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

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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 the types of disclosures are 1)purposeful, prompted, and accidental. 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. Long says that 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 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 "theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview." 

You are a patient lady! I get a little peeved when posters don't want to listen to a podcast and expect you to tell them what is in it putting the burden on you when they are the ones that are curious.  But here you did, and I'm thinking, or I think I know it's because you care about the problem in hopes that the world will change for the better. Thanks for caring! 🤗

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you care to sum up his remarks?

Thanks,

-Smac

So take her time up? Why not you take a listen and stop this nonsense?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So take her time up? Why not you take a listen and stop this nonsense?

It's okay. I am glad to do it. It's much better to have the information written down instead of just referring to audio.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Absolutely the problem! As with your example, they don’t even know when to ask important follow up questions or get help. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Absolutely the problem! As with your example, they don’t even know when to ask important follow up questions or get help. 

Yes, and as Long says, many bishops he's been in contact with want to know how to respond better. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So take her time up? Why not you take a listen and stop this nonsense?

She was the one who brought it up and asked us to take up our time. Which is more reasonable, the person wanting to share the message summarizing it once or demanding 50 (random number of readers of her post) others who may or may not be interested to listen to the entire podcast which would result in 50 times more time being spent than a summary from her would be. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's okay. I am glad to do it. It's much better to have the information written down instead of just referring to audio.

Yes, it is. Thank you. 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, it is. Thank you. 

She did write a lot about the subject. Tons! I understand if people are unable to listen, but for those that just don't want to, I think if they keep asking Meadowchik to give more and more info, that's just wrong. Sorry. 

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Edited to add a different interview with Matt Long, since the Mormon Stories link in not allowed. ...

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

... Feel free to sum up his [Matt Long's] 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.  

 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you care to sum up his remarks?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You are a patient lady! I get a little peeved when posters don't want to listen to a podcast and expect you to tell them what is in it putting the burden on you when they are the ones that are curious. ...

For as long as you've spent here, you seem, still, to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how discussion boards are supposed to work.  The onus is not on other participants to ferret out details about what an opening poster wishes to discuss, particularly not when doing so involves listening to an hours-long, poorly-focused podcast.  Rather, it is on the opening poster to lay out the topic in enough detail to facilitate discussion so that her interlocutors do not have to do that.

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So take her time up? Why not you take a listen and stop this nonsense?

No one forced her to post the opening post.  And see my preceding paragraph, immediately above this snippet to which I am responding.  And yes, I agree: It would be utter nonsense for an opening poster to expect her interlocutors to do hours of "homework" in order to discuss the topic intelligently.  Again, it is an opening poster's responsibility to lay out a topic in sufficient detail so that it may be discussed intelligently with only minimal resort to other sources.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She was the one who brought it up and asked us to take up our time. Which is more reasonable, the person wanting to share the message summarizing it once or demanding 50 (random number of readers of her post) others who may or may not be interested to listen to the entire podcast which would result in 50 times more time being spent than a summary from her would be. 

And Cal is much more diplomatic than I.  No surprise there!  

Edited January 1, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

For as long as you've spent here, you seem, still, to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how discussion boards are supposed to work.  The onus is not on other participants to ferret out details about what an opening poster wishes to discuss, particularly not when doing so involves listening to a hours-long, poorly-focused podcast.  Rather, it is on the opening poster to lay out the topic in enough detail to facilitate discussion so that her interlocutors do not have to do that.

No one forced her to post the opening post.  And see my preceding paragraph, immediately above this snippet to which I am responding.  And yes, I agree: It would be utter nonsense for an opening poster to expect her interlocutors to do hours of "homework" in order to discuss the topic intelligently.  Again, it is an opening poster's responsibility to lay out a topic in sufficient detail so that it may be discussed intelligently with only minimal resort to other sources.

And Cal is much more diplomatic than I.  No surprise there!  

She gave a lot of information, and Smac seemed to keep asking for more and more. Doesn't want to listen. What, is she supposed to translate it word for word? Now do all your laughing emojis to make me feel put in my place.

 

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

She gave a lot of information, and Smac seemed to keep asking for more and more. Doesn't want to listen. What, is she supposed to translate it word for word? Now do all your laughing emojis to make me feel put in my place.

 

It seems that you have a chip on your shoulder and you're simply daring people to knock it off.  I'm sorry if your holidays haven't gone according to plan.  I'm sure that's true of a good many people in these exceedingly strange, trying times. And no one can make you feel inferior without your consent, Tacenda.  And you possibly having an inferiority complex is much different than everyone you  might wish to accuse allegedly having a superiority complex.  I wish you well.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

She gave a lot of information, and Smac seemed to keep asking for more and more. Doesn't want to listen. What, is she supposed to translate it word for word? 

Giving a lot of information and giving the needed information is not always the same thing. I am not going back and reading it, but my memory says smac was being practical and narrowing it down from vague criticisms to actual specifics, which IMO is the best way to approach it in the first place to ensure people know exactly what you are talking about because you are supplying examples to ensure people are on the same page AND because that then allows us to discuss what can actually be changed rather than just guessing. 
 

It is very difficult to change when all that one is told is general principles that may or may not bring something to mind. If someone wants change to occur, getting down to the practical and concrete itemized level of what is wrong and what can actually be done is most effective. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

She did write a lot about the subject. Tons! I understand if people are unable to listen, but for those that just don't want to, I think if they keep asking Meadowchik to give more and more info, that's just wrong. Sorry. 

