Understanding How to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Predation in the Church

[Meadowchik]

Several years ago, the LDS church released a statement about sexual abuse prevention. In response, Arizona attorney Matthew Long shared his insights about the subject with Mormon Stories.

Both parts of the interview impacted me, because they helped me understand the overall process of predation, and also how it specifically is facilitated in institutions and specifically the LDS church.

In the interview, Matt describes the steps of the grooming process. His description helps me understand that much of the time, predators purposely seek conditions where they feel safe to abuse. They will seek victims who are vulnerable not just to abuse but also to being less able to report abuse.

To be abundantly clear, no institution religious, secular, public or private, can be immune to abuse. The point of this thread is to be aware of the nature of sexual abuse and predation and then specifically where there may be blind spots in our own LDS church and communities:

"Over three hours Matt discusses:

1. The methods of child abusers (including within the LDS context),
2. Matt’s experience prosecuting (and defending) child/sex abusers in Arizona (many of whom are/were LDS),
3. His interactions with LDS law firm Kirton | McConkie, and
4. His reactions to the LDS Church’s recent media release wherein it claims that “no religious organization has done more” to prevent child abuse, and touts its child abuse approach as “the gold standard” amongst all churches."

Edited to add a different interview with Matt Long, since the Mormon Stories link in not allowed. I would have preferred to offer this one initially, but had difficulty searching for it:

"Matt Long, former Sex Crimes Prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney will discuss laws, policies, and practices of the Mormon Church and reporting sexual abuse.

The following topics are covered:

– The different types of disclosures victims make and the issues surrounding different types of disclosures.

– How and why he bishop interview fails victims and perpetuated abuse so often.

– What are the LDS Church’s policies and practices in reporting sexual abuse

-Suggestions of policy changes that must be implemented to keep kids safe while maintaining the theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview."

http://infantsonthrones.com/ep-465-the-lds-church-interview-and-sexual-abuse/

 

Also, Long and Anne McMullin have themselves begun a podcast called What We Know, which expands the topic more generally. I believe that the LDS has its strengths and can continue to develop them and therefore offer insights to the world about abuse prevention and response. We can help each other do better:

"The What We Know Podcast uses case studies, evidence, stories and truth telling to empower everyday people and to highlight the abuses of public figures, influential community leaders, and powerful public and private institutions.  

We address child sexual abuse, sexual and financial exploitation of adults, sexual harassment in the workplace, judiciary corruption, injustice in the criminal justice system, family law abuses, the effects of lobbying, franchise fraud, lending fraud, predatory use of psychedelics, malicious use of civil process, victim behaviors and the strategies predators use to take and maintain power everywhere.

We share What We Know and emphasize what we don’t.

Let’s talk. Let’s act. Let’s make real change…. together."https://whatweknowpod.com/

Edited December 31, 2020 by Meadowchik
We don’t link to John Dehlin stuff on our site. To much drama to deal with anytime he’s involved with anything.

[pogi]

What, in Mathew's opinion, are our blind spots as a church?

Absolutely, we should try to always improve ways to protect our children, but it is also important to consider the costs of those measures.  For example, we can helicopter-parent our children to death, and sure we may protect them from abuse (even though the highest risk for abuse is from immediate family) but at what cost to the child and parent?  Those are things that need to be considered when this is addressed.  Some changes may be good and needed, while other demands may go too far the other way.  The problem is, no one will ever agree on what is the right balance.  But I do think it is important that this discussion be approached in the spirit of balance instead of "protect the children at all costs", or "if you don't do this, then you must not love or care for children', and vise versa. 

I feel like this topic suffers from the same plight that the topic of liberty vs governmental protection suffers.  The more of one we have, the less of the other results.  Liberty is good and so are rights and governmental protections, but if we focus ALL our attention on one, I think we will miss the mark of a healthy balance.   Where is the right balance between the two?  No one will ever agree because there is no universal right answer.  We see the same problem with this topic.  But there certainly can be improvements made through discussion and it should be addressed, as hopeless as it may seem to find agreement. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What, in Mathew's opinion, are our blind spots as a church?

