High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, hearserve said:

Consider supporting Operation Underground Railroad, an organization that works to stop sex trafficking worldwide.  Comprised largely of former CIA, Homeland Security, and Special Forces operatives, they investigate, plan, and execute operations to free women and children from horrible circumstances.  But beware...it was founded by a member of the (cue ominous music) LDS Church.

I have donated to Operation Underground a few times. And went to their premiere a few years ago at theatres. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hearserve said:

Consider supporting Operation Underground Railroad, an organization that works to stop sex trafficking worldwide.  Comprised largely of former CIA, Homeland Security, and Special Forces operatives, they investigate, plan, and execute operations to free women and children from horrible circumstances.  But beware...it was founded by a member of the (cue ominous music) LDS Church.

That is also a very good cause.

Edited December 13, 2019 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

I'm not boasting about this, I'm sharing because it needs to be, and I can't many places, so be glad, whomever is offended that I do it here I guess. I hope the church is no longer giving this kind of advice to those that abuse. This young man later became a bishop and hadn't paid for his crime. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

I'm not boasting about this, I'm sharing because it needs to be, and I can't many places, so be glad, whomever is offended that I do it here I guess. I hope the church is no longer giving this kind of advice to those that abuse. This young man later became a bishop and hadn't paid for his crime. 

 

Unless you have evidence such advice is given (there is good evidence it isn’t imo as the Church makes significant effort to do things legally with the hotline), why is it necessary to share something that happened 30 to 40 years ago?

Not saying you shouldn’t share it as it is news, just wondering why you think it “needs” to be. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

That is a weird story. The abuse happened during the years from 1986 to 1993. It says he was a minor when it started which is barely possible. He was on a mission in 1987 and confessed and thought it was all taken care of even though abuse continued for years afterwards? Even on the ecclesiastical level that makes no sense.

Unless corroborated by the Priesthood leaders in question I would also stay skeptical about how much he told them and what they instructed him to do. The guy has had 30 years to reconstruct the narrative in his head to make himself the good guy. It is possible in that amount of time for his memory to go from he told them he was tempted to abuse someone to he fully confessed and was forgiven. This is especially likely since according to the chronology the abuse continued yet he somehow in court gave the impression he had been forgiven.

It is possible it happened as he said but my money would be he overstates how much he shared.

[bsjkki]

This has its own thread now.

[Tacenda]

https://fox2now.com/news/police-searching-for-more-victims-after-lake-st-louis-man-lures-teen-from-arizona/?fbclid=IwAR30b3a64GWB8IY9p52cwZnw4NY_k9LPzVM3ZQnPHY524uqTHaib4vvP6Hw

This man was a bishop...may have even formed this relationship as a bishop, not sure. But still makes me think that the bishop interviews should not be one on one, unless the youth is much older and has need to repent of something.

[hearserve]

Too bad there aren't headlines for every time a bishop has saved someone from abuse and abusive situations.  But you probably wouldn't think those "needed" to be shared.  

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, hearserve said:

Too bad there aren't headlines for every time a bishop has saved someone from abuse and abusive situations.  But you probably wouldn't think those "needed" to be shared.  

Same reason the fire alarm doesn’t ring every time I don’t burn the cookies. 
Which, tbh, is unfortunately rare. We are best off just eating the dough. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://fox2now.com/news/police-searching-for-more-victims-after-lake-st-louis-man-lures-teen-from-arizona/?fbclid=IwAR30b3a64GWB8IY9p52cwZnw4NY_k9LPzVM3ZQnPHY524uqTHaib4vvP6Hw

This man was a bishop...may have even formed this relationship as a bishop, not sure. But still makes me think that the bishop interviews should not be one on one, unless the youth is much older and has need to repent of something.

The man was bishop back in 2014.  He didn't meet her until later.  See the church statement at https://www.kmov.com/news/st-charles-county-man-charged-with-child-pornography-police-looking/article—29891298-54da-11ea-a5fa-af44e2ba592e.html

He met her by taking kids on bike trips.  So I guess we should ban bike trips with older adults?

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, webbles said:

The man was bishop back in 2014.  He didn't meet her until later.  See the church statement at https://www.kmov.com/news/st-charles-county-man-charged-with-child-pornography-police-looking/article—29891298-54da-11ea-a5fa-af44e2ba592e.html

He met her by taking kids on bike trips.  So I guess we should ban bike trips with older adults?

You missed my point that I've been making for a long time, that it isn't safe for one on on interviews, especially if sexual questions are asked, by men like him. Two people would be wiser IMO. 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

The man was bishop back in 2014.  He didn't meet her until later.  See the church statement at https://www.kmov.com/news/st-charles-county-man-charged-with-child-pornography-police-looking/article—29891298-54da-11ea-a5fa-af44e2ba592e.html

He met her by taking kids on bike trips.  So I guess we should ban bike trips with older adults?

