before (referencing Sam Young's dubiously-sourced collection of stories of abuse by bishops):

I pose these same questions to you.

Why aren't you demanding that all children be taken from their families?

What aren't you demanding that children be taken out of school, lest they be at risk of being abused by a teacher or a coach? 

Why aren't you demonizing all family members and teachers/coaches the same way you are been demonizing all LDS bishops?

The answer is obvious.  

What is it about family members which are so enticing to predators?  

Some people abuse their children, so are you prepared to publicly declare that all family members are nascent perverts and child molesters?

Some teachers abuse children, so are you prepared to publicly declare that all teachers are nascent perverts and child molesters?

Or is it just the bishops of the Church that merit such a pernicious presumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

I've tried to be clear that I am speaking about one-on-one worthiness interviews. So it is a specific practice, to which I object, and (as explained in another conversation with you) especially objecting to adults asking sexually explicit questions of minors.

I'm not Sam Young, and I've already said here  on MDD that I am not fond of him nor do I agree with everything he says or does.

In regards to families, teachers, doctors, etc..., I don't think any of them should be conducting worthiness interviews with minors or asking them to provide non-medical details about a minor's sexuality. Even when for medical details, probing should be minimal and only when medically necessary.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would disagree with anyone who would attempt to censor your right to speak your mind.

That said, I don't think anyone here is doing that.  Rather, I think folks are critiquing the substance of what you are saying.  I think it is wrong to characterize all bishops as nascent perverts and child molesters because some very, very few of them have engaged in misconduct.  I would likewise object to someone trying to broadly disparage all female teachers as nascent perverts and child molesters because some very few of them have engaged in misconduct.  I would likewise object to such prejudicial, even hateful, characterizations of other broad categories of persons.

I think you are buying into the moral panic that Sam Young and others are trying to foment.  I ask you to reconsider that.  

No, it doesn't.

And yet nobody has presented anything like "a solid case."  Instead, we get a pastiche of anonymous, unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated anecdotes by an agenda-driven zealot who hates the Church and is publicly declarying his intention to tear it down.

-Smac

I've been privy to victims confiding experiences of abuse during interviews. I cannot expect you to believe hearsay. But I do ask you to be willing to listen if someone does try to tell you their experience.

We do have substantiated cases of bishops sexually abusing children. We do know that sexual abuse can happen in the vicinity of others and in brief periods of time. And asking sexually explicit questions is a dangerous level of intimacy between an adult and child.

I think that is enough information to expect reasonable people to be more cautious and to put an end to the practice of one-on-one worthiness interviews of children, especially when probing about sexuality is considered acceptable.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I do not doubt that anecdotes can be true, what I said is that they cannot tell us net impact.

From wiki: "

• In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.^[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.^[3]

 

Timothy McCleve abused his victims in their own home:

"Because he brought candy, let them play on his laptop games he brought into the house. He put some games on my computer. You know, got them busy doing fun things," the alleged victims' father spoke to 2 News on condition of anonymity.

 

The girls' father says it went beyond computer games to physical contact, "He would wrestle with them; let them climb all over him. Just having a fun time."

And here:

McCleve was sentenced Wednesday to a pair of one-to-15 year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony. McCleve was the former bishop of the Harrisville LDS Church ward that the girls he sexually abused attended. Police said he would often stop by their home while their parents were away.

I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. McCleve conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building. 

 

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. McCleve?

 

Quote

• In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.^[4][5]

From this news item:

Quote

The nonprofit organization he founded is aimed at helping kids in the world's poorest countries. But six women now say a Heber City man subjected them to years of sexual abuse in their youth.

Lon Harvey Kennard Sr. was charged Tuesday in 4th District Court with 24 counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony; 21 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a second-degree felony; one count of forcible sodomy, a second-degree felony; and one count of witness tampering, a third-degree felony.

Kennard, 68, was arrested on March 17 by Wasatch County sheriff's deputies following nearly two weeks of investigation that began with a phone call from a relative.