Absolutely, we should try to always improve ways to protect our children, but it is also important to consider the costs of those measures.  For example, we can helicopter-parent our children to death, and sure we may protect them from abuse (even though the highest risk for abuse is from immediate family) but at what cost to the child and parent?  Those are things that need to be considered when this is addressed.  Some changes may be good and needed, while other demands may go too far the other way.  The problem is, no one will ever agree on what is the right balance.  But I do think it is important that this discussion be approached in the spirit of balance instead of "protect the children at all costs", or "if you don't do this, then you must not love or care for children', and vise versa. 

I feel like this topic suffers from the same plight that the topic of liberty vs governmental protection suffers.  The more of one we have, the less of the other results.  Liberty is good and so are rights and governmental protections, but if we focus ALL our attention on one, I think we will miss the mark of a healthy balance.   Where is the right balance between the two?  No one will ever agree because there is no universal right answer.  We see the same problem with this topic.  But there certainly can be improvements made through discussion and it should be addressed, as hopeless as it may seem to find agreement. 

Matthew addresses the ignorance of how predation works, and how reporting appears. I really recommend listening to at least the first interview for a description of the process, one that he has learned about as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, and victims attorney. Generally, predators seek and exploit environments where they can enjoy trust including unearned trust.  An important red flag is the ease at which we can easily feel more trusting of others when they are church members. I have made this mistake myself and I know that it is a common human mistake to privilege people in our social circles to more trust than we extend to others.

On the other end of the issue is response. Matt Long talks about how victims will attempt to report but that this is not necessarily obvious. Some personal experiences have been shared recently on the Sisters Quorum blog. The first was shared by a guest writer, which then inspired a second to also write her experience. They both talk about being assaulted and then going to their bishops. Even at the time, they did not fully understand themselves that they had been assaulted, and unfortunately, neither did their bishops. Because of this lack of understanding they were subjected to church discipline instead of help for the trauma they underwent.

https://sistersquorum.com/2020/12/09/sexual-assault-discipline-and-overcoming-church-sexism/

https://sistersquorum.com/2020/12/29/a-young-womans-sexual-trauma-and-the-problem-of-patriarchal-religion/

And so education is important, not only to help leaders understand but all members. If we can understand and teach consent, fpr example, we can better help to prevent and respond to abuse and meet the needs of abuse victims.

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Meadowchik

[bsjkki]

I had a nice discussion with my young Bishop about this topic. I let him know that most young girls do not want to have sex. He should start with that assumption. Many go down the rabbit hole after a sexual encounter that was out of their control. Sometimes they will think they must confess and they will feel better without understanding they were assaulted. They will blame themselves and instead of understanding trauma responses they will blame themselves for not fighting back enough.

I wish they would study this more...how many teenage girls stay active after being sexually assaulted?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

I had a nice discussion with my young Bishop about this topic. I let him know that most young girls do not want to have sex. He should start with that assumption. Many go down the rabbit hole after a sexual encounter that was out of their control. Sometimes they will think they must confess and they will feel better without understanding they were assaulted. They will blame themselves and instead of understanding trauma responses they will blame themselves for not fighting back enough.

I wish they would study this more...how many teenage girls stay active after being sexually assaulted?

Bingo! Most girls want to feel loved more than in a sexual way.

Also, we need to rip out any pages of a handbook, book or scripture that says sexual sin is second to murder or that if a girl that doesn't fight their attacker is guilty.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I had a nice discussion with my young Bishop about this topic. I let him know that most young girls do not want to have sex. He should start with that assumption. Many go down the rabbit hole after a sexual encounter that was out of their control. Sometimes they will think they must confess and they will feel better without understanding they were assaulted. They will blame themselves and instead of understanding trauma responses they will blame themselves for not fighting back enough.

I wish they would study this more...how many teenage girls stay active after being sexually assaulted?

Thank you for sharing and so glad you and your bishop discussed this.