No, it isn't wrong to expect an opening poster to include sufficient information regarding a topic so as to not force her interlocutors to spend hours trying to ferret it out on their own.  Including such information is simply common courtesy, no matter how long and how vociferous your insistence to the contrary.  Again, I'm sorry if your holidays haven't gone according to plan.  I'm sure that's true of a good many people in these exceedingly strange, trying times.  I wish you well.

[Calm]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

don’t think I agree with that assumption.

Depends on how you are defining young as well as what group of girls you are talking about, in the church, groups that includes openly sexually active girls, etc.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So take her time up? Why not you take a listen and stop this nonsense?

Because she is the one introducing the topic, but she is declining to tell us anything sufficient to discuss except to tell us to listen to a three-hour MS podcast or a shorter presentation by Matt Long.  That's not really how this board is supposed to work.

Nevertheless, I listened to the shorter presentation.  I was taking notes, but I lost them, so I'll sum up here:

1. Overall, I'm not really impressed with Matt Long, who is long on emotionalisms and harsh rhetoric against the Church and its bishops (and, candidly, sanctimony), and pretty short on practical, substantive proposals for improvements.

2. He talks about a particular abuse case (about a boy he calls "Rob") who was abused by a woman in another ward, and calls it a "case study," a prototypical example of how the Church responds to and addresses allegations of abuse.  I strongly disagree with this characterization.  It is not remotely prototypical.  It had all sorts of complexities and characteristics that are pretty unusual.  Two bishops were involved (Rob's and the abuser's).  One called the helpline, the other did not.  One received a confidential confession, the other received what Long describes as a "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosure from the victim.  They had a meeting where the parents of the abuse victim purportedly met with the two bishops and the abuser, and where the father asked the woman the "point blank" if she had been having sexual relations with Rob (which, if you think about it, would be a very strange circumstance, and far from prototypical).  But IIRC, Long doesn't tell us if or how she responded.  And then the abuse apparently continued for another year before it was came to light in another way.  

3. I think it's quite wrong to point to one case, that may well have included some errors / missteps by the bishops involved, and then say that it is representative of systemic defects in the Church's approach.  Even Long acknowledges that handling allegations of abuse is difficult and "complicated."  His main gripe is that bishops aren't getting trained on how to respond to what he called "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosures.  Does he realize what he's asking/demanding bishops to do?  Do we really want to impose on bishops the affirmative duty of becoming McCarthy-esque inquisitors?  Do we really want bishops to be using bishop interviews to test for signs of sexual abuse? 

4. I think he fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and scope of bishop interviews.  He wants the detection of sexual abuse to be a primary, even perhaps front-and-center, topic.  Um, has he given this matter any real thought?  In 2017 Sam Young started his crusade against the Church, only going the other way and insisting that the Church stop all bishop interviews, and/or that bishops ask no questions about matters pertaining to sex.  Surely Matt Long is aware of this, and yet he says nothing about it.  

Again, Matt Long wants bishops to be affirmatively asking questions of a sexual nature, and then asking more questions about them if there is a "piecemeal" disclosure.  Sam Young, who also claims to be acting on behalf of "victims," is demanding precisely the opposite solution.  So which of these guys should we listen to?  

5. Long talks a lot about "tools" that bishops should have.  He speaks of "bona fide training on the process of victimization," but he doesn't lay out anything.  He refers to "case studies" and "this stuff," but has nothing to say of substance as to what the training should be, or what bishops should do that they are not presently doing.

6. I thought this remark by Long was particularly egregious (at about 49:50) : "Some of the motivations as to why abuse is isn't being reported is less critical or less important to me than the fact that it's happening.  Because too often we go to malicious intent.  This is to cover up abuse.  And maybe it is.  But from what I've experienced is that often well-intentioned negligence is just as damaging to those kids as a malicious cover-up.  So because of that I'm less concerned for the reasons why abuse isn't reported and victims don't get intervention that they could use, and the motivations behind it, than the fact that it is absolutely happening.  And I think it's happening for a myriad of reasons and and motivations because people are so complex.  And people's experiences and perceptions vary so much.  So I think it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations there.  But rather we can look at a case and say 'here's absolutely where the system breaks down, and here are some protections that can be in place to mitigate and lessen the instances where there are so many problems."

Wow.  I don't know where to begin.  He first seems to reject the notion that bishops are acting with "malicious intent" or to "cover up abuse," but then he immediately says that "maybe" they are doing this.  He is on a tirade here.  He is not offering anything approaching constructive, objective feedback.  He's ranting.  Against a minority and unpopular religious group.  He's really coming across badly here.  He's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He the equivocates on a grand scale, saying that a bishop who fails to discern a "piecemeal" disclosure may have only committed "well-intentioned negligence," but then immediately condemns such negligence as "just as damaging as ... a malicious cover-up."  Again, he's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He says he doesn't care about motivations, about why abuse allegations are not getting reported.  Come again?  Motivations don't matter?  Are you sure, Mr. Long?  What if the motivation is to preserve the priest-penitent privilege?  What if the motivation is benign?  What if the bishop simply didn't pick up on a hint (a "piecemeal disclosure")?  What if this failure is attributable to - as Long put it - people being "complex" and having varied "experiences and perceptions"?  Long seems to be expecting bishops to be McCarthy-esque.  He wants them to affirmatively probe around and ask children questions about sex, and then ask them more if they say anything that could be construed as a "piecemeal disclosure."  Is that really the purpose of bishop interviews?  