On March 6, a female relative of Kennard's contacted a deputy to ask if Kennard was a suspect in a child sex abuse investigation. The woman told the deputy that Kennard's son had shown her videos of Kennard engaging in sexual contact with an underage girl.

The son told detectives he had found the videos on an external computer hard drive that his father kept in his locked home office. The son said he had gone looking for evidence of sexual abuse after someone told him that Kennard was molesting a female relative, court records state.

Deputies seized Kennard's home computer and "several" external computer hard drives. Wasatch County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jared Rigby said those drives and the computer are undergoing a full forensic examination. A preliminary review of digital files on those drives, however, revealed 31 videos showing Kennard having sexual contact with two teenage girls, court records state.

Detectives said they interviewed six women related to Kennard and each "related individual, personalized accounts of being sexually abused" by Kennard, according to court records. Investigators also believe Kennard sexually abused a seventh victim, who is not related to him, and made videos of the abuse. Court records say the girl is from Ethiopia and is 17 or 18 years old.

The sexual abuse outlined in court records allegedly began in 1995, around the time Kennard was serving as bishop of his LDS Church ward and one year after he and his wife founded Village of Hope. The nonprofit organization provides "development programs for destitute villages focusing on water and sanitation, agriculture and nutrition, high-risk children protection, women and girl empowerment, health care, family income and economic development," according to its Web site.The villages served are located in Mexico, Central America, Ethiopia and the Caribbean.

I could not find any reference to Mr. Kennard using bishop interviews to facilitate abuse.  Do you know of any such information?

Quote

• In Mid-2013, LDS member Michael Jensen 16-year-old son of a respected local Mormon family. While still on his mission in Arizona, was brought back to West Virginia for questioning. Jensen was convicted that year of sexually abusing Spring’s children and is currently serving a prison sentence of 35 years to 75 years in a West Virginia state prison. At the time of his sentencing, a state judge classified him as a “violent sexual predator.”^[6]

Michael Jensen was never a bishop.  

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped him?

Quote

• In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.^[7]

Todd Michell Edwards was convicted based on sexual misconduct with teenage girls that took place either at his home or in his car.   

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Edwards?

Quote

• In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.^[8]

A pineapple farm.  Not in a bishop's office.

Moreover, all we have here are allegations in a lawsuit.  No evidence.  See here:

Quote

Two men filed a civil lawsuit on Wednesday suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for sexual abuse that the plaintiffs claim occurred on a pineapple farm in Maui, Hawaii, from 1986 through 1988.

Jacob Huggard, 41, and Kyle Spray, 42, both of Utah, are alleging that they were sexually abused by the camp's coordinator. Brian Pickett was responsible with overseeing the hundreds of teenage boys from Utah and Idaho who worked the pineapple fields in the 1970s and 1980s.
...
The lawsuit claims that abuse happened both at the farm and later at Pickett's private residence when he was promoted to vice president of operations.

Even assuming the allegations were true, how would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped the purported abuse by Mr. Pickett?

Quote

• In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.^[9]

The charges against Michael Wayne Coleman pertain to "elicit sexual conversations on the internet," apparently involving youths he met through his job as an exchange student coordinator (see here and here).   I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. Coleman conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building.  I also could not find any news articles about Mr. Coleman actually being convicted of any criminal misconduct.

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Coleman? 

Quote

• In 2016, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court denial of the United Effort Plan Trust's motion for summary judgment, in a lawsuit brought by "J.W." against Bruce Wisan, the trust's current leader. The trust was operated for the express purpose of furthering Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, including the practice of marriage involving underage girls.[1]

What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Quote

• In August 2017, former LDS Church bishop Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two teenage boys from his congregation in Mapleton, Utah. The abuse occurred in June 2014 during his tenure as bishop. Hughes received concurrent 1-15 year prison sentences on the sexual abuse counts, and 0–5 years in prison for witness tampering.^[10]

Yes, this man did some horrible things.  

Quote

• On August 15, 2017, MormonLeaks published a three-hundred and sixteen (316) page document which contained confirmed and alleged instances of child sexual abuse between 1959 and 2017.^[11]

Virtually none of these stories is "confirmed."