I definitely think that a misguided response from a bishop makes it more likely for a victim to leave. People tend to go where they feel safe.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I let him know that most young girls do not want to have sex. He should start with that assumption.

I don’t think I agree with that assumption.  They may not be out actively seeking it, but I would suggest that most are tempted if the right opportunity and situation arises.   I would suggest that holding this assumption may wrongly lead one to believe that the majority of premarital sexual encounters are results of rape or coercion by men.  
This also ignores that boys can be victims too.

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, we need to rip out any pages of a handbook, book or scripture that says sexual sin is second to murder or that if a girl that doesn't fight their attacker is guilty.

Yes! And assault victims can still feel physical responses. When it happened to me as a minor, this was confusing and I felt guilty for feeling aroused. Thankfully in my case, my priesthood leader helped me understand that I was guilty of nothing. But, I had still felt the need to "confess" the experience. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Several years ago, the LDS church released a statement about sexual abuse prevention. In response, Arizona attorney Matthew Long shared his insights about the subject with Mormon Stories.

Both parts of the interview impacted me, because they helped me understand the overall process of predation, and also how it specifically is facilitated in institutions and specifically the LDS church.

"Facilitated" by whom?

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In the interview, Matt describes the steps of the grooming process. His description helps me understand that much of the time, predators purposely seek conditions where they feel safe to abuse. They will seek victims who are vulnerable not just to abuse but also to being less able to report abuse.

Yes.  I'm not sure that was obscure or in dispute.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

To be abundantly clear, no institution religious, secular, public or private, can be immune to abuse.

I agree.  Curious, then, that the Church is being singled out.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The point of this thread is to be aware of the nature of sexual abuse and predation and then specifically where there may be blind spots in our own LDS church and communities:

"Over three hours Matt discusses:

1. The methods of child abusers (including within the LDS context),
2. Matt’s experience prosecuting (and defending) child/sex abusers in Arizona (many of whom are/were LDS),
3. His interactions with LDS law firm Kirton | McConkie, and
4. His reactions to the LDS Church’s recent media release wherein it claims that “no religious organization has done more” to prevent child abuse, and touts its child abuse approach as “the gold standard” amongst all churches."

Also, Long and Anne McMullin have themselves begun a podcast called What We Know, which expands the topic more generally. I believe that the LDS has its strengths and can continue to develop them and therefore offer insights to the world about abuse prevention and response.

Long is hardly an objective voice.  He clearly is hostile to the Church.  You knew this, right?  

I'm also not impressed by Anne McMullin.  I found her behavior in the Tom Kimball matter to be pretty . . . uneven.  Questionable.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

We can help each other do better:

I am not really inclined to think that Long and McMullin are interested in helping the Church "do better."

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"The What We Know Podcast uses case studies, evidence, stories and truth telling to empower everyday people and to highlight the abuses of public figures, influential community leaders, and powerful public and private institutions.  

We address child sexual abuse, sexual and financial exploitation of adults, sexual harassment in the workplace, judiciary corruption, injustice in the criminal justice system, family law abuses, the effects of lobbying, franchise fraud, lending fraud, predatory use of psychedelics, malicious use of civil process, victim behaviors and the strategies predators use to take and maintain power everywhere.

We share What We Know and emphasize what we don’t.

Let’s talk. Let’s act. Let’s make real change…. together."https://whatweknowpod.com/

You seem to be advertising for Long and McMullin.  I'm not sure this is an appropriate venue for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think I agree with that assumption.  I would suggest that holding this assumption may wrongly lead one to believe that the majority of premarital sexual encounters are results of rape or coercion by men.  
This also ignores that boys can be victims too.

 

Good point, but it's also good for leaders to not assume that sexual encounters are consensual.

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What, in Mathew's opinion, are our blind spots as a church?

