High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you want any of these women teaching your sons?

Abbie Jane Swogger; Abigail Holloway; Adrienne Laflamme; Adrienne Laflamme; Alexandria Vera; Alison Mosbeck; Alison Peck; Allenna Ward; Amanda Athey; Amber Jennings; Amber Marshall; Amira Sa’Di; Amy Beck; Amy Bramhall; Amy Elder; Amy Elder; Amy Lilley; Amy McElhenny; Amy N. Miller; Amy Northcutt; Amy Yarbrough; Andrea Fox; Andrea Martinez; Andrea Martinez; Angela Christine Coffey; Angela Comer; Angela Palmer; Angela Stellwag; Anna Bettencourt; Anne Knopf; April Watson; Ashley Hall; Ashley Flores; Autumn Leathers; Barbara Anderson; Becci Hill; Beth Ann Chester; Beth Raymond; Beth Shepherd; Bethany Sherrill; Brandy Lynn Gonzales; Brenda Baillargeon; Brenda Osborne; Bridgett Szychulski; Brittni Colleps; Cameo Patch; Carmen Brown; Carol Flannigan; Carrie McCandless; Carrie O’Conner; Cathy Heminghaus; Celeste Emerick; Chandra Franks; Christel C. Gravlin; Christie Elliot; Christina Gallagher; Christina Oliver; Christine Duda; Christine Scarlett; Christine Jouini; Christine McCallum; Christine Spaich; Christy Anne Brown; Christy Martin; Claire Richards; Courtney Bowles; Courtney Jarrell; Cris Morris; Crissy Hisey; Crystal Wells; Cynthia Horvath; Danielle Jones; Danielle Watkins; Darcie Esson; Dawn Welter; Deanna Bobo; Deborah Reeder; Debra LaFave; Denise Keesee; Diana Canter; Donna Washburne; Dorothy Dixon; Elisa Martinelli; Elisha Kingsley; Elizabeth Livesay; Elizabeth Miklosovic; Elizabeth Munn; Elizabeth Stow; Ellen Garfield; Ellen Niemiec; Emily Elizabeth Housley; Emily Morris; Erica Baker; Erica Rutters; Erica Umosella; Erin McLean; Erin Queen; Ethel Anderson; Franca and Antonia Munoz-Juvera; Gail E. Gagne; Gay Lyn Turley; Georgianne Harrell; Gina Marie Watring; Gwen Cardozo; Haven Kirkpatrick; Heather Lea Burroughs; Heather Ingram; Heather Kennedy; Heather Thorsby; Heather Lynne Zeo; Hope Jacoby; Hope Johns; Jacquelyn Faith Garrison; Jamie Armstrong; Jamie Waite; Janelle Batkins; Janelle Bird; Janet Hughes; Janet Parker; Jaymee Wallace; Jennifer Cisco; Jennifer Dempsey; Jennifer Dorland; Jennifer Espinosa; Jennifer Mally; Jennifer Rice; Jennifer Tarkenton; Jennifer Whiting; Jessica Bailey Wishnask; Joan Marie Sladky; Jodi Church; Julia Lund; Julie A. Denno; Julie Pritchett; Kalyn Thompson; Kalyn Darby Thompson; Kandace Christopher; Kanesa Hopkins; Karen Patton; Karen Robbins; Kasey Johnes; Katherine J. Harder; Katherine Hicks; Katherine Tew; Kathy White; Katie Cross; Katryna Martin; Kellie Ann Cormican; Christina Oliver; Kelly Ann Garcia; Kelly Dalecki; Kelsey Peterson; Kenzi Friday; Kesha D. Manuel; Kimberly Lynch; Kinsley Wentzky; Kirsten Kinley; Kristen Margrif; Kristi Oakes; Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo; Kristyn Breeds; Lakina Stutts; Laura Lynn Findlay; Laura Pace; Lauren Cosgrove; Lauren Harrington-Cooper; Leslie Baird; Linda Hardan; Linda Nef; Linda Pithyou; Lindsay Massaro; Lisa Lavoie; Lisa Robyn Marinelli; Lynn Saunders; Marcie L. Rousseau; Marcy R. Fisher; Margaret De Barraicua; Maria Guzman Hernandez; Maria Saco; Mariella Brenlla; Marla Gurecki-Haskins; Mary Jo Spack; Mary Kay Letourneau; Megan Mahoney; Megan Sainsbury; Megan Snipes; Melinda Deluca; Melinda Dennehy; Melissa Andreini; Melissa Bare; Melissa Chase; Melissa Deel; Melissa Diana Koeh; Melissa Lavender; Melissa Dawn McCord; Melissa Moss; Melissa Snow; Melissa Weber; Meredith Hollen; Meredith Kane; Michelle Farley; Michelle Kush; Michelle Morano; Michelle VanMeter; Michelle Zulkowsky; Natalie Fraxedas; Natasha Sizow; Nicole Barnhart; Nicole Dufault; Nicole Kurowski; Nicole Long; Nicole Pomerleau; Pamela Balogh; Pamela Diehl-Moore; Pamela Smart; Pamela Rogers Turner; Rachel Burkhart; Rachel Holt; Rachelle Heenan; Rachelle Vantucci; Rebecca Boicelli; Rebecca Becker and Maria Zurita; Rebecca Bogard; Rebecca Ann Bramlett; Rebecca Lee Kelley; Rebecca Noonan; Rebekah Todd; Rebecca Robertson-Shaffer; Regina McKay; Rhianna Ellis; Rita Brum; Robin Gialanella; Robin Winkis; Rosanna Encinas Brown; Samantha Solomon; Sandra Binkley; Sandra Borrego; Sandra “Beth” Geisel; Sarah Bridges; Sarah Joel; Sarah Raymo; Sarah L. Tolzien; Shannon Best; Shannon Herring; Shannon Young; Sharon Rutherford; Shebana Rajput; Shelley Allen; Sheila Vazquez; Sheral Smith; Sherry Brians; Sheryl A. Namahine; Stacy Hopkins; Stephanie Adams; Stephanie Burleson; Stephanie Giambelluca; Stephanie Diane Harris; Stephanie Ragusa; Stephanie Seabury; Stephanie Ann Stein; Stephanie Jo Walters; Summer Hansen; Susan Clickner; Tabitha Adams; Tamara Ryman; Tara Driscoll; Tawni Wimberley; Teresa Engelbach; Tina Mason; Toni Allexy; Toni Woods; Traci Tapp; Valynne Bowers; Wendie Schweikert; and Yvette Starzyk.