Only a few of these stories involve sexual abuse by a bishop (surprising, given that these stories cover a span of 60 years).  Here are a few I could find in the first 200 or so pages (from 1959 to 1999):

• "05/02/85 Oklahoma LDS Ron Phelps" alleges that "{i}n September 1993, Merradyth and Jack McCallister and their son Scott of Yukon, Okla. told their stake president that Scott had been sexually abused by their bishop, Ronald Phelps."  This is a hearsay anecdote.  No news items.  No legal proceedings or findings.
• The above item also claims (also anecdotally) that "Jack McCallister" had been abused by his bishop in Oklahoma in the early 1960s.
• "01/01/89 West Valley City, LDS Bishop Dave (a pseudonym)" states that an unnamed bishop "'was charged with six counts of child sexual abuse.'"
• "01/15/89 Kent, Utah LDS David James Gomez " states that "[a] former LDS bishop was accused of molesting several teenage boys."  Mr. Gomez apparently did use his role as bishop to engage in sexual abuse of young boys (see here).
• "01/01/94 Arizona LDS Bishop Arlo Atkin's accused of raping a 14 year old."  See here.
• "07/04/94 Idaho LDS Rex Furness, a Bishop in the LDS church was sentenced to two months in jail and seven years probation for sexually assaulting his teenage granddaughter."  I could not find any information to determine if Mr. Furness was a bishop at the time of the abuse.
• "01/17/95 Utah LDS Bishop {Lon Harvey} Kennard is charged with 25 counts of sexual abuse of a child."  See here and here.

I also looked through the stories going back to about 2011.  Very few of them involve sexual misconduct by a bishop.  And virtually all of these stories, even if true, pertain to misconduct that involved substantial deviation from the Church's current policies and guidelines.

More to the point, I don't think I saw a single story that involved a bishop using chaperoned, in-the-bishop's-office-in-the-church-building interviews to commit or facilitate abuse.  Can you point to one?

Many of these stories include instances references to bishops assisting in detecting and stopping abuse, and/or reporting it to law enforcement.  One of the most prevalent themes of these anecdotes is that some bishops were told of misconduct, but then ignored it, failed to report it to law enforcement, etc.  To me, this is pretty good evidence that interviews should continue, and that bishops should be trained on how to properly respond when they receive reports of abuse.  And it so happens that this is the status quo, and has been for many years.  Bishops receive precisely this sort of training.  

So the moral panic Sam Young is attempting to incite, which is focused on stopping one-on-one interviews, would seem to be a big waste of time and emotional energy. 

I would even go so far as to postulate that your and Sam Young's demand, if acceded to, would result in more abuse of children, not less.  Bishops are a tremendous resource for the detecting of abuse and reporting it to law enforcement.

Quote

• On October 30, 2017, an Australian court sentenced Darran Scott to 10 years in prison for sexually abusing boys, some of whom he met as a Mormon leader.^[12]"

Darran Scott was convicted on charges that he "started grooming his victims in the early 1990s as a junior football coach in Melbourne's eastern suburbs," that he "plied the boys with sleeping pills, cannabis, alcohol and pornography," and that he "indecently assaulted several victims on surfing trips and at his home."  He apparently also misused his affiliation with the Church: "[In 2005] he joined the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, and used his position to groom another six boys.  In one instance Scott encouraged two boys, who were staying at his Archies Creek home, to expose themselves and shoot each others genitals with pellet guns."  It appears Mr. Scott was never even a bishop at all.   

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. Scott?

Quote

A bishop can absolutely be a stranger. There is nothing preventing bishops from doing worthiness interviews upon first meeting a member or someone they've never spoken to personally before. I've experienced this multiple times and the practice would indicate that this happens with regularity. 

The vast majority of the time, however, bishops are not a "stranger."  They know the child/youth and the family.

Quote

The overall question that I am addressing is twofold: 1) What is the net impact of 1-1 worthiness interviews?