Long says that "it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations."  Again, what?  That is precisely what he did in talking about Rob's story.

Long says that we can look at case studies and see "where the system breaks down," and then look at "some protections" that can be put in place.  Well, this sounds good, but Long then proceeds to offer pretty much nothing substantive.  He never gets down to brass tacks.  He never delineates changes to the Church's current practices and policies.  

7. His lambastic rhetoric against the Church is really off-putting.  I would expect an attorney to keep a grip on his emotions, and not give public remarks that repeatedly devolve into bitter, emotional, accusatory denigrations and stereotypes about the Church.  This is particularly so since he offers no real solutions.  He broadly generalizes that the helpline tells bishops to not disclose, at which point his credibility really took a hit.  I know better.  I have personal experience with the helpline, and with the legal and factual complexities that can and do arise when a bishop encounters allegations of abuse.  Sometimes the helpline tells the bishop to not disclose (because of the priest/penitent privilege, and other reasons).  Sometimes the bishop tells - requires, even - the bishop to disclose the allegations of abuse, and even has an attorney intervene and contact law enforcement instead of the bishop.  Sometimes the helpline leaves the decision to the bishop, since it's a discretionary, judgment calls sort of thing.  There is not - as Matt Long falsely suggests - a one-size-fits-all response by the Church (and its bishops, and the helpline) to allegations of abuse.  That Matt Long is going out and telling such a whopper of a falsehood - in a public tirade against an unpopular religious group - really lessened my willingness to take his narrative at face value.  I think he's leaving out details.  Lots of them.  Important details.  And that he's doing so in order to portray the Church in the worst possible light.

8. I dislike the sanctimony.  I dislike that he constantly juxtaposes his concern and care for his "kids" (the abuse victims, he actually calls them that) with the posture of the Church, which he persistently characterizes as cold, callous, indifferent, even possibly malicious.  He's the good guy, and the Church is bad.  He's a good lawyer, the Church's lawyers are bad.  He cares about victims, and the Church doesn't.  He cares about improving how we address abuse, the Church does not.  And so on.  It's repellant.  It's off-putting.  It's unfair.  It's inaccurate.  And most of all, it's unhelpful.  I came away from his presentation with two hours taken from my life (I re-listened to several sections), but with no particular understanding of proposals for improvement.  

9. He gives the Church and its bishops and the helpline no credit.  At all.  Not a smidge.  They are uniformly failing in every respect.  The bishops are nice guys, but some a abusers too.  And the good ones are victims of the dastardly Church.  And while their failure to pick up on "piecemeal disclosures" is probably attributable to negligence (though he specifically notes that the Church might also be acting maliciously), that negligence is morally equivalent to a "malicious cover-up" anyway. 

Oi.  I've heard this about a thousand times. 

Contrary to what Matt Long would have us believe, the leaders of the Church, up and down the line, are very concerned about the welfare of children.  Consequently, I am quite willing to listen for proposals and recommendations for how the Church can improve.  I'm even willing to listen to critics and dissidents, who can offer an external perspective that those inside the Church can find informative and helpful.

He wants bishops to be "trained."  Well, okay.  Sure.  How about some particulars?  

For me, Matt Long comes across as just another anti-Mormon ranting, with nothing substantive to say, with no feasible suggestion or proposal for improvement.  Just railing against the Church, which can do no right.  He seemed really invested in fomenting anger and resentment against the Church.  Really.  That's the tone and tenor of the entire presentation.  His comments were not helpful.  Not constructive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because she is the one introducing the topic, but she is declining to tell us anything sufficient to discuss except to tell us to listen to a three-hour MS podcast or a shorter presentation by Matt Long.  That's not really how this board is supposed to work.

Nevertheless, I listened to the shorter presentation.  I was taking notes, but I lost them, so I'll sum up here:

1. Overall, I'm not really impressed with Matt Long, who is long on emotionalisms and harsh rhetoric against the Church and its bishops (and, candidly, sanctimony), and pretty short on practical, substantive proposals for improvements.

2. He talks about a particular abuse case (about a boy he calls "Rob") who was abused by a woman in another ward, and calls it a "case study," a prototypical example of how the Church responds to and addresses allegations of abuse.  I strongly disagree with this characterization.  It is not remotely prototypical.  It had all sorts of complexities and characteristics that are pretty unusual.  Two bishops were involved (Rob's and the abuser's).  One called the helpline, the other did not.  One received a confidential confession, the other received what Long describes as a "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosure from the victim.  They had a meeting where the parents of the abuse victim purportedly met with the two bishops and the abuser, and where the father asked the woman the "point blank" if she had been having sexual relations with Rob (which, if you think about it, would be a very strange circumstance, and far from prototypical).  But IIRC, Long doesn't tell us if or how she responded.  And then the abuse apparently continued for another year before it was came to light in another way.  

3. I think it's quite wrong to point to one case, that may well have included some errors / missteps by the bishops involved, and then say that it is representative of systemic defects in the Church's approach.  Even Long acknowledges that handling allegations of abuse is difficult and "complicated."  His main gripe is that bishops aren't getting trained on how to respond to what he called "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosures.  Does he realize what he's asking/demanding bishops to do?  Do we really want to impose on bishops the affirmative duty of becoming McCarthy-esque inquisitors?  Do we really want bishops to be using bishop interviews to test for signs of sexual abuse? 