This is a list of female school teachers who have been accused and/or convicted of sexually assaulting minor students (from, I believe, this list, published in 2014).

Where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

So is your question a fair and reasonable one?  

Thanks,

-Smac

You are a lawyer, and a very smart man. I'm not very smart actually, but this isn't a good analogy IMO, because it doesn't have these women in a one on one interview does it, asking about their chastity? Does the article you linked have 8 to 12 year olds being victimized? Seems that the majority I read, were high school and junior high.  ETA: ran out of allotted posts for now, in case you need a response. BTW, the list of all of these women that have been sexually abusive, makes me sick to my stomach.

ETA again... @pogi  To your post below this one, of course not, that is ludicrous. Why won't you answer my question in the other post? I'm cheating the system by editing now, trying to post without alloted posts here. But would love a response from you. Or I won't bug anymore, and let it go. That's fine and we all have our opinions, I will try to understand yours, and maybe you could understand mine. I guess if you haven't read the letters it might not hit you like it did me. And I've had a bad experience with a one on one while young with a bishop's counselor, who got a little too close while asking questions. He took me to a classroom and had me sit beside him almost knee to knee, it was scary and creepy and we were all alone. But on the opposite side, I later remember speaking with a single's ward bishop when I was out of high school and preparing to return to activity after a short stint of inactivity and he was awesome, did this on my own free will. 

ETA once again, @smac97 to your question below...