The net impact is, in my view, very good.  The vast majority of bishops are not, as you and your fellows so constantly imply, nascent perverts and child molesters.  They are good and decent men who, despite not volunteering, nevertheless agree to accept a difficult and time-consuming calling in the Church.  They work probably 15-20 hours each week in this calling, and sometimes more.  They do so without pay, and at the expense of time spent with their family, or their job, or for themselves. 

Bishops receive training on how to handle allegations of abuse, and also training on handling discussions of sensitive and difficult topics (like the Law of Chastity).  Their interactions with children are tightly controlled.  The policies and guidelines require that interviews with children be chaperoned by another adult just outside the bishop's office.  The policies and guidelines also include instructions on topics to cover, and how to cover them.  There are something like 28,000 bishops in the Church, which means there are likely millions upon millions of interviews conducted in any given year.  During a bishop's tenure, he will likely encounter multiple instances where allegations of abuse are reported to him.  In the U.S. and Canada, bishops have a 24/7 helpline to call whenever they encounter allegations of abuse.  The helpline is staffed by licensed attorneys who have detailed and up-to-date information about legal requirements pertaining to the reporting of abuse.  Bishops call this helpline all the time. 

The training and resources given to bishops, and the bishops' standing as a trusted and trustworthy resource for a youth or child, combine to yield many, many instances in which an allegation is reported to a bishop, and the bishop then reports the allegation to law enforcement. 

Bishops also can, and usually do, provide further pastoral counseling, access to professional counseling, some financial assistance, and can otherwise assist in the immediate cessation of abuse.

I have fairly extensive first-hand experience with the foregoing.  So I hope you will understand that I have some measure of irritation with people who blithely come along and smear the character and efforts of these good and decent men, with no thought as to the ramifications of their reflexive, moral-panic-and-emotion-driven, axe-grinding, largely-uninformed hostility to the Church and its bishops.

Quote

2) Are 1-1 worthiness interviews the only way those benefits--specifically the benefits of abuse reporting--occur?

The "only" way?  Of course not.  They are one of many such resources.  Family members, and schoolteachers, and medical and mental health professionals are also a good mechanism for detecting and reporting abuse.  But are these folks being publicly smeared all of them as inchoate child molesters, as we are seeing with the bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ?  If not, why not?

I have my suspicious as to why bishops are being singled out in this way, but I'd like to hear your explanation.

Quote

I can say that those who oppose such interviews are concerned about these questions and many feel that that they may have net harm and that reporting of abuse can otherwise be possible without 1-1 worthiness interviews.

Actually, I'm not sure you can say that. 

The thing is, many of "those who oppose such interviews" are refusing to acknowledge the good that comes from these interviews.

Many of "those who oppose such interviews" are calling for an end to one-on-one interviews, despite there being no evidence that these interviews are being used to facilitate abuse.

Many of "those who oppose such interviews" are baselessly implying that all bishops are nascent perverts and child molesters, and are inherently untrustworthy.

Many of "those who oppose such interviews" are allowing their emotions to be churned into a frenzy by Sam Young's efforts to incite a moral panic.

Many of "those who oppose such interviews" are stridently hostile to the Church and its members, thus giving rise to a reasonable questioning of actual and/or primary motives.

And so on.

I get the many of "those who oppose such interviews" have strong feelings about this topic.  But their rhetoric is way out-of-hand.  Their demands are unreasoned and unreasonable.  Their openly-professed bigotry and smears against the bishops of the Church is obscene.

-Smac

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I've been privy to victims confiding experiences of abuse during interviews. I cannot expect you to believe hearsay. But I do ask you to be willing to listen if someone does try to tell you their experience.

I'm quite open to that.

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We do have substantiated cases of bishops sexually abusing children.

But do you have "substantiated cases of bishops sexually abusing children" during one-on-one interviews?  I think . . . not.

Meanwhile, we also have "substantiated cases" of some schoolteachers sexually abusing children, and yet I do not see any across-the-board disparagements of all schoolteachers as nascent perverts and child molesters (as we have been seeing from Sam Young and his acolytes in their vicious attacks on the bishops of the Church).

We also have "substantiated cases" of some fathers sexually abusing children, and yet I do not see any across-the-board disparagements of all fathers as nascent perverts and child molesters.