Absolutely, we should try to always improve ways to protect our children, but it is also important to consider the costs of those measures.  For example, we can helicopter-parent our children to death, and sure we may protect them from abuse (even though the highest risk for abuse is from immediate family) but at what cost to the child and parent?  Those are things that need to be considered when this is addressed.  Some changes may be good and needed, while other demands may go too far the other way.  The problem is, no one will ever agree on what is the right balance.  But I do think it is important that this discussion be approached in the spirit of balance instead of "protect the children at all costs", or "if you don't do this, then you must not love or care for children', and vise versa. 

I feel like this topic suffers from the same plight that the topic of liberty vs governmental protection suffers.  The more of one we have, the less of the other results.  Liberty is good and so are rights and governmental protections, but if we focus ALL our attention on one, I think we will miss the mark of a healthy balance.   Where is the right balance between the two?  No one will ever agree because there is no universal right answer.  We see the same problem with this topic.  But there certainly can be improvements made through discussion and it should be addressed, as hopeless as it may seem to find agreement. 

Good points.  The "Law of Unintended Consequences" deserves from real attention.  I have been frustrated with those who hold a vendetta against the Church, and who express that by vilifying its bishops by characterizing them as all nascent perverts and child molesters, and insisting that all bishop interviews be stopped.  These folks don't consider, don't seem to care about, "the costs of those measures."  They don't consider how many times bishops have been instrumental in detecting abuse, in stopping it, in reporting it to law enforcement, in getting the victims assistance, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Facilitated" by whom?

...by systemic conditions that invite people to freely trust each other. This is common to many social groups and LDS should be educated that we are not immune to such exploitation.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I'm not sure that was obscure or in dispute.

On the contrary, I don't think that church members or most cultures in general are familiar with how predation looks and works.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Long is hardly an objective voice.  He clearly is hostile to the Church.  You knew this, right?  

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Did you listen to it? I think it is possible to learn from his experiences and expertise just as I learn from you and your advice. 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm also not impressed by Anne McMullin.  I found her behavior in the Tom Kimball matter to be pretty . . . uneven.  Questionable.

I am not really inclined to think that Long and McMullin are interested in helping the Church "do better."

You seem to be advertising for Long and McMullin.  I'm not sure this is an appropriate venue for that.

I am impressed by Anne's effort to hold LDS and exmormons alike accountable. Uneven as it might be, it takes bravery.

Personally I find their material valuable and want to help continue the conversations they are initiating. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Several years ago, the LDS church released a statement about sexual abuse prevention. In response, Arizona attorney Matthew Long shared his insights about the subject with Mormon Stories.

Both parts of the interview impacted me, because they helped me understand the overall process of predation, and also how it specifically is facilitated in institutions and specifically the LDS church.

In the interview, Matt describes the steps of the grooming process. His description helps me understand that much of the time, predators purposely seek conditions where they feel safe to abuse. They will seek victims who are vulnerable not just to abuse but also to being less able to report abuse.

To be abundantly clear, no institution religious, secular, public or private, can be immune to abuse. The point of this thread is to be aware of the nature of sexual abuse and predation and then specifically where there may be blind spots in our own LDS church and communities:

"Over three hours Matt discusses:

1. The methods of child abusers (including within the LDS context),
2. Matt’s experience prosecuting (and defending) child/sex abusers in Arizona (many of whom are/were LDS),
3. His interactions with LDS law firm Kirton | McConkie, and
4. His reactions to the LDS Church’s recent media release wherein it claims that “no religious organization has done more” to prevent child abuse, and touts its child abuse approach as “the gold standard” amongst all churches."

 

 

Also, Long and Anne McMullin have themselves begun a podcast called What We Know, which expands the topic more generally. I believe that the LDS has its strengths and can continue to develop them and therefore offer insights to the world about abuse prevention and response. We can help each other do better:

"The What We Know Podcast uses case studies, evidence, stories and truth telling to empower everyday people and to highlight the abuses of public figures, influential community leaders, and powerful public and private institutions.  

We address child sexual abuse, sexual and financial exploitation of adults, sexual harassment in the workplace, judiciary corruption, injustice in the criminal justice system, family law abuses, the effects of lobbying, franchise fraud, lending fraud, predatory use of psychedelics, malicious use of civil process, victim behaviors and the strategies predators use to take and maintain power everywhere.