"Meanwhile, can you point to to any instance where a bishop has sexually abused a child during a "one on one" interview?"   Yes, in the letters sent to Sam Young there were times that the deed happened in the bishop's office. And I felt icky when I had my interview. See where I mentioned it to Pogi above. Would you want your son/daughter in that predicament? Where you've no idea what a bishop or counselor could say if they are inclined to and maybe take advantage, like the topic's subject that took photos of a girl undressing, do you think he could say/ask something damaging? I do.

And @smac97this statement to me in bold: 

That's your position?  Female teachers are entitled to sexually exploit minors as long as they are in "high school and junior high?"  Is beyond ludicrous, what is the deal?

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are a lawyer, and a very smart man. I'm not very smart actually, but this isn't a good analogy IMO, because it doesn't have these women in a one on one interview does it, asking about their chastity? Does the article you linked have 8 to 12 year olds being victimized? Seems that the majority I read, were high school and junior high.  

So, you are only concerned about protecting children 8-12 years old who are sexually assaulted in an interview setting?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are a lawyer, and a very smart man. I'm not very smart actually, but this isn't a good analogy IMO, because it doesn't have these women in a one on one interview does it, asking about their chastity?

These women misused their position of influence and authority over, and access to, and relationship with, and trust received from, minors in order to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with those youth.  So I'd say the analogy works pretty well.

Meanwhile, can you point to to any instance where a bishop has sexually abused a child during a "one on one" interview?

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Does the article you linked have 8 to 12 year olds being victimized? Seems that the majority I read, were high school and junior high.  

That's your position?  Female teachers are entitled to sexually exploit minors as long as they are in "high school and junior high?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

ETA again... @pogi  To your post below this one, of course not, that is ludicrous. 

I didn't think so, which has me scratching my head as to why you are singling out worthiness interviews as somehow more dangerous for kids than anything else.  You say that if we support worthiness interviews we don't care about kids safety, well, I can say the same thing to you if you support any kind of one on one interaction with children in any other form or industry.  I am scratching my head as to why you think we should only be talking about worthiness interviews and trying to guilty trip us if we support them. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why won't you answer my question in the other post?

Probably because you never directed a question at me, at least that I can see.  I don't see anything in my notifications and have even reviewed this thread, and don't see anything.  Are you confusing me for someone else?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I didn't think so, which has me scratching my head as to why you are singling out worthiness interviews as somehow more dangerous for kids than anything else.  You say that if we support worthiness interviews we don't care about kids safety, well, I can say the same thing to you if you support any kind of one on one interaction with children in any other form or industry.  I am scratching my head as to why you think we should only be talking about worthiness interviews and trying to guilty trip us if we support them. 

Probably because you never directed a question at me, at least that I can see.  I don't see anything in my notifications and have even reviewed this thread, and don't see anything.  Are you confusing me for someone else?

What other organization still supports one on one (adult-youth) interviews behind closed doors?  The only ones I can think of are licensed counselors. 
 

Our church has now also told all adults to not be alone with youth (bishopric and stake presidency interviews being the exception). 

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What other organization still supports one on one (adult-youth) interviews behind closed doors?  The only ones I can think of are licensed counselors. 
 

Our church has now also told all adults to not be alone with youth (bishopric and stake presidency interviews being the exception). 

Again, most incidents don't happen in an "interview" scenario.  Why are we singling that out?  It is simply being alone with children that creates the risk.  Most incidents happen alone with parents, other family members, and friends etc.  But to name a few professions that are frequently alone with children - day care workers, nurses, doctors, teachers, coaches, social workers, psychiatrists, counselors, police officers, babysitters, to name a few off the top of my head.  

Edited November 5, 2019 by pogi

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, most incidents don't happen in an "interview" scenario.  Why are we singling that out?  It is simply being alone with children that creates the risk.

Sam Young has documented some alleged incidents that have happened in bishops' offices.  But I think a primary reason many want to see these one on one worthiness interviews end is because of the claimed "grooming" effect they believe they create.