And on and on.  

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We do know that sexual abuse can happen in the vicinity of others and in brief periods of time.

Yes.

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And asking sexually explicit questions is a dangerous level of intimacy between an adult and child.

Oh, brother.  Why are you so insistent on ignoring the Church's policies and guidelines on this issue?  Why are you pretending that the Church treats "asking sexually explicit questions" as an appropriate part of bishops' interviews?

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that is enough information to expect reasonable people to be more cautious and to put an end to the practice of one-on-one worthiness interviews of children, especially when probing about sexuality is considered acceptable.

Oh, brother.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I've tried to be clear that I am speaking about one-on-one worthiness interviews.

Right.  You want to eliminate all such interviews.  Got it.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So it is a specific practice, to which I object, and (as explained in another conversation with you) especially objecting to adults asking sexually explicit questions of minors.

Again, why are you so insistent on ignoring the Church's policies and guidelines on this issue?  Why are you pretending that the Church treats "asking sexually explicit questions" as an appropriate part of bishops' interviews?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In regards to families, teachers, doctors, etc..., I don't think any of them should be conducting worthiness interviews with minors or asking them to provide non-medical details about a minor's sexuality. Even when for medical details, probing should be minimal and only when medically necessary.

Parents should affirmatively avoid discussing matters of sexuality with their children?  Are you seriously suggesting that?

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Timothy McCleve abused his victims in their own home:

"Because he brought candy, let them play on his laptop games he brought into the house. He put some games on my computer. You know, got them busy doing fun things," the alleged victims' father spoke to 2 News on condition of anonymity.

 

The girls' father says it went beyond computer games to physical contact, "He would wrestle with them; let them climb all over him. Just having a fun time."

And here:

McCleve was sentenced Wednesday to a pair of one-to-15 year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony. McCleve was the former bishop of the Harrisville LDS Church ward that the girls he sexually abused attended. Police said he would often stop by their home while their parents were away.

I could not find any allegations that any abuse occurred in relation to Mr. McCleve conducting chaperoned interviews in his office in the church building. 

 

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped Mr. McCleve?

 

From this news item:

I could not find any reference to Mr. Kennard using bishop interviews to facilitate abuse.  Do you know of any such information?

Michael Jensen was never a bishop.  

How would eliminating bishop interviews have stopped him?

 

-Smac

 

Bishop worthiness interviews create a space where it is acceptable for an adult to inquire about a child's sexual experiences from a moralistic, judgmental perspective, as a standard practice. This is very specific and it's not standard practice of schools, it's not standard in medicine, and in general it is not a cultural standard in families with children.

I have to compress my responses because I am short on time, but my above statement is at the center of the issue. I don't think guidelines on how to "appropriately" inquire about a child's sexual experiences are adequate. Just don't let it be an acceptable practice. 

You've conflated a bunch of things, and for brevity's sake I'll say that any alleged reporting benefits of bishop's interviews can be made available through other types of conversations: Lessons about consent and respect can educate and help child victims and adults to identify abuse, facilitating reporting and abuse prevention. I think such lessons would be much better than conversations that blur the lines of acceptable conversation and make it more difficult for children to recognize boundary violations.

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Bishop worthiness interviews create a space where it is acceptable for an adult to inquire about a child's sexual experiences from a moralistic, judgmental perspective, as a standard practice.

Not really.

Moreover, the Church's current policies and guidlines impose some real constraints on the extent to which such topics are addressed by bishops.

Again, why are you so insistent on ignoring the Church's policies and guidelines on this issue?  Why are you pretending that the Church treats "asking sexually explicit questions" as an appropriate part of bishops' interviews?

Quote

This is very specific and it's not standard practice of schools, it's not standard in medicine, and in general it is not a cultural standard in families with children.

No, you are not being "specific."

And yes, parents talking to their children about matters of sexuality is very "standard practice."  The same goes for doctors and mental health professionals.

What you are talking about is a lurid, sensationalized sort of thing.  Nobody is suggesting that bishops can or ought to be engaged in such conduct.  The Church's policies and guidelines are quite good at instructing bishops on this sort of thing.  And yet you continue to ignore that.