4. I think he fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and scope of bishop interviews.  He wants the detection of sexual abuse to be a primary, even perhaps front-and-center, topic.  Um, has he given this matter any real thought?  In 2017 Sam Young started his crusade against the Church, only going the other way and insisting that the Church stop all bishop interviews, and/or that bishops ask no questions about matters pertaining to sex.  Surely Matt Long is aware of this, and yet he says nothing about it.  

Again, Matt Long wants bishops to be affirmatively asking questions of a sexual nature, and then asking more questions about them if there is a "piecemeal" disclosure.  Sam Young, who also claims to be acting on behalf of "victims," is demanding precisely the opposite solution.  So which of these guys should we listen to?  

5. Long talks a lot about "tools" that bishops should have.  He speaks of "bona fide training on the process of victimization," but he doesn't lay out anything.  He refers to "case studies" and "this stuff," but has nothing to say of substance as to what the training should be, or what bishops should do that they are not presently doing.

6. I thought this remark by Long was particularly egregious (at about 49:50) : "Some of the motivations as to why abuse is isn't being reported is less critical or less important to me than the fact that it's happening.  Because too often we go to malicious intent.  This is to cover up abuse.  And maybe it is.  But from what I've experienced is that often well-intentioned negligence is just as damaging to those kids as a malicious cover-up.  So because of that I'm less concerned for the reasons why abuse isn't reported and victims don't get intervention that they could use, and the motivations behind it, than the fact that it is absolutely happening.  And I think it's happening for a myriad of reasons and and motivations because people are so complex.  And people's experiences and perceptions vary so much.  So I think it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations there.  But rather we can look at a case and say 'here's absolutely where the system breaks down, and here are some protections that can be in place to mitigate and lessen the instances where there are so many problems."

Wow.  I don't know where to begin.  He first seems to reject the notion that bishops are acting with "malicious intent" or to "cover up abuse," but then he immediately says that "maybe" they are doing this.  He is on a tirade here.  He is not offering anything approaching constructive, objective feedback.  He's ranting.  Against a minority and unpopular religious group.  He's really coming across badly here.  He's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He the equivocates on a grand scale, saying that a bishop who fails to discern a "piecemeal" disclosure may have only committed "well-intentioned negligence," but then immediately condemns such negligence as "just as damaging as ... a malicious cover-up."  Again, he's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He says he doesn't care about motivations, about why abuse allegations are not getting reported.  Come again?  Motivations don't matter?  Are you sure, Mr. Long?  What if the motivation is to preserve the priest-penitent privilege?  What if the motivation is benign?  What if the bishop simply didn't pick up on a hint (a "piecemeal disclosure")?  What if this failure is attributable to - as Long put it - people being "complex" and having varied "experiences and perceptions"?  Long seems to be expecting bishops to be McCarthy-esque.  He wants them to affirmatively probe around and ask children questions about sex, and then ask them more if they say anything that could be construed as a "piecemeal disclosure."  Is that really the purpose of bishop interviews?  

Long says that "it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations."  Again, what?  That is precisely what he did in talking about Rob's story.

Long says that we can look at case studies and see "where the system breaks down," and then look at "some protections" that can be put in place.  Well, this sounds good, but Long then proceeds to offer pretty much nothing substantive.  He never gets down to brass tacks.  He never delineates changes to the Church's current practices and policies.  

7. His lambastic rhetoric against the Church is really off-putting.  I would expect an attorney to keep a grip on his emotions, and not give public remarks that repeatedly devolve into bitter, emotional, accusatory denigrations and stereotypes about the Church.  This is particularly so since he offers no real solutions.  He broadly generalizes that the helpline tells bishops to not disclose, at which point his credibility really took a hit.  I know better.  I have personal experience with the helpline, and with the legal and factual complexities that can and do arise when a bishop encounters allegations of abuse.  Sometimes the helpline tells the bishop to not disclose (because of the priest/penitent privilege, and other reasons).  Sometimes the bishop tells - requires, even - the bishop to disclose the allegations of abuse, and even has an attorney intervene and contact law enforcement instead of the bishop.  Sometimes the helpline leaves the decision to the bishop, since it's a discretionary, judgment calls sort of thing.  There is not - as Matt Long falsely suggests - a one-size-fits-all response by the Church (and its bishops, and the helpline) to allegations of abuse.  That Matt Long is going out and telling such a whopper of a falsehood - in a public tirade against an unpopular religious group - really lessened my willingness to take his narrative at face value.  I think he's leaving out details.  Lots of them.  Important details.  And that he's doing so in order to portray the Church in the worst possible light.

8. I dislike the sanctimony.  I dislike that he constantly juxtaposes his concern and care for his "kids" (the abuse victims, he actually calls them that) with the posture of the Church, which he persistently characterizes as cold, callous, indifferent, even possibly malicious.  He's the good guy, and the Church is bad.  He's a good lawyer, the Church's lawyers are bad.  He cares about victims, and the Church doesn't.  He cares about improving how we address abuse, the Church does not.  And so on.  It's repellant.  It's off-putting.  It's unfair.  It's inaccurate.  And most of all, it's unhelpful.  I came away from his presentation with two hours taken from my life (I re-listened to several sections), but with no particular understanding of proposals for improvement.  