Quote

Most incidents happen alone with parents, other family members, and friends etc.

Agreed.  And we should do all we can to watch for those instances and work to avoid/stop them.  That's part of what the church's new training does.

Quote

But to name a few professions that are frequently alone with children - day care workers, nurses, doctors, teachers, coaches, social workers, psychiatrists, counselors, police officers, babysitters, to name a few off the top of my head.  

I don't believe day care workers are alone with children.  I've never let a nurse or doctor be alone with my child.  I believe that teachers and coaches have the same rules as we do in the church (and in scouting) of not being alone with a child.  Social workers, psychiatrists and counselors are the licensed professionals I mentioned earlier - and are the only ones I know of (outside the church) who have alone time with kids.  Not sure why anyone's child would ever be alone with a police officer.  Babysitters are a parent's decision.

 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe day care workers are alone with children. 

It happens more than you think.  I have a day care right below my office.  My office window looks out onto the daycare outdoor area, I frequently only see one adult alone with a couple children.  But they are frequently alone changing their diapers, helping them use the potty, etc. 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 I've never let a nurse or doctor be alone with my child.

You have never had a child in intensive/long-term care then.  As an RN, who has worked several shifts at Primary Children's Hospital, I can assure you that nurses are frequently alone with children. 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that teachers and coaches have the same rules as we do in the church (and in scouting) of not being alone with a child. 

No hard rules that I am aware of, just suggestions to CYOB.  Private tutors (related) is another profession.

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure why anyone's child would ever be alone with a police officer. 

Unfortunately, I have first hand experience with that.  Let's just say I was kind of a punk kid...  I was definitely alone with a police officer though.  

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Babysitters are a parent's decision.

So are bishops interviews and pretty much everything else.

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But I think a primary reason many want to see these one on one worthiness interviews end is because of the claimed "grooming" effect they believe they create.

Typically grooming requires frequent and repeated interaction with a child.  A once/year 15-30 minute interview is in no way fertile grooming grounds in my opinion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sam Young has documented some alleged incidents that have happened in bishops' offices.

'Documented' is an interesting choice of words, one that implies that actual documents were involved.

Quote

But I think a primary reason many want to see these one on one worthiness interviews end is because of the claimed "grooming" effect they believe they create.

Good use of speech marks. This 'belief' has no established basis in reality, that I'm aware of.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say it's far likelier for a parent to molest a child than for a bishop to do so.  Yet the no-one-on-one interviews crowd makes reporting of such abuse less likely by increasing the probability that a young person's abuser will be able to accompany the young person to the interview, simply in an attempt to prevent the far-less-likely possibility of untoward behavior by bishops.  I have yet to see anyone who opposes one-on-one interviews address that distinct possibility.  Instead, those who raise it are accused of not wanting to protect the children.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kenngo1969
Fixed typo! I was on mobile! Bold added.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I have yet to see anyone who opposes one-on-one interviews address that distinct possibility.

There is actually substantial literature on the protective nature of clergy in the lives of young people. But we're not dealing with people who pay much if any attention to academic research or even known statistics.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It happens more than you think.  I have a day care right below my office.  My office window looks out onto the daycare outdoor area, I frequently only see one adult alone with a couple children.  But they are frequently alone changing their diapers, helping them use the potty, etc.

I wouldn't use such a daycare.  Then again, I've never been in a position where I had to use daycare for my kids so I don't know how I would handle that.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

No hard rules that I am aware of, just suggestions to CYOB.  Private tutors (related) is another profession.

I don't know.  My kids' schools don't even have private offices or classrooms where a teacher could be alone with a student.  But again, that's my experience only.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So are bishops interviews and pretty much everything else.

For LDS who want their children to fully participate in the church, Bishop's one on one interviews with their children were not really an option.  Fortunately, and I have praised the church for this, they changed the policy so that parents can choose to have an adult in the interview with their child.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Typically grooming requires frequent and repeated interaction with a child.  A once/year 15-30 minute interview is in no way fertile grooming grounds in my opinion. 

