High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I have admitted, time and time again, that I don't believe every story on there is truthful.  But I do believe that many are.

The point, from @The Nehor, that I am countering is the claim that those who want to end one on one interviews have taken an "almost entirely emotional" position.  I don't believe that's true anymore than those who are in favor of continuing one on one interviews are taking an "almost entirely emotional" position.

There are both emotional and logical arguments on both sides of this issue.  I am opposed to ending one on one interviews but I don't dismiss the arguments against as being "irrational posturing".

If it was rational those who oppose it would care when people bring up that interviews sometimes end ongoing abuse. No one does. They just carry on with the hand wringing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I reject this collection as evidence of anything.

I know you don't need the context, but there are interesting studies into how social media has made it easier to foment moral panics.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Honest question, 

When you want a worthiness interview do you ask for others to come in and listen?

As an adult, why would I? But as a youth, no problem. And again, I've no qualms about an older youth having a one on one, if they need to clear something up.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As an adult, why would I? But as a youth, no problem. And again, I've no qualms about an older youth having a one on one, if they need to clear something up.

I would have hated it as a youth.

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would have hated it as a youth.

Same!

Two of the most commonly cited protective factors when it comes to child abuse are 'family participation in a religious faith' and 'supportive adults outside the family who serve as role models or mentors'. Either people know this and want to weaken established protective factors, or they're just lazily looking for a cause so they can feel good about themselves. I hope it's the latter!

Edited November 7, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

they're just stupidly looking for a cause so they can feel good about themselve

I wouldn't say stupidly in every case, hopefully not most cases.  I think it is more wanting to be decisive and not have to expend time and resources on choosing.  They assume it is "common sense" and needs no complicated analysis.  

Also I think this is a horrific topic for many and frightening and it is comforting to believe there might be easy things to do that could make a dramatic change.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't say stupidly in every case, hopefully not most cases.  I think it is more wanting to be decisive and not have to expend time and resources on choosing.  They assume it is "common sense" and needs no complicated analysis.  

Fair point. I edited my statement to read 'lazily'. Thanks.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't say stupidly in every case, hopefully not most cases.  I think it is more wanting to be decisive and not have to expend time and resources on choosing.  They assume it is "common sense" and needs no complicated analysis.  

Also I think this is a horrific topic for many and frightening and it is comforting to believe there might be easy things to do that could make a dramatic change.

This is also the case. I was talking to someone about the flaws in family courts and CPS and foster care the other day and how sometimes the cure ends up worse than the disease. He asked how to fix it as if there was an easy solution to make all that pain and torment not happen. You see kids who have been so mistreated with poison their whole life that people showing love is almost toxic to them.

I suspect it is realizations like this that either deepen faith or destroy it. Dark night of the Soul stuff. Left to wonder at a God that would hold back and allow it. I have mentioned before that if God showed up in a family court and admitted entrusting his children into the care of many of the parents they were sent to God would be up on child endangerment charges and lose parental rights. I can only try to summon up faith it is worth it between those times when the Holy Ghost shares the endgame and I know it is.

Edited November 7, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect it is realizations like this that either deepen faith or destroy it. Dark night of the Soul stuff. Left to wonder at a God that would hold back and allow it. I have mentioned before that if God showed up in a family court and admitted entrusting his children into the care of many of the parents they were sent to God would be up on child endangerment charges lose parental rights. I can only try to summon up faith it is worth it between those times when the Holy Ghost shares the endgame and I know it is.

I have a lot of questions for God.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a lot of questions for God.

I do too but I suspect seeing Him might answer them before I can ask them.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do too but I suspect seeing Him might answer them before I can ask them.

I too believe that the pieces will likely fall together quickly once the context is known.  It boils down imo to why the need for suffering and if the worst can be explained, the rest should be easily understood.

[Tacenda]

@smac97 @Hamba Tuhan @The Nehor

This man and many others are the reasons I'm against the one on one interviews and wouldn't want any youth/children near this guy. When a person views c h i l d p o r n, they are the reason thousands of children are subjected to the horrific abuse and their innocence shattered. Unable to post the link, keep getting the forbidden 403. Google his name though, but I'm sure you know about him and just forgot. Timothy James Hallows  He was a bishop at the time of his arrest.

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If it was rational those who oppose it would care when people bring up that interviews sometimes end ongoing abuse. No one does. They just carry on with the hand wringing.

First, I assume you have evidence of interviews ending abuse, right?  Since that’s the standard you’re imposing on the other side of the discussion.
 

Second, CFR that they don’t care.  And that they are “hand wringing”. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Having two leaders present all the time is difficult as well.

The other day I arrived to cubs scouts early.  All of a sudden, boys started arriving! What was I to do? there wasn't another adult there and the boys just kept coming! I was about to run away screening when another adult arrived. Tragedy averted.

it was close, for a full 4 minutes I was the only adult in a room full of 8 and 9 year old boys. 

They were in danger!

Where was Sam Young?

If only he were there to protect those young, innocent boys from the terror of being in the presence of one adult!

 

Church guidelines suggest that if you can’t both be there by the time a child arrives, the parent should stay until the other leader is there. 
 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same!

Two of the most commonly cited protective factors when it comes to child abuse are 'family participation in a religious faith' and 'supportive adults outside the family who serve as role models or mentors'.

This makes sense to me. 

Quote

Either people know this and want to weaken established protective factors, or they're just lazily looking for a cause so they can feel good about themselves. I hope it's the latter!