9. He gives the Church and its bishops and the helpline no credit.  At all.  Not a smidge.  They are uniformly failing in every respect.  The bishops are nice guys, but some a abusers too.  And the good ones are victims of the dastardly Church.  And while their failure to pick up on "piecemeal disclosures" is probably attributable to negligence (though he specifically notes that the Church might also be acting maliciously), that negligence is morally equivalent to a "malicious cover-up" anyway. 

Oi.  I've heard this about a thousand times. 

Contrary to what Matt Long would have us believe, the leaders of the Church, up and down the line, are very concerned about the welfare of children.  Consequently, I am quite willing to listen for proposals and recommendations for how the Church can improve.  I'm even willing to listen to critics and dissidents, who can offer an external perspective that those inside the Church can find informative and helpful.

He wants bishops to be "trained."  Well, okay.  Sure.  How about some particulars?  

For me, Matt Long comes across as just another anti-Mormon ranting, with nothing substantive to say, with no feasible suggestion or proposal for improvement.  Just railing against the Church, which can do no right.  He seemed really invested in fomenting anger and resentment against the Church.  Really.  That's the tone and tenor of the entire presentation.  His comments were not helpful.  Not constructive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did it answer the questions you had for Meadowchic?

Thanks for the review, I'll have to re-listen...it's been awhile.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because she is the one introducing the topic, but she is declining to tell us anything sufficient to discuss except to tell us to listen to a three-hour MS podcast or a shorter presentation by Matt Long.  That's not really how this board is supposed to work.

Nevertheless, I listened to the shorter presentation.  I was taking notes, but I lost them, so I'll sum up here:

1. Overall, I'm not really impressed with Matt Long, who is long on emotionalisms and harsh rhetoric against the Church and its bishops (and, candidly, sanctimony), and pretty short on practical, substantive proposals for improvements.

2. He talks about a particular abuse case (about a boy he calls "Rob") who was abused by a woman in another ward, and calls it a "case study," a prototypical example of how the Church responds to and addresses allegations of abuse.  I strongly disagree with this characterization.  It is not remotely prototypical.  It had all sorts of complexities and characteristics that are pretty unusual.  Two bishops were involved (Rob's and the abuser's).  One called the helpline, the other did not.  One received a confidential confession, the other received what Long describes as a "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosure from the victim.  They had a meeting where the parents of the abuse victim purportedly met with the two bishops and the abuser, and where the father asked the woman the "point blank" if she had been having sexual relations with Rob (which, if you think about it, would be a very strange circumstance, and far from prototypical).  But IIRC, Long doesn't tell us if or how she responded.  And then the abuse apparently continued for another year before it was came to light in another way.  

3. I think it's quite wrong to point to one case, that may well have included some errors / missteps by the bishops involved, and then say that it is representative of systemic defects in the Church's approach.  Even Long acknowledges that handling allegations of abuse is difficult and "complicated."  His main gripe is that bishops aren't getting trained on how to respond to what he called "partial" or "piecemeal" disclosures.  Does he realize what he's asking/demanding bishops to do?  Do we really want to impose on bishops the affirmative duty of becoming McCarthy-esque inquisitors?  Do we really want bishops to be using bishop interviews to test for signs of sexual abuse? 

4. I think he fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and scope of bishop interviews.  He wants the detection of sexual abuse to be a primary, even perhaps front-and-center, topic.  Um, has he given this matter any real thought?  In 2017 Sam Young started his crusade against the Church, only going the other way and insisting that the Church stop all bishop interviews, and/or that bishops ask no questions about matters pertaining to sex.  Surely Matt Long is aware of this, and yet he says nothing about it.  

Again, Matt Long wants bishops to be affirmatively asking questions of a sexual nature, and then asking more questions about them if there is a "piecemeal" disclosure.  Sam Young, who also claims to be acting on behalf of "victims," is demanding precisely the opposite solution.  So which of these guys should we listen to?  

5. Long talks a lot about "tools" that bishops should have.  He speaks of "bona fide training on the process of victimization," but he doesn't lay out anything.  He refers to "case studies" and "this stuff," but has nothing to say of substance as to what the training should be, or what bishops should do that they are not presently doing.

6. I thought this remark by Long was particularly egregious (at about 49:50) : "Some of the motivations as to why abuse is isn't being reported is less critical or less important to me than the fact that it's happening.  Because too often we go to malicious intent.  This is to cover up abuse.  And maybe it is.  But from what I've experienced is that often well-intentioned negligence is just as damaging to those kids as a malicious cover-up.  So because of that I'm less concerned for the reasons why abuse isn't reported and victims don't get intervention that they could use, and the motivations behind it, than the fact that it is absolutely happening.  And I think it's happening for a myriad of reasons and and motivations because people are so complex.  And people's experiences and perceptions vary so much.  So I think it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations there.  But rather we can look at a case and say 'here's absolutely where the system breaks down, and here are some protections that can be in place to mitigate and lessen the instances where there are so many problems."