Twice a year from 11 through 18.   And can be more frequent.  Is that enough to assist in the grooming process?  I don't know.  I don't pretend to be an expert in such things.  As I said, I"m just glad that the official policy now is that a parent can join in on the interview.  My current bishop makes a point to invite parents when he is interviewing children who are 11 or younger.  I think that is wise.  My previous bishop didn't necessarily invite parents (although he never said "no" when they asked to join) but he also didn't close his office door all the way.  He would leave it open a few inches.  Does that make a significant difference?  Perhaps not but I think it helps.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Documented' is an interesting choice of words, one that implies that actual documents were involved.

Nope.  I used documented in the sense that he documented the alleged accounts.  And, I did use the word "alleged".

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good use of speech marks. This 'belief' has no established basis in reality, that I'm aware of.

I have no idea - not something I've studied.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say it's far likelier for a parent to molest a child than for a bishop to do so.

I think the statistics substantiate this.

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yet the no-one-on-one interviews crowd makes reporting of such abuse less likely by increasing the probability that a young person's abuser will be able to accompany the young person to the interview, simply in an attempt to prevent the far-less-likely possibility of untoward behavior by bishops.  I have yet to see anyone who opposes one-on-one interviews address that distinct possibility.  Instead, those who raise it are accused of not wanting to protect the children.

I consider my position to be somewhat in the middle on this.  I see the benefits of one on one interviews.  I wouldn't accuse those who are in favor of them to be against protecting children.

On the other hand, I do see some inherent risk in these one on one interviews that I think we need to work to mitigate.  As an example, outside of the ones we normally talk about with respect to this issue, when I was 12 or 13 years old I met with my bishop (a great man who gave me good counsel over the years) and confessed that I had purchased and drank a Pepsi in my middle school cafeteria.  He compared it to drinking beer.  I was devastated and traumatized by that for quite some time.  I doubt that was his intent but maybe another adult in the room could have tempered his comments and saved me a lot of anguish.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I didn't think so, which has me scratching my head as to why you are singling out worthiness interviews as somehow more dangerous for kids than anything else.  You say that if we support worthiness interviews we don't care about kids safety, well, I can say the same thing to you if you support any kind of one on one interaction with children in any other form or industry.  I am scratching my head as to why you think we should only be talking about worthiness interviews and trying to guilty trip us if we support them. 

Probably because you never directed a question at me, at least that I can see.  I don't see anything in my notifications and have even reviewed this thread, and don't see anything.  Are you confusing me for someone else?

I'm so sorry about that Pogi, I'm losing it! It was Provoman that I should have said that to. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say it's far likelier for a parent to molest a child than for a bishop to do so.  Yet the no-one-on-one interviews crowd makes reporting of such abuse less likely by increasing the probability that a young person's abuser will be able to accompany the young person to the interview, simply in an attempt to prevent the far-less-likely possibility of untoward behavior by bishops.  I have yet to see anyone who opposes one-on-one interviews address that distinct possibility.  Instead, those who raise it are accused of not wanting to protect the children.

Great point, I don't disagree. Then have a YW or YM leader join the bishop or counselor. Easy peasy, but maybe the parent that abuses could insist. So it's not so easy peasy. There have been far too many instances of abuse to just scratch the idea though.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I used documented in the sense that he documented the alleged accounts.

I'm not sure that matches any of the definitions that Merriam-Webster gives:

Quote

1: to furnish documentary evidence of

2: to furnish with documents

3a: to provide with factual or substantial support for statements made or a hypothesis proposed

3b(1): to construct or produce (something, such as a movie or novel) with authentic situations or events

     (2): to portray realistically

What he did was actually to solicit anonymous anecdotes from within a community of self-identified dissidents and then uncritically collected and shared them -- including accounts of cannibalism, child sacrifice and Church leaders running child prostitution rings out of their offices.

Which, on a practical level, is little different to soliciting and publishing anonymous short stories.

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

ETA once again, @smac97 to your question below...