You missed my point that I've been making for a long time, that it isn't safe for one on on interviews, especially if sexual questions are asked, by men like him. Two people would be wiser IMO. 

I think Webbles gets your point.  I do too.  I just find it unreasonable.  Even after you are presented evidence that this fellow's prior status as a bishop had no bearing on the current allegations of him committing abuse, you still want to characterize all bishops everywhere as potential sexual predators.

You are trading on fear and sensationalism, and even on prejudice.  It's not healthy for you to do so.  For you or for others.

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2020 by smac97

[webbles]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You missed my point that I've been making for a long time, that it isn't safe for one on on interviews, especially if sexual questions are asked, by men like him. Two people would be wiser IMO. 

Any interaction with a bad adult, either one-on-one, or two-on-one, or whatever is unsafe for children.  Any questions asked by a bad adult is unsafe.  If the adult is bad, that adult will be able to manipulate the child in lots of different ways.  Removing one-on-one interviews will be a negligible drop in the bucket for the ability of bad adults to do things.

Let's say that we have a bad bishop like him who wants to be bad but one-on-one interviews are discouraged.  How would he still be bad?  Well, he can just create a youth bike trip (which he did in this case).  Or, he could invite all the kids over for youth fireside and isolate the specific kid for a little bit.  Or he could start texting the child.  Or become friends with the parents and then offer to drive the child to various places to "help" the parents out.  None of those need one-on-one interviews.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Webbles gets your point.  I do to.  I just find it unreasonable.  Even after you are presented evidence that this fellow's prior status as a bishop had no bearing on the current allegations of him committing abuse, you still want to characterize all bishops everywhere as potential sexual predators.

You are trading on fear and sensationalism, and even on prejudice.  It's not healthy for you to do so.  For you or for others.

-Smac

If that is so, why does the church have two teachers instead of one? It use to be one teacher. For safety precautions right? Why not for a bishop or counselor? They are unique? 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

I think Webbles gets your point.  I do to.  I just find it unreasonable.  Even after you are presented evidence that this fellow's prior status as a bishop had no bearing on the current allegations of him committing abuse, you still want to characterize all bishops everywhere as potential sexual predators.

You are trading on fear and sensationalism, and even on prejudice.  It's not healthy for you to do so.  For you or for others.

If that is so, why does the church have two teachers instead of one, teaching in church where it use to only be one teacher. For safety precautions right? Why not a bishop or counselor? They are unique? 

Oi.  How many times have we been over this?

-Smac

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  How many times have we been over this?

-Smac

You and I haven't been over this particular point (why the teachers are told to have two deep but not bishops/counselors), not that I know of. I seriously wouldn't have had a problem as a youth to be interviewed by a bishop and my youth leader. I'd have felt more comfortable. In case you're going to purport that there is a need for one on one.

ETA: It isn't always sexual abuse either, there is mental abuse too. Especially around the masturbation question and how that has driven the youth to have problems later on with how it was handled, even suicidal problems. I hope for the day that it won't be roulette, and that there will be clear and concise interviews with guidelines that are researched through the mental health avenue with licensed practitioners. 

I guess I read too many stories out there.

ETA again: I think it should be two deep with the interviews that are regulated. But if a youth wants a one on one other than the regular interview, then I'm fine with it. Because they'll hold the ball in their court, IMO.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

Just now, Tacenda said:

You and I haven't been over this particular point, not that I know of, are you skirting the issue? I seriously wouldn't have had a problem as a youth to be interviewed by a bishop and my youth leader. I'd have felt more comfortable. In case you're going to purport that there is a need for one on one. 

C'mon.  We've been over this stuff a hundred times.  

1. Bishops are judges in Israel.  Youth leaders are not.

2. In most jurisdictions, the presence of a third party negates the priest/penitent privilege.

3. The Church already has provisions in place for a parent to attend youth interviews if they or the child wishes it.

4. Keeping confidences is difficult.  Adding more parties weakens confidentiality.

5. Adding more parties would likely make youth more nervous about disclosing things.

6. Contrary to your endless innuendo, bishops are not inchoate perverts and child molesters.  They are very useful resources for detecting and stopping abuse.  Your sensationalization and moral panicking would hinder or end that ability.

7. The Church has placed stringent requirements on bishops, both as to the content of interviews, and on bishops being "chaperoned" during interviews by someone located just a few feet away. 

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Because they'll hold the ball in their court, IMO.

They already hold the ball in their court.  They can be seen with someone else if they so choose. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

They already hold the ball in their court.  They can be seen with someone else if they so choose. 