Wow.  I don't know where to begin.  He first seems to reject the notion that bishops are acting with "malicious intent" or to "cover up abuse," but then he immediately says that "maybe" they are doing this.  He is on a tirade here.  He is not offering anything approaching constructive, objective feedback.  He's ranting.  Against a minority and unpopular religious group.  He's really coming across badly here.  He's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He the equivocates on a grand scale, saying that a bishop who fails to discern a "piecemeal" disclosure may have only committed "well-intentioned negligence," but then immediately condemns such negligence as "just as damaging as ... a malicious cover-up."  Again, he's sounding more like an anti-Mormon, and not really at all like someone who is genuinely interested in helping the Church improve.

He says he doesn't care about motivations, about why abuse allegations are not getting reported.  Come again?  Motivations don't matter?  Are you sure, Mr. Long?  What if the motivation is to preserve the priest-penitent privilege?  What if the motivation is benign?  What if the bishop simply didn't pick up on a hint (a "piecemeal disclosure")?  What if this failure is attributable to - as Long put it - people being "complex" and having varied "experiences and perceptions"?  Long seems to be expecting bishops to be McCarthy-esque.  He wants them to affirmatively probe around and ask children questions about sex, and then ask them more if they say anything that could be construed as a "piecemeal disclosure."  Is that really the purpose of bishop interviews?  

Long says that "it's hard to take one scenario and establish motivations."  Again, what?  That is precisely what he did in talking about Rob's story.

Long says that we can look at case studies and see "where the system breaks down," and then look at "some protections" that can be put in place.  Well, this sounds good, but Long then proceeds to offer pretty much nothing substantive.  He never gets down to brass tacks.  He never delineates changes to the Church's current practices and policies.  

7. His lambastic rhetoric against the Church is really off-putting.  I would expect an attorney to keep a grip on his emotions, and not give public remarks that repeatedly devolve into bitter, emotional, accusatory denigrations and stereotypes about the Church.  This is particularly so since he offers no real solutions.  He broadly generalizes that the helpline tells bishops to not disclose, at which point his credibility really took a hit.  I know better.  I have personal experience with the helpline, and with the legal and factual complexities that can and do arise when a bishop encounters allegations of abuse.  Sometimes the helpline tells the bishop to not disclose (because of the priest/penitent privilege, and other reasons).  Sometimes the bishop tells - requires, even - the bishop to disclose the allegations of abuse, and even has an attorney intervene and contact law enforcement instead of the bishop.  Sometimes the helpline leaves the decision to the bishop, since it's a discretionary, judgment calls sort of thing.  There is not - as Matt Long falsely suggests - a one-size-fits-all response by the Church (and its bishops, and the helpline) to allegations of abuse.  That Matt Long is going out and telling such a whopper of a falsehood - in a public tirade against an unpopular religious group - really lessened my willingness to take his narrative at face value.  I think he's leaving out details.  Lots of them.  Important details.  And that he's doing so in order to portray the Church in the worst possible light.

8. I dislike the sanctimony.  I dislike that he constantly juxtaposes his concern and care for his "kids" (the abuse victims, he actually calls them that) with the posture of the Church, which he persistently characterizes as cold, callous, indifferent, even possibly malicious.  He's the good guy, and the Church is bad.  He's a good lawyer, the Church's lawyers are bad.  He cares about victims, and the Church doesn't.  He cares about improving how we address abuse, the Church does not.  And so on.  It's repellant.  It's off-putting.  It's unfair.  It's inaccurate.  And most of all, it's unhelpful.  I came away from his presentation with two hours taken from my life (I re-listened to several sections), but with no particular understanding of proposals for improvement.  

9. He gives the Church and its bishops and the helpline no credit.  At all.  Not a smidge.  They are uniformly failing in every respect.  The bishops are nice guys, but some a abusers too.  And the good ones are victims of the dastardly Church.  And while their failure to pick up on "piecemeal disclosures" is probably attributable to negligence (though he specifically notes that the Church might also be acting maliciously), that negligence is morally equivalent to a "malicious cover-up" anyway. 

Oi.  I've heard this about a thousand times. 

Contrary to what Matt Long would have us believe, the leaders of the Church, up and down the line, are very concerned about the welfare of children.  Consequently, I am quite willing to listen for proposals and recommendations for how the Church can improve.  I'm even willing to listen to critics and dissidents, who can offer an external perspective that those inside the Church can find informative and helpful.

He wants bishops to be "trained."  Well, okay.  Sure.  How about some particulars?  

For me, Matt Long comes across as just another anti-Mormon ranting, with nothing substantive to say, with no feasible suggestion or proposal for improvement.  Just railing against the Church, which can do no right.  He seemed really invested in fomenting anger and resentment against the Church.  Really.  That's the tone and tenor of the entire presentation.  His comments were not helpful.  Not constructive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like you missed the most basic, fundamental point.

Beyond that, you could give some grace to a guy who is sharing important information. His job has largely been about studying the horrific side of human experience seeking justice from all perspectives: the state's, the accused, and the victim's. 

[Kenngo1969]

@smac97 @Tacenda

Well, good news and bad news: Now, nobody can accuse Smac97 of not being willing to invest hours of his life in listening to a podcast when the opening poster could, and should, summarize what's in a podcast well enough to foster discussion, and should not, by contrast, force her interlocutors to listen to hours of podcasts in order to ferret out the details.  However, the bad news is that now, Smac97 has committed the even graver sin of disagreeing with the conclusions of the individual featured in the podcast. 

Ah, well!  

You lose a few, and ...  

You lose a few!  

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds like you missed the most basic, fundamental point.