"Meanwhile, can you point to to any instance where a bishop has sexually abused a child during a "one on one" interview?"   Yes, in the letters sent to Sam Young there were times that the deed happened in the bishop's office.

Meh.  Unsubstantiated, unvetted, anonymous online anecdotes don't carry any appreciable probative weight.

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And @smac97this statement to me in bold: 

That's your position?  Female teachers are entitled to sexually exploit minors as long as they are in "high school and junior high?"  Is beyond ludicrous, what is the deal?

Well, let's review.

I posted a big list of female school teachers who have been accused and/or convicted of sexually assaulting minor students (and I provided a link to an article about them), then asked:

Quote

Where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

You responded:

Quote

You are a lawyer, and a very smart man. I'm not very smart actually, but this isn't a good analogy IMO, because it doesn't have these women in a one on one interview does it, asking about their chastity?
...
Does the article you linked have 8 to 12 year olds being victimized? Seems that the majority I read, were high school and junior high.

See, here it looks like you are attempting to differentiate purported abuse by bishops from actual abuse by female school teachers.  You seemed to be differentiating them by pointing to the age of the abuse victims.  So I asked:

Quote

These women misused their position of influence and authority over, and access to, and relationship with, and trust received from, minors in order to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with those youth.  So I'd say the analogy works pretty well.
...
That's your position?  Female teachers are entitled to sexually exploit minors as long as they are in "high school and junior high?"

You later clarified:

Quote

BTW, the list of all of these women that have been sexually abusive, makes me sick to my stomach.

Well, I'm glad to hear it.  But then why did you bring up the age of the abuse victims?  

Also, where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

Don't you see what you are doing?  It looks like you are privileging (female) teachers because A) their victims are usually in "high school and junior high," B) you are not vilifying female teachers as a category (as you are with bishops), C) you are not treating all female teachers as presumptively untrustworthy, as nascent perverts and child molesters (as you are with bishops), and so on.

Hamba Tuhan previously observed: "I've never said the bishop is 'the only way'. But I work in this space, and consequently I'm a bit informed. I know, for example, that trusted ecclesiastical leaders are one of the main avenues victims have for reporting. We have data on this; it's not just some opinion.  And yet you seem to be hell-bent on removing this option just because people with axes to grind against the Church are currently using this attack line and you've bought it."  That has been my perception as well.

I guess it's just weird to see what comes across as schadenfreude in your posts.  For example, regarding the news of an arrest of a male member of the Church accused of sexual misconduct, you crow: "Another one bites the dust!"  I can't wrap my head around that response.  This man has apparently spent years victimizing young women.  He has destroyed his own career and reputation.  He has likely caused tremendous shame to his wife and other family members.  He has brought the good name of the Church into disrepute, and abused the trust it reposed in him.  And your response is a seemingly gleeful "Another one bites the dust!"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Twice a year from 11 through 18.   And can be more frequent.  Is that enough to assist in the grooming process?  I don't know.  I don't pretend to be an expert in such things.  As I said, I"m just glad that the official policy now is that a parent can join in on the interview.  My current bishop makes a point to invite parents when he is interviewing children who are 11 or younger.  I think that is wise.  My previous bishop didn't necessarily invite parents (although he never said "no" when they asked to join) but he also didn't close his office door all the way.  He would leave it open a few inches.  Does that make a significant difference?  Perhaps not but I think it helps.

Slight correction. The bishopric is instructed in the Handbook to interview the younger youth at least once a year and once.a year either by the Bishop or one of his counselors for a total of two interviews until they are a Priest or a Young Woman who would have previously been called a Laurel. Traditionally the second interview is done by the First Counselor for those of Teacher or “Miamaid” age and the Second Counselor those of Deacon or “Beehive” age. So generally bishops interview each youth once a year until they are older. More are, of course, possible.