Meaning they aren't being interviewed with questions, it's what they want to speak about during their meeting with the leader that they themselves set up.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You and I haven't been over this particular point (why the teachers are told to have two deep but not bishops/counselors), not that I know of. I seriously wouldn't have had a problem as a youth to be interviewed by a bishop and my youth leader. I'd have felt more comfortable. In case you're going to purport that there is a need for one on one.

ETA: It isn't always sexual abuse either, there is mental abuse too. Especially around the masturbation question and how that has driven the youth to have problems later on with how it was handled, even suicidal problems. I hope for the day that it won't be roulette, and that there will be clear and concise interviews with guidelines that are researched through the mental health avenue with licensed practitioners. 

I guess I read too many stories out there.

I think you might be conflating two issues: one-on-one interviews with predators, and uncomfortable questions.  The two are only barely related.  A predator generally wouldn't ask those type of questions until much farther along in the grooming process.  The predator starts with questions that creates a rapport between the two.  Once the relationship is there, then the predator can get the victim alone and ask the more probing questions.

Removing the one-on-one interviews will also not stop the uncomfortable questions.  They will still happen.  Only instead, there will be more adults there.  They will still stay uncomfortable and can still be a cause of trauma.  So, if you want to stop the uncomfortable questions, don't focus on one-on-one interviews.  Focus on changing/ending the questions.

Quote

ETA again: I think it should be two deep with the interviews that are regulated. But if a youth wants a one on one other than the regular interview, then I'm fine with it. Because they'll hold the ball in their court, IMO.

A youth confessing to a predator is probably the worst thing that the youth could do.  That allows the predator to be able to immediately use guilt to coerce the youth into a bad situation.  So if the Bishop was a predator, you wouldn't want the youth to confess to him at all.

Also, initiating a interview means that the youth is more trusting of the predator so the predator can more easily groom the youth.  So the ball is definitely not in their court.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Meaning they aren't being interviewed with questions...

What are they being interviewed with then?  Jedi-mind reading?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What are they being interviewed with then?  Jedi-mind reading?

Pogo, this is when a youth desires to go in for other reasons then getting a worthy interview. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I think you might be conflating two issues: one-on-one interviews with predators, and uncomfortable questions.  The two are only barely related.  A predator generally wouldn't ask those type of questions until much farther along in the grooming process.  The predator starts with questions that creates a rapport between the two.  Once the relationship is there, then the predator can get the victim alone and ask the more probing questions.

Removing the one-on-one interviews will also not stop the uncomfortable questions.  They will still happen.  Only instead, there will be more adults there.  They will still stay uncomfortable and can still be a cause of trauma.  So, if you want to stop the uncomfortable questions, don't focus on one-on-one interviews.  Focus on changing/ending the questions.

A youth confessing to a predator is probably the worst thing that the youth could do.  That allows the predator to be able to immediately use guilt to coerce the youth into a bad situation.  So if the Bishop was a predator, you wouldn't want the youth to confess to him at all.

Also, initiating a interview means that the youth is more trusting of the predator so the predator can more easily groom the youth.  So the ball is definitely not in their court.

You definitely have a point there. But in my mind I am picturing a much older youth choosing to go for a confession of some sort, and leaving the option open for that.

@pogi I ran out of posts. To answer your question below. I mean on the regular interviews with questions for worthiness, have two deep. And if they desire to have one on one for something other than the regular interview, such as when they are much older, than that is when I said it may be approppriate. Hopefully there will come a day when two deep is the norm. But I guess my opinion is not shared by many on this board. Add: I think having another person in there may stop questions from being inappropriate. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

ETA again: I think it should be two deep with the interviews that are regulated. But if a youth wants a one on one other than the regular interview, then I'm fine with it. Because they'll hold the ball in their court, IMO.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

They already hold the ball in their court.  They can be seen with someone else if they so choose. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Meaning they aren't being interviewed with questions, it's what they want to speak about during their meeting with the leader that they themselves set up.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What are they being interviewed with then?  Jedi-mind reading?

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Pogo, this is when a youth desires to go in for other reasons then getting a worthy interview. 

I am thoroughly confused.

You initially were talking about 2 deep regulated interviews (unless a youth requests a 1 on 1). 

Now you are talking about something else entirely.   I was addressing your original comment, I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. Are you changing your mind that there shouldn't be 2 deep regulated (not sure what you mean by that) interviews anymore?

 

 

 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You definitely have a point there. But in my mind I am picturing a much older youth choosing to go for a confession of some sort, and leaving the option open for that.

Older youth can do that if they want to.  They just need to ask the Executive Secretary to set up an appointment for them unless he has some open time.  An adult should be outside the door of the bishop's office when a female is in there with him and the door should not be locked.