Beyond that, you could give some grace to a guy who is sharing important information. His job has largely been about studying the horrific side of human experience seeking justice from all perspectives: the state's, the accused, and the victim's. 

@Meadowchik Translation?  Anyone who doesn't see the issue as you do has missed the point, is that it?  And why is it that you call @smac97 out for an alleged failure to extend grace to someone he doesn't even know, on the one hand, yet you seem so willing to dismiss blithely the failure of Mr. Long to do the same for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its Bishops, and its members?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Meadowchik Translation?  Anyone who doesn't see the issue as you do has missed the point, is that it?  And why is it that you call @smac97 out for an alleged failure to extend grace to someone he doesn't even know, on the one hand, yet you seem so willing to dismiss blithely the failure of Mr. Long to do the same for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its Bishops, and its members?

No he's really missed the central point of the lecture, or atleast he fails to acknowledge it.

Long does extend grace to bishops in his talk. The link I posted in my edited has a significantly shorter lecture if you want to hear him do so.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

This sounds interesting, but bishops are not therapists.  And matters of sexuality are very difficult to address.  And the Church is getting constantly berated from the Sam Young folks who insist that bishops ask no questions about sex-related matters at all.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Sounds good.  But how much of this is likely to come out in a bishop interview? 

How much of this is supposed to come out in a bishop interview? 

Are parents sending their kids in for interviews with the expectation that bishops are going to ask questions designed to detect predatory "selection, engagement, grooming, assault, and concealment?"

Disclosure of abuse may happen to come out in a bishop interview.  But Matt Long seems to want to turn bishop interviews into a referendum on detecting abuse, rather than broad pastoral care.  I'm not sure that's a good idea.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Second, there are different types of disclosure. Matt Long explains that most instances of abuse are not disclosed at all.

Right.  And this is a big problem.  I'm not sure bishops should become as McCarthy-esque as Matt Long seems to want them to be as pertaining to abuse.  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Then three types of disclosures are purposeful, prompted, and accidental disclosures.

Bishops help a lot with "purposeful" disclosures (where the child voluntarily discloses).  Unfortunately, Matt Long gives the Church no credit for that.  Like, at all.

Bishops also encounter a lot of "accidental" disclosures, and provide a lot of help in these situations.  Again, Matt Long gives the Church no credit for this.  At all.

So we're left with "prompted" disclosures.  Apparently Matt Long wants bishops to be trained on how to "prompt" children to disclose abuse.  This is a really thorny issue, but Long treats it as simple and straightforward.  A child may make a comment that could be construed as what Long calls a "piecemeal disclosure" of abuse.  Or the comment may not be about abuse at all.  This is where Long seems to want bishops to get "training," apparently to become McCarthy-esque in their inquiries, asking the child further and more probing questions to see if abuse has occurred.  Is he sure this is a good idea?  Really sure?  What about Sam Young's point?  Is there a risk of bishops creating confusion, discomfort, fear, etc. in turning standard and regularly-scheduled interviews into an inquiries about possible sex abuse?  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Yes.  And when the bishop becomes aware of such a disclosure, he can call the helpline for guidance on how to proceed.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach.  Some disclosures will merit further attention and possible reporting, some will not.  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Right.  Do you think bishop interviews are intended for this?  Should bishops be using interviews to affirmatively ask questions about "good touch/bad touch" sorts of things?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The most rare disclosures are purposeful, and they are not necessarily simple.

None of these is simple.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Yep.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I question that.  Like, a lot.  I don't think it's accurate to characterize bishop interviews as "a call for disclosures {of sexual abuse}."  Bishop interviews are about broad pastoral care.  I think we need to be really careful about turning them into what Long wants, which is apparently a session where the bishop goes out of his way to ask questions designed to elicit "disclosures" of sexual abuse.  I see all sorts of risks and pitfalls in altering bishop interviews into this sort of thing.  I find much of what Sam Young said and did to be contemptible and obnoxious, but in very broad terms I think bishops should not be proactively delving into questions about sex-related issues, which is apparently want Long wants.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Bishops are not given the tools they need to listen to and talk to abuse victims. 

How do you know?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I'm not really going to give much credence to this story.  We have you telling us what Long said what Sarah said her bishop said many years ago.  Triple hearsay about what a bishop purportedly said to an 8-year old years ago.  We don't have enough information here.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a girl made "disclosures" of this sort every year for five years, and that the bishop never picked up on them.  I suspect Long is embellishing stuff here.  To make the bishop look bad.  To make the Church look bad.  Such is the overarching thesis of his remarks.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Actually, bishops have received training about interviewing youth.  The Church has also published guidelines providing further clarification on "how the church responds to abuse"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency).  Also consider From Section 7.4 of Handbook 1:

Quote

7.4 Protecting against Misunderstandings

When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

"Avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood" probably means, most of the time, discussion of "things of a sexual nature."

Of course, sometimes the youth might bring such issues up.  Such matters can, and almost always are, handled by bishops with tact and decorum and dignity.   And sometimes such disclosures can be vitally important, such as when a youth discloses to the bishop that he or she has been or is being abused.

The issue here is how "inquisitorial" bishops should be.  Long wants bishops to be essentially McCarthy-esque, whereas Sam Young wants bishops to have no interviews at all, or else interviews with no discussion of anything remotely pertaining to sexual issues.