 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say it's far likelier for a parent to molest a child than for a bishop to do so.  Yet the no-one-on-one interviews crowd makes reporting of such abuse less likely by increasing the probability that a young person's abuser will be able to accompany the young person to the interview, simply in an attempt to prevent the far-less-likely possibility of untoward behavior by bishops.  I have yet to see anyone who opposes one-on-one interviews address that distinct possibility.  Instead, those who raise it are accused of not wanting to protect the children.

Solid bet. The most likely perpetrator is a parent, more often the father followed by relatives and family friends. It is rarely someone unknown. The statistics are also sadly skewed by the reality that most parental sexual abuse is unreported. If you look at cases reported to law enforcement it skews the other way to others abusing the child for the obvious reason that parents have an easier time hiding the abuse and the parents are more likely to involve law enforcement if the abuse is done by someone else.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  Unsubstantiated, unvetted, anonymous online anecdotes don't carry any appreciable probative weight.

Well, let's review.

I posted a big list of female school teachers who have been accused and/or convicted of sexually assaulting minor students (and I provided a link to an article about them), then asked:

You responded:

See, here it looks like you are attempting to differentiate purported abuse by bishops from actual abuse by female school teachers.  You seemed to be differentiating them by pointing to the age of the abuse victims.  So I asked:

You later clarified:

Well, I'm glad to hear it.  But then why did you bring up the age of the abuse victims?  

Also, where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

Don't you see what you are doing?  It looks like you are privileging (female) teachers because A) their victims are usually in "high school and junior high," B) you are not vilifying female teachers as a category (as you are with bishops), C) you are not treating all female teachers as presumptively untrustworthy, as nascent perverts and child molesters (as you are with bishops), and so on.

Hamba Tuhan previously observed: "I've never said the bishop is 'the only way'. But I work in this space, and consequently I'm a bit informed. I know, for example, that trusted ecclesiastical leaders are one of the main avenues victims have for reporting. We have data on this; it's not just some opinion.  And yet you seem to be hell-bent on removing this option just because people with axes to grind against the Church are currently using this attack line and you've bought it."  That has been my perception as well.

I guess it's just weird to see what comes across as schadenfreude in your posts.  For example, regarding the news of an arrest of a male member of the Church accused of sexual misconduct, you crow: "Another one bites the dust!"  I can't wrap my head around that response.  This man has apparently spent years victimizing young women.  He has destroyed his own career and reputation.  He has likely caused tremendous shame to his wife and other family members.  He has brought the good name of the Church into disrepute, and abused the trust it reposed in him.  And your response is a seemingly gleeful "Another one bites the dust!"?

Thanks,

-Smac

To the first bold: You seem to be twisting my words a lot here Smac, and not understanding. I think the younger members of the church should not have required worthiness interviews alone with the bishop/counselor. There should be the two deep rule there as well. The older group may want to confess and get something off their chests and I see no problem with them doing that alone where they will feel the need to repent and move forward. It's the younger group that doesn't understand the word chastity and if someone explains it to them, someone unknowledgable, it can do damage IMO. Why do I so clearly remember the icky feelings I had while sitting side by side a man I hardly knew asking me questions in an empty classroom when I was 10 or 11, not sure. Doesn't this bother you? Luckily I didn't go through what some have here. 

But the older youth can be abused as well, with the masturbation question and the abuse heaped upon them if they confess, not all, bishop's roulette. The harm when told they cannot take the sacrament because of it. The stories are horrific at how it made them hate themselves and feel like they were so bad, and had lasting affects. It caused harm, try reading the letters sometime to see what I mean.

To the second bold: Things said on online, don't convey the proper context to what someone is thinking. That sounds so nitpicky to have pointed that out though. I don't nitpick your expressions do I? And no, I wasn't gleeful at all, poor use of punctuation maybe.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Slight correction. The bishopric is instructed in the Handbook to interview the younger youth at least once a year and once.a year either by the Bishop or one of his counselors for a total of two interviews until they are a Priest or a Young Woman who would have previously been called a Laurel. Traditionally the second interview is done by the First Counselor for those of Teacher or “Miamaid” age and the Second Counselor those of Deacon or “Beehive” age. So generally bishops interview each youth once a year until they are older. More are, of course, possible.

