Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, blueglass said:

annotations should transfer with the membership record transfer, but what if it was past abuse protected under penitent privilege? 

The annotation is still there.  The privilege is, broadly speaking, between the individual and the Church (not the specific bishop who received the confession).

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  His effort to foment anger against the Church seems pretty obvious to me.

He is frustrated, he is unhappy about the Church, and he is working very hard to make sure other people are unhappy and angry at the Church, too.

And he gave the Church no credit for its efforts to help in abuse matters.  None.  Not a smidge.

The information he provided is not "his."  It's out there for anyone who wants to look.  See for yourself.  He didn't discovery any of this, he didn't formulate or systematize it.  He's just purveying it.  And he's doing so with a long-winded rant against the Church and a self-aggrandizing narrative as means of distribution.

Ah, well.  If you were the target of his venom, you might be a bit more skeptical.

I have personal experience with the Church's efforts in addressing allegations of abuse.  My experience has been quite different from his.  And to the extent he has some meritorious recommendations for improvement, he didn't really provide any.  

I don't understand.  Are you citing Long as an example of an Anti-Mormon who has "work{ed} with the Church?"  

He vilified and denigrated the Church, sought to rile up the audience into anger against it, juxtaposed the Church against his own "I care about the kids" bona fides, and so on.

Long presented no "dialogue." 

A husband can have "contributions and insight" into how his wife could improve.  But what if he chose to convey those by publicly slandering and insulting her?  Humiliating her in front of family and friends?  Trying to turn people against her?  Would that, in your view, be a "good faith" approach?

Sorry, but I don't think Dehlin, Kelly, Young and now Long are interested in "improv{ing} the whole community."  They are seeking to tear down the Church, to harm it, to turn people against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ya know, if you agree that the description of victimisation and disclosures are valuable you could focus on that. 

Link to post
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.   For example in August 2019 Meadowchik said this about Sam Young:

Um, isn't Matt Long faulting the Church for not "ask{ing} probing questions"?

And here:

Again, it seems like Matt Long is faulting the Church for not "ask{ing} personal questions."

And here:

This sounds like Meadow is critical of the idea of children "submitting to ANY question pertaining to your sexual activity," which seems rather at odds with Matt Long's criticisms.

She also says this:

I dunno.  Meadow, what are you saying here?  

And here and here:

Meadow, don't you think Matt Long's approach - might end up creating more of this sort of "secondary trauma"?  

And here:

Again, this seems sort of at odds with what Matt Long is saying.

And this:

Well?  In 2019 you are saying that a bishop asking a child "if they live the law of chastity" is "creepy" and "inappropriate," and that "{a}dults in polite society simply don't do this.

Fast forward to 2021, you are lauding Matt Long, who is vilifying the Church for not training its bishops to ask children probing questions about possible sexual abuse.  Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent?

And here:

In 2019 Meadow was saying that "adults questioning minors about their sexual experiences" was a "problem."  She said she does not "probe or ask her {teen daughter} if she has broken the law of chastity."  Meadow, if you had qualms with you asking your own daughter about whether she's keeping the law of chastity, how on earth can you now be on board with Matt Long's proposal for the Church to train its bishops to "probe" for possible sexual abuse?

And here:

I don't get it.  A bishop asking "Do you keep the Law of Chastity" is out-of-bounds and potentially "impacts the ... safety of minor children in the Church," but a bishop asking a series of probing questions trying to find out about possible sexual abuse (as Matt Long is advocating) is find and dandy?

And here:

A bishop asking "do you keep the Law of Chastity" amounts to "normaliz{ing} the act of an adult asking a minor about intimate personal aspects of their life, and can, by design, lead to asking intimate details, too."  Um, wouldn't training bishops to ask kids about possible sex abuse also do this?  Perhaps even to a much greater degree?

You say that, for your children, "their personal sexuality is inviolate," and that any questions from a bishop about that should cause "those mental warning flags to wave fiercely."  I can certainly respect that position, but then why are you praising Matt Long, who is railing against the Church for not training its bishops to ask probing questions about possible sexual abuse?

And here:

Um, isn't Matt Long's primary grievance that bishops are not "pry{ing} into someone's personal details" about sex-related matters? 