We share What We Know and emphasize what we don’t.

Let’s talk. Let’s act. Let’s make real change…. together."https://whatweknowpod.com/

Edited to add a different interview with Matt Long, since the Mormon Stories link in not allowed. I would have preferred to offer this one initially, but had difficulty searching for it:

"Matt Long, former Sex Crimes Prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney will discuss laws, policies, and practices of the Mormon Church and reporting sexual abuse.

The following topics are covered:

– The different types of disclosures victims make and the issues surrounding different types of disclosures.

– How and why he bishop interview fails victims and perpetuated abuse so often.

– What are the LDS Church’s policies and practices in reporting sexual abuse

-Suggestions of policy changes that must be implemented to keep kids safe while maintaining the theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview."

http://infantsonthrones.com/ep-465-the-lds-church-interview-and-sexual-abuse/

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Edited to add a different interview with Matt Long, since the Mormon Stories link in not allowed. I would have preferred to offer this one initially, but had difficulty searching for it:

"Matt Long, former Sex Crimes Prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney will discuss laws, policies, and practices of the Mormon Church and reporting sexual abuse.

The following topics are covered:

– The different types of disclosures victims make and the issues surrounding different types of disclosures.

– How and why he bishop interview fails victims and perpetuated abuse so often.

– What are the LDS Church’s policies and practices in reporting sexual abuse

-Suggestions of policy changes that must be implemented to keep kids safe while maintaining the theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview."

http://infantsonthrones.com/ep-465-the-lds-church-interview-and-sexual-abuse/

I listened to both. Interesting how 2 recent cases are coming out of Arizona and than this attorney's cases out of AZ.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

"Facilitated" by whom?

...by systemic conditions that invite people to freely trust each other.

Again, "facilitated" by whom?

Quote

This is common to many social groups and LDS should be educated that we are not immune to such exploitation.

"Systemic conditions that invite people to freely trust each other" can be applied to virtually every society and societal interaction. 

We all agree that "we are not immune to such exploitation."  I guess the question I have is whether the Church is somehow uniquely situated so as to be less attentive (or, put another way, more negligent) than other "social groups" as pertaining to abuse. 

Matthew Long has gone way out of his way to publicly denigrate the Church on this issue.  And you are here touting him as a voice we should listen to.

Quote

Did you listen to it?

No.  The first part is 1 1/4 hours long, and the second is 2 1/4 hours long.

Again, I'm not particularly inclined to give Long (or McMullin) much credence.  They seem too much inclined toward ax-grinding.

Quote

I think it is possible to learn from his experiences and expertise just as I learn from you and your advice. 

Feel free to sum up his perspective.  I have very little interest in Mormon Stories, and don't really want to spend hours listening to it.  I find Dehlin to be pretty awful interviewer.  

As for his "expertise," what are your thoughts about his defense of Paul Petersen?

Quote

I am impressed by Anne's effort to hold LDS and exmormons alike accountable.

I'm not.  To the contrary, I'm rather unimpressed with her.  I laid out my critique of her behavior here and here.  I found her to be essentially a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, emotion-driven gossipmonger who is is making stuff up as she goes along.

Quote

Quote

I am not really inclined to think that Long and McMullin are interested in helping the Church "do better."

You seem to be advertising for Long and McMullin.  I'm not sure this is an appropriate venue for that.

Uneven as it might be, it takes bravery.

Meh.  There's nothing brave about spouting off online. 

There's nothing brave about publicly denigrating an unpopular religious group. 

There's nothing brave about self-promotion. 

There's nothing brave about purveying unsubstantiated gossip and dressing it up as "empowerment" or advocating for victims. 

There is nothing brave about fomenting a mob mentality. 

There is nothing brave about disregarding due process (or presuming to decide when and how and to whom it applies).

There is nothing brave about feigning impartiality or objectivity.

There is nothing brave about disregarding the presumption of innocence.  

There is nothing brave about a therapist playing judge, jury and executioner.