The Church's guidelines hew much closer to the Sam Young approach.  In contrast to Matt Long's characterization of bishop interviews (that they are "an invitation or a call for disclosures {about sexual abuse}," the purposes of such interviews are laid out in section 31.1.7.3 of the Handbook:

Quote

Bishops and their counselors have a sacred responsibility to lead, teach, and inspire youth. Effective personal interviews are one important way they do this. During these interviews, the bishop and his counselors teach youth about becoming disciples of the Savior. They help youth consider how well they are following the Savior and His teachings. Interviews should be uplifting spiritual experiences.

Interviews provide an opportunity to reaffirm each youth’s limitless potential as a child of God. Interviews also provide an opportunity to inspire youth to develop plans to draw closer to Heavenly Father and to improve in all areas of their lives.

As representatives of the Savior, bishops are divinely appointed judges in Israel. In this role, they conduct interviews to determine worthiness and to help youth repent of transgressions.

Those who conduct interviews express love and listen carefully. They encourage youth to talk rather than doing most of the talking themselves.

• "Lead, teach and inspire youth."
• "Teach about becoming disciples of the Savior."
• "Help youth consider how well they are following the Savior and His teachings."
• "Reaffirm each youth's limitless potential."
• "Determine worthiness and {} help youth repent of transgressions."
• "They encourage youth to talk rather than doing most of the talking."

See also section 31.1.7.5 ("Matters for Discussion") :

Quote

Key matters for discussion include the growth of the young person’s testimony of Heavenly Father, the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel. The bishop and his counselors emphasize the importance of keeping baptismal covenants. They teach youth to prepare to make and keep temple covenants through daily righteous living. Bishopric members encourage youth to pray regularly in private and with their family and to study the scriptures. They also encourage youth to stay close to their parents.

When discussing obedience to the commandments, the bishop and his counselors make appropriate use of the limited-use temple recommend interview questions and the standards and explanations in For the Strength of Youth. Leaders adapt the discussion to the understanding and questions of the youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation.

Proactively asking probing questions about possible sex abuse is not part of bishop interviews.  It is inaccurate for Long to characterize these interviews as "an invitation or a call for disclosures {about sexual abuse}."  That is not to say that issues pertaining to abuse cannot or do not come up in the course of such interviews.  That happens all the time.  But Long seems to be saying the interviews are, or should be, designed to ferret out whether abuse is taking place.  I have serious reservations about that.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Again, I'm not giving much credence to this story.  Multiple layers of hearsay, on top of which is the ax-grinding Matt Long.  He leaves out all sorts of details, too.  We're not getting the whole story here, I think.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's complex.

It certainly is.  And yet Matt Long is being way reductionist about it.  The priest/penitent privilege is a biggie.  How inquisitive bishops should be is a huge factor.  What constitutes a "piecemeal" disclosure is quite hard to gauge.  But none of this matters.  Long reduces everything to: The Church is failing.  Bishops are failing.  They are bad and don't care about kids.  Not like Matt Long, who does care.

Yeesh.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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 victims while also preserving the  "theological and doctrinal purposes of the personal priesthood interview." 

Funny how Long never actually gets around to offering any concrete proposals about what this "training for bishops" would entail.

It's almost as if he's more interested in denigrating the Church and painting himself as the righteously-indignant Good Guy than in actually presenting ideas and proposals for the Church to improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds like you missed the most basic, fundamental point.

Well, maybe.  I'm not an idiot.  And I listened intently.  So what was the "most basic, fundamental point?"

Quote

Beyond that, you could give some grace to a guy who is sharing important information.

"Sharing important information" via a rant in which he expresses rank hostility, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and otherwise rants against and denigrates the Church?  While offering no particular recommendations or suggestions for the Church to improve?

I'm supposed to thank  him for this?  Seriously?

Quote

His job has largely been about studying the horrific side of human experience seeking justice from all perspectives: the state's, the accused, and the victim's. 

Well, sorta.  He used to be a prosecutor.  Now he's a criminal defense attorney (he's been representing Paul Petersen, you'll recall).  His job is about the law.  He has seen some ugly things.  So what?  So have I.  So have tens of thousands of other lawyers, therapists, law enforcement officers, and so on.  What privileges his opinions above theirs?

Now, if his rant had included constructive and meaningful and coherent recommendations for the Church to improve how it handles allegations of abuse, I would be singing a different tune.  As it is, however, he just spent an hour plus disparaging and insulting the Church, giving it nary a lick of credit for its efforts, and all the while touting himself as the Guy Who Cares About Victims (unlike the Church, which according to him is possibly malicious in its actions).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No he's really missed the central point of the lecture, or atleast he fails to acknowledge it.

Okay.  I'm listening to you.  What is "the central point of the lecture?"

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Long does extend grace to bishops in his talk.

Only by characterizing them as "victims" of the Church.

What a class act.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Did it answer the questions you had for Meadowchic?

Not really.  Meadowchik is saying I "the most basic, fundamental point" and "the central point of the lecture, or at least he fails to acknowledge it," but so far she has declined to say that this "point" is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

I don't know how many listened to Jennifer Roach's FairMormon presentation last year, but among her defenses for the practice of one-on-one bishop-youth interviews was that these interviews provide opportunities for abuse to be disclosed (even if sometimes the disclosure is accidental). As an abuse survivor herself (at the hands of a youth pastor in her evangelical church, if I understand correctly), I think she might have some ideas that would help bishops and the rest of us.