Twice a year (and possibly more often if you include recommend renewals, extending/releasing callings, or just at the bishop's discretion) a youth can be taken behind closed doors, interviewed one on one, and potentially asked questions about sexual matters.  In terms of the grooming argument, I don't think it matters whether it is the bishop or his counselor doing those interviews.  My understanding (again, I'm not an expert on this) is that you are conditioning a child to be comfortable being alone with an adult male and discussing sexual matters.

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Twice a year (and possibly more often if you include recommend renewals, extending/releasing callings, or just at the bishop's discretion) a youth can be taken behind closed doors, interviewed one on one, and potentially asked questions about sexual matters.  In terms of the grooming argument, I don't think it matters whether it is the bishop or his counselor doing those interviews.  My understanding (again, I'm not an expert on this) is that you are conditioning a child to be comfortable being alone with an adult male and discussing sexual matters.

It does matter unless the bishop and the counselor are colluding to jointly groom the kid (very unlikely). They are also not discussing sexual matters. They might discuss dating and there is the law of chastity question in the temple recommend interview but that is as far as it goes usually. I am morbidly curious as to what you imagine goes on in these interviews that it could possibly constitute grooming.

This reminds me of the devil sacrificial worship hysteria when I was young. It is about the emotion and not the reality.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To the first bold: You seem to be twisting my words a lot here Smac, and not understanding. I think the younger members of the church should not have required worthiness interviews alone with the bishop/counselor.

I can and do respect that position.

I think that position can be advanced without vilifying all bishops as nascent perverts and child molesters (as folks like Sam Young has done).

Quote

There should be the two deep rule there as well.

What are your thoughts about the potential impact on the priest/penitent privilege?

Quote

The older group may want to confess and get something off their chests and I see no problem with them doing that alone where they will feel the need to repent and move forward. It's the younger group that doesn't understand the word chastity and if someone explains it to them, someone unknowledgable, it can do damage IMO.

Doesn't the Church's current policy already allow for a third party to be present?

Quote

But the older youth can be abused as well, with the masturbation question and the abuse heaped upon them if they confess, not all, bishop's roulette.

"Abuse heaped upon them?"  Where do you get this?

Quote

The harm when told they cannot take the sacrament because of it. The stories are horrific at how it made them hate themselves and feel like they were so bad, and had lasting affects. It caused harm, try reading the letters sometime to see what I mean.

"The letters" meaning the unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-posted-online stories?

And again, haven't these issues been substantively addressed in the Church's current policies?

Quote

To the second bold: Things said on online, don't convey the proper context to what someone is thinking. 

So "Another one bites the dust!", in response to a man ruining many lives, was intended to convey what sort of "context?"  If not schadenfreude/glee, then what?

On second thought, never mind.  I'm board nannying.  Not my business.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 6, 2019 by smac97

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It does matter unless the bishop and the counselor are colluding to jointly groom the kid (very unlikely). They are also not discussing sexual matters. They might discuss dating and there is the law of chastity question in the temple recommend interview but that is as far as it goes usually. I am morbidly curious as to what you imagine goes on in these interviews that it could possibly constitute grooming.

This reminds me of the devil sacrificial worship hysteria when I was young. It is about the emotion and not the reality.

Again, I'm not an expert on what constitutes "grooming", I was attempting to explain what I understand to be the common "anti-one-on-one interview" position.  And I don't think it requires collusion.  I think it is based on the idea that the interview process could condition kids to be comfortable being alone with an adult and discussing sexual matters.

What do I imagine goes on in the interviews?  Over the nearly 5 years that I did youth interviews, I never went beyond "Do you obey the law of chastity?"  But I was serving as a counselor.  I think that many bishops stick to just that question.  But some do not.  Some ask for more detail.  And I've heard enough anecdotal experiences from fellow church members that I think there is an issue that ought to be addressed with respect to discussion involving sexual matters.  I'd love to see the Brethren add some handbook clarification and boundaries on these youth interviews.