And so on.  I found McMullin's behavior in the Kimball matter to be, in many respects, destructive, self-aggrandizing and contemptible.

Quote

Personally I find their material valuable and want to help continue the conversations they are initiating. 

You are advertising for anti-Mormons on this board.  I'm not sure that's appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 1, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Edited to add a different interview with Matt Long, since the Mormon Stories link in not allowed. I would have preferred to offer this one initially, but had difficulty searching for it:

"Matt Long, former Sex Crimes Prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney will discuss laws, policies, and practices of the Mormon Church and reporting sexual abuse.

The following topics are covered:

– The different types of disclosures victims make and the issues surrounding different types of disclosures.

– How and why he bishop interview fails victims and perpetuated abuse so often.

– What are the LDS Church’s policies and practices in reporting sexual abuse

-Suggestions of policy changes that must be implemented to keep kids safe while maintaining the theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview."

http://infantsonthrones.com/ep-465-the-lds-church-interview-and-sexual-abuse/

Would you care to sum up his remarks?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I don’t think I agree with that assumption.  They may not be out actively seeking it, but I would suggest that most are tempted if the right opportunity and situation arises.   I would suggest that holding this assumption may wrongly lead one to believe that the majority of premarital sexual encounters are results of rape or coercion by men.  
This also ignores that boys can be victims too.

 

When dealing with a 'young' girl...I'm talking 14-16 years old...I think my statement fares very well. If they are seeking it, there may be some other issues involved such as previous sexual abuse. Was the boy older and more experienced? It's a safe bet coercion of some type was involved. But, IMO either way, Bishops need to tread carefully and be well trained to understand when they are out of the depth and that a young teenage girl is not going to want to go into any details with him which can lead to false assumptions being made. Boys can be victims too...no doubt. Society is pushing it more and more in YA books and movies so I would agree society is pushing this on girls and boys younger and younger but it is not what they 'want.' They want to be loved. They don't want to be weird. We live in a sick world. All this does is benefit many teenage boys who really do 'want it.'

In the LDS community we emphasize the law of chastity and teach having these relations out wedlock are wrong. It adds an element missing in society at large these days. IMO, risks of depression, suicide ideation and feelings of unworthiness can be triggered. A Bishop should have the same goal when counseling with a active participant and one who was coerced. The person before them needs to feel Christ's love for them. How do they help this person heal and have a desire to turn to their Savior and know they are loved? The repentant need help too. For most, their suffering has been ongoing and has brought them to confession. Do they really need harshness and yelling and statements like, 'this will effect your whole life.' 'You have disappointed the ward.' 'You will have to tell your future spouse what you've done (at 16, is this really helpful? 'You should not be here at school...you're taking the place of a worthy member.' What can we do as a church, to help our young people have a desire to turn to the Savior and understand their worth?

The youth are struggling these days and I think we really need to think about how to help them not feel like they are hopelessly lost and unworthy...to be discarded for their weaknesses.

Edited January 1, 2021 by bsjkki

[CV75]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

No one will ever agree because there is no universal right answer. 

I think that is the beauty and genius of councils. Both religiously and secularly, councils can bring people into unanimous agreement at least on on what to do despite individual or personal disagreements over understanding and belief. I think it is also the beauty and genius of the US's constitutional system of government, which accomplishes the same thing on a massive scale, except that. for practical purposes, the products are more the result of compromise than of unity of hearts and minds.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The point of this thread is to be aware of the nature of sexual abuse and predation and then specifically where there may be blind spots in our own LDS church and communities

Could you maybe write out some of these possible blind spots?  The links you pointed out listed some at a high level:

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How and why he bishop interview fails victims and perpetuated abuse so often.

Suggestions of policy changes that must be implemented to keep kids safe while maintaining the theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview.

But could you write out more details?  The audio doesn't work for me for some reason so I can't listen through it to find out these details.  Having them written down in this thread would help immensely in discussing things.

What are the suggestions to "keep kids safe" and do they actually help kids or are they just "security theater"?