Ending the practice of one on one interviews wouldn’t put a stop to family participation in religious faith nor supportive adults serving as mentors and role models.  So, your conclusion here doesn’t follow. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ending the practice of one on one interviews wouldn’t put a stop to family participation in religious faith nor supportive adults serving as mentors and role models.  So, your conclusion here doesn’t follow. 

Consider the following:

Quote

I have dreamed of going to Washington D.C. and calling on every embassy.  I’d expose to them the evil practice that the Mormon Church is spreading in their homelands.  For those countries that don’t permit proselyting, I’d give them more ammunition for continuing to outlaw missionaries.  I’d love to speak with the Russians.  They got it right when they restricted Mormon proselyting.  And…they likely don’t even know about the despicable interview practices they are saving their children from.

I feel sorry for the missionaries.  They don’t comprehend that they’re spreading an irresponsible and degrading practice that will harm children all around the world.

Statements like this are designed to drive a wedge between members and the Church and those who serve in it.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Consider the following:

Statements like this are designed to drive a wedge between members and the Church and those who serve in it.

Okay... so now we’re shifting back to Sam Young specifically and away from all those who support ending one on one interviews?

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Church guidelines suggest that if you can’t both be there by the time a child arrives, the parent should stay until the other leader is there. 
 

And if they don't stay?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Danzo

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This man and many others are the reasons I'm against the one on one interviews and wouldn't want any youth/children near this guy.

I wouldn't want any youth/children near this guy either, regardless of the specific context. Please provide the evidence you have that documents specific links between bishopric interviews and his offending.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

And if they don't stay?

I would ask them to stay.  If they don’t, I guess you’re left alone with a kid.  The training just sets the guidelines, I don’t recall is answering this specific question. 

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

First, I assume you have evidence of interviews ending abuse, right?  Since that’s the standard you’re imposing on the other side of the discussion.
 

Second, CFR that they don’t care.  And that they are “hand wringing”. 

You mean statistical evidence? No. I am going to assume that my anecdotes cancel out the collected fan fiction that is constantly being referenced.

You re demanding reference that someone in a specific emotional state? CFR that you are qualified to issue a CFR.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You mean statistical evidence? No. I am going to assume that my anecdotes cancel out the collected fan fiction that is constantly being referenced.

So it’s your anecdotes against theirs. 

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You re demanding reference that someone in a specific emotional state? CFR that you are qualified to issue a CFR.

I’m qualified to request a CFR as a participant of this board.  It’s in the guidelines. 

You have claimed that those who oppose one on one interviews don’t care that sometimes those interviews may help out an end to abuse.  You don’t really know this to be a fact.  It’s an ad hominem argument. 

Here’s the thing... I don’t agree with putting a full stop to one on one interviews though I would appreciate additional guidelines and boundaries given to Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies (from the Brethren).  But, I don’t see a need to misrepresent their position.  Just as I see valid reasons for keeping the interviews as they currently are, I see validity in the position of the other side and I don’t need to make stuff up in an attempt discredit them. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@smac97 @Hamba Tuhan @The Nehor

This man and many others are the reasons I'm against the one on one interviews and wouldn't want any youth/children near this guy. When a person views c h i l d p o r n, they are the reason thousands of children are subjected to the horrific abuse and their innocence shattered. Unable to post the link, keep getting the forbidden 403. Google his name though, but I'm sure you know about him and just forgot. Timothy James Hallows  He was a bishop at the time of his arrest.

Again, this list:

Quote

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.

Why aren't you smearing all female teachers as presumptive perverts and child molesters, the way you are with bishops?

Ang again, what about the Church's published guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse?"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency)?

An excerpt:

Quote

When a member of a stake presidency or bishopric or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview.  Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood (see Handbook 1, 7.4)

Are you aware of this policy?  It seems not.

I think bishops are becoming less willing to meet with youth.  Because of despicable things said about them by people like Sam Young (and folks who replicate his endless smears against all bishops, like...)

-Smac

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You have claimed that those who oppose one on one interviews don’t care that sometimes those interviews may help out an end to abuse.  You don’t really know this to be a fact.  It’s an ad hominem argument. 

It's not ad hominem.  It's the natural and foreseeable consequence of these folks getting their way.  

Surely these folks are not so stupid and myopic as to be unaware of the countless instances in which a bishop has been instrumental in detecting and stopping abuse.  Surely not.  The alternative, then, is that these folks are not stupidly ignorant of the foreseeable consequences of their demands.  They are aware of those consequences, and they just don't care about them.

Quote

Here’s the thing... I don’t agree with putting a full stop to one on one interviews though I would appreciate additional guidelines and boundaries given to Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies (from the Brethren).  

What "guidelines and boundaries" do you think need to be added?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 7, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So it’s your anecdotes against theirs. 

I’m qualified to request a CFR as a participant of this board.  It’s in the guidelines. 

You have claimed that those who oppose one on one interviews don’t care that sometimes those interviews may help out an end to abuse.  You don’t really know this to be a fact.  It’s an ad hominem argument. 

Here’s the thing... I don’t agree with putting a full stop to one on one interviews though I would appreciate additional guidelines and boundaries given to Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies (from the Brethren).  But, I don’t see a need to misrepresent their position.  Just as I see valid reasons for keeping the interviews as they currently are, I see validity in the position of the other side and I don’t need to make stuff up in an attempt discredit them. 

Yeah, but I am more trustworthy with my anecdotes than they are.

It is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking someone to discredit their argument. I am suggesting what their motives are. That does not discredit the argument. My argument that interviews end more abuse then they start is refutation. I am speculating about their motives for fun. I am also (speaking generally and not specifically) right about their motives.