Quote

I have to compress my responses because I am short on time, but my above statement is at the center of the issue.

Not really.  There is no need to eliminate bishop's interviews.  Instead, the Church can, and should, and has, provided bishops with training and instruction on how to conduct interviews, and on avoiding inappropriate questions/topics.

You continue to speak as if all bishops are running around asking five-year-olds if they masturbate.  That they (the bishops) are nascent perverts and child molesters, and that they categorically cannot be trusted to be around children.  This is the necessary predicate of the let's-do-away-with-all-one-on-one-bishop-interviews position.  It is based on a gross prejudice against Latter-day Saint men who are asked to serve as bishops.

Quote

I don't think guidelines on how to "appropriately" inquire about a child's sexual experiences are adequate. Just don't let it be an acceptable practice. 

Well, yes.  Obviously.  The Church is already doing that.

But how do you get from there to the let's-do-away-with-all-one-on-one-bishop-interviews position?

Quote

You've conflated a bunch of things, and for brevity's sake I'll say that any alleged reporting benefits of bishop's interviews can be made available through other types of conversations: Lessons about consent and respect can educate and help child victims and adults to identify abuse, facilitating reporting and abuse prevention.

Really?  You have empirical evidence to back that up?

Yes, lessons can educate and replace.  But eliminating bishop interviews would, I think, necessarily reduce the instances of reported abuse.  Bishops receive allegations of abuse all the time.  They in turn, in accordance with the Church's policies and guidelines, report these allegations to law enforcement.

Your position, though, would destroy that conduit.

Quote

I think such lessons would be much better than conversations that blur the lines of acceptable conversation and make it more difficult for children to recognize boundary violations.

I think the better course of action is to provide instruction to bishops.  Give them guidelines about how to discuss sensitive and difficult issues, with particular emphasis on not asking questions that are inappropriate or which could create misunderstanding.

The problem, though, is that the Church is already doing this.  And yet you, Sam Young, etc. are still attempting to foment a moral panic, are still characterizing all bishops as untrustworthy, nascent child molesters, are still making overzealous, emotion-driven demands that, if enacted, would almost certainly lead to a reduction in the detecting and termination of past or ongoing abuse of children.

-Smac

Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Bishop worthiness interviews create a space where it is acceptable for an adult to inquire about a child's sexual experiences from a moralistic, judgmental perspective, as a standard practice. This is very specific and it's not standard practice of schools, it's not standard in medicine, and in general it is not a cultural standard in families with children.

I have to compress my responses because I am short on time, but my above statement is at the center of the issue. I don't think guidelines on how to "appropriately" inquire about a child's sexual experiences are adequate. Just don't let it be an acceptable practice. 

You've conflated a bunch of things, and for brevity's sake I'll say that any alleged reporting benefits of bishop's interviews can be made available through other types of conversations: Lessons about consent and respect can educate and help child victims and adults to identify abuse, facilitating reporting and abuse prevention. I think such lessons would be much better than conversations that blur the lines of acceptable conversation and make it more difficult for children to recognize boundary violations.

 

So it could potentially possibly be used but has not so we should do something. Someone could theoretically kill someone with a spork. Where is the campaign to ban sporks? If steps need to be taken shouldn’t we target a practice that is tied to lots of cases of abuse?

I actually worry this campaign is going to end up helping abusers. Abusive parents now have a ‘cover story’ to insist on being present during any interview and mitigate an abused child’s ability to seek help or escape. They tell the bishop they want to be there at any interview with their children. An older child comes to the bishop, more likely because some abuse to a younger child. The bishop calls in the parents. The child is dismayed and the parents ferret out afterwards what the child was trying to do. Punishment follows. I cannot substantiate that specific scenario but this is what happens when children are caught by abusive parents trying to get help.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, the Church's current policies and guidlines impose some real constraints on the extent to which such topics are addressed by bishops.

-Smac

Where are those policies and guidelines that impose real constraints on the extent to which such topics (children's sexual experiences) are addressed by bishops?

Edited November 8, 2019 by rockpond