How do bishops fail victims?

Does the "LDS church and communities" have unique blind spots that can be solved inside of the "LDS church and communities"?

 

[2BizE]

With the number of sexual abuse cases against the church and leaders and the number of bishops and other leaders arrested for sexual crimes, I have a very hard time believing the church is anywhere near a self proclaimed gold standard for preventing abuse.  It is rather a Haven for sexual predators.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

With the number of sexual abuse cases against the church and leaders and the number of bishops and other leaders arrested for sexual crimes, I have a very hard time believing the church is anywhere near a self proclaimed gold standard for preventing abuse.  It is rather a Haven for sexual predators.

Can I see the rigorous statistical analysis of abuse rates to demonstrate this shockingly pervasive criminality?

[pogi]

14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

When dealing with a 'young' girl...I'm talking 14-16 years old...I think my statement fares very well. If they are seeking it, there may be some other issues involved such as previous sexual abuse. Was the boy older and more experienced? It's a safe bet coercion of some type was involved. But, IMO either way, Bishops need to tread carefully and be well trained to understand when they are out of the depth and that a young teenage girl is not going to want to go into any details with him which can lead to false assumptions being made. Boys can be victims too...no doubt. Society is pushing it more and more in YA books and movies so I would agree society is pushing this on girls and boys younger and younger but it is not what they 'want.' They want to be loved. They don't want to be weird. We live in a sick world. All this does is benefit many teenage boys who really do 'want it.'

In the LDS community we emphasize the law of chastity and teach having these relations out wedlock are wrong. It adds an element missing in society at large these days. IMO, risks of depression, suicide ideation and feelings of unworthiness can be triggered. A Bishop should have the same goal when counseling with a active participant and one who was coerced. The person before them needs to feel Christ's love for them. How do they help this person heal and have a desire to turn to their Savior and know they are loved? The repentant need help too. For most, their suffering has been ongoing and has brought them to confession. Do they really need harshness and yelling and statements like, 'this will effect your whole life.' 'You have disappointed the ward.' 'You will have to tell your future spouse what you've done (at 16, is this really helpful? 'You should not be here at school...you're taking the place of a worthy member.' What can we do as a church, to help our young people have a desire to turn to the Savior and understand their worth?

The youth are struggling these days and I think we really need to think about how to help them not feel like they are hopelessly lost and unworthy...to be discarded for their weaknesses.

While I agree with much of what you say, I think you understate the sexuality of teenage girls and overstate the sexuality of boys with your assumption.    Teenage kids have consensual sex all the time without coercion, and it is not always about just wanting to fit in.   Sex might mean different things to young girls than young boys sometimes, but it is not that they are not curious, aroused, and interested in it.  Teenage girls are sexually curious in general.  This starts at an even younger age for boys and girls alike, but they develop more into sexual beings at puberty.  Your assumption really makes it sound like teenage boys are sexual devils and girls are angels who only participate because they have low self esteem.  That wasn’t my experience in Junior High, nor is it what the literature suggests.

Edited January 1, 2021 by pogi

[bsjkki]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

While I agree with much of what you say, I think you understate the sexuality of teenage girls and overstate the sexuality of boys with your assumption.    Teenage kids have consensual sex all the time without coercion, and it is not always about just wanting to fit in.   Sex might mean different things to young girls than young boys sometimes, but it is not that they are not curious, aroused, and interested in it.  Teenage girls are sexually curious in general.  This starts at an even younger age for boys and girls alike, but they develop more into sexual beings at puberty.  Your assumption really makes it sound like teenage boys are sexual devils and girls are angels who only participate because they have low self esteem.  That wasn’t my experience in Junior High, nor is it what the literature suggests.

That’s pretty much what I found in a quick google search. Peruse these articles. Motivations for early sexual behavior are vastly different for girls. Society has really done a bad job here. 

It’s really sad. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=shy+do+gifls+in+moddle+school+become+sexually+active&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS871US871&oq=shy+do+gifls+in+moddle+school+become+sexually+active&aqs=chrome..69i57.27948j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

 

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

Could you maybe write out some of these possible blind spots?  The links you pointed out listed some at a high level:

But could you write out more details?  The audio doesn't work for me for some reason so I can't listen through it to find out these details.  Having them written down in this thread would help immensely in discussing things.

What are the suggestions to "keep kids safe" and do they actually help kids or are they just "security theater"?

How do bishops fail victims?

Does the "LDS church and communities" have unique blind spots that can be solved inside of the "LDS church and communities"?

 

Specifically, first the process of victimization is an overall blindspot. This results in signs not being recognised and the opportunity to help a victim is therefore neglected. Matt Long identifies five steps of the predatory process: selection, engagement, grooming, assault, and concealment. This process most often involves a family member of close friend or another trusted adult, rather than the stereotypical "stranger danger." It's easy enough to understand that sexual abuse is wrong and what it is intellectually, but another thing to understand how it happens in real life. 

Second, there are different types of disclosure. Matt Long explains that most instances of abuse are not disclosed at all. Then three types of disclosures are purposeful, prompted, and accidental disclosures. Accidental disclosures are the most common: someone sees an inappropriate message pop up on their child's phone at the kitchen table, a child speaks offhand about something adults know they should know nothing about, for examples. Prompted disclosures are when the victim is asked questions that lead to a disclosure, like having a lesson on consent or "good touch/bad touch" and then being asked if they have ever felt subjected to bad touches or inappropriate influence. The most rare disclosures are purposeful, and they are not necessarily simple. A victim might not have the words for what happened to them. They might be trying to disclose abuse while the hearer is not aware of what is happening. Then the victim believes the trusted adult knows about it and believes the adult's response is to what actually happened, rather than the adult just simply not understanding that abuse has occurred.

Long identifies that a fundamental problem with bishop interviews is that they are understood as an invitation or a call for disclosures while at the same time the bishops not being trained to listen to abuse victims. Bishops are not given the tools they need to listen to and talk to abuse victims. 

He gives two example cases. "Sarah" was abused by her older brother and began telling her bishop about it during her baptismal interview at age 8 when the bishop talks about the law of chastity. She tells him that she has seen her brother naked once and he has seen her naked once. The bishop waves his hand at this and moves on, saying that it is normal for family members to sometime see each other without their clothes on. Finally, when Sarash is 15, she tells a friend about the abuse by her brother. Her friend asks her if she has told anyone else and she says, "Yes, my bishop." She has been giving bits of information to her bishop ever since age 8. She believes he understands what she is saying, but he is not aware that she is disclosing abuse or referring to abuse.

Matt Long emphasizes that in cases such as this it is not the fault of the bishop. They are simply not trained to understand victimisation or how to identify disclosures.

The second example is of "Rob," who beginning at his age 14 was groomed by woman in the neighboring ward. At some point the parents arrange a church meeting with leaders to address the gifts and influence of this woman and are concerned that she is molesting their son. Only later does Rob finally go to his bishop, but his bishop already knows because the woman has already confessed to her bishop and that bishop had already notified Rob's bishop. So now, this represents, as Matt Long explains, a general issue with bishop interview disclosures, that of knowing when to report. Is the teenager confessing or disclosing? Depending on the state, confessions are an exceptions to the mandated reporting requirements, while in some states confidential disclosures are also exceptions but in other states they are not.

It's complex. Yet even before we begin with the law, the two major blind spots are important: what victimisation looks like and what disclosures look like. Proper training for bishops about both can help vitcims while also preserving the  "theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview." 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you care to sum up his remarks?

Thanks,

-Smac

I did in my response to Webbles above. I hope it is helpful.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, "facilitated" by whom?"

Not by whom, but by what. As detailed in my summary above, the bishop interview is effectively a call for disclosures, so victims disclose, yet they do so to bishops who are not trained to understand the process of victimisation or the types of disclosures. And so the victim reaches out for help that is ineffectual. And so the offender is therefore shielded by this unintentional ineffectiveness, and the victim unaided.