I am utterly confident that Meadowchik is acting in good faith (I am far less certain about Matt Long), but the foregoing statements create some real confusion for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for taking at least my actions as in good faith. I am in the airport and will be brief, but regarding the clash between Long's points and my own previously-stated opinions, this is my thinking:

If adequate training is not given, the questioning should stop. If the church insists on mediating on sexual topics in a pastoral setting, there should be adequate training. 

That said, I am open to new positions if they are better. One thing I learned listening to the lecture again and the podcasts, etc..., is that the laws for mandated reporters are generally directed at people who are in frequent contact or positions of authority with children.  Therefore, in that light and regardless of interrogation policy, church leaders should receive training to prepare them to recognise accidental and intentional disclosures.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you for taking at least my actions as in good faith. I am in the airport and will be brief, but regarding the clash between Long's points and my own previously-stated opinions, this is my thinking:

If adequate training is not given, the questioning should stop. If the church insists on mediating on sexual topics in a pastoral setting, there should be adequate training. 

That said, I am open to new positions if they are better. One thing I learned listening to the lecture again and the podcasts, etc..., is that the laws for mandated reporters are generally directed at people who are in frequent contact or positions of authority with children.  Therefore, in that light and regardless of interrogation policy, church leaders should receive training to prepare them to recognise accidental and intentional disclosures.

"Training" mandated by whom?  The government?  The government should tell priest and pastors what they should be trained?  What they should ask?  Minimum qualifications for the job as a rabbi?

The government cannot even manage its own house when it comes to matters of sexuality and sexual behavior.  President Clinton boffed an intern in the White House.  President Clinton was disbarred after lying under oath about a sexual affair.  (Can you imagine -- having as President of the United States a disbarred attorney?)  President Kennedy had affairs with actresses.  President Eisenhower had a mistress.  President Trump bragged about assaulting women and hung out with the pedophile Epstein even after the latter had been convicted.  President Jackson's "wife" was a person he never married, and who have left her husband for Jackson without a divorce.  He killed a man in a duel for insulting her about it. He fought over 100 duels over insults to his wife.  He entered the White House partially paralzyzed from duels.  President Buchanan was known to dress up in women's clothes while President, and he never married.    And I've failed to mention all the Presidents who were really atheists or agnostics and hypocritically attended church for appearances only.

You're going to let these kind of people tell Joel Osteen's youth ministers what to say and ask?

Mandated by popular acclaim?  Who is going to define that?  Should instagram and Facebook posters form a committee to tell, say, the Catholic Church what to say and ask?

It is one thing to "mandate" that somebody make a report to the cops, and quite another to prescribe a pedagogical course for mandated reporters to take.

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

By the way, I'm all for lots and lots of training and resources on the topic.  Child abuse (and it's nasty cousins, disabled and elderly abuse) thrive best in the secret dark, hidden away, with people too embarrassed or awkward to talk or think about it.  It cannot survive in the light, and the solution is to drag it out where everyone can see it for what it is.   "It", in this case, is the sum total of human understanding about abuse of those who need to be protected, including the impacts it has on perpetrator and victim alike.

I'm a big fan of the principle: "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith; Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing, and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;"

I see that principle playing out with the leader-mandated training and all those links in my previous post.  And like any other area of knowledge, there's always more to learn, more to teach, more to do.

Much of the human race has come a long way in the last 40 years.  I was born into a culture full of people who didn't believe a husband could rape a wife, and if you didn't see bruises or blood, it wasn't abuse.  (And even if you did, it's a parent's duty to discipline kids.)  Pretty much everyone has driven that thinking out of our brains.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

By the way, I'm all for lots and lots of training and resources on the topic. 

By whom?  And what is the penalty if they don't train?

Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Ya know, if you agree that the description of victimisation and disclosures are valuable you could focus on that. 

A few thoughts:

1. I agree that the generalized "description of victimization and disclosures are valuable" (though, again, I don't think this description is original or unique to Matt Long).  I have also said, a few times now, that I am open to the idea of training for bishops.

2. I don't really agree that Matt Long's presentation of them, nasty and accusatory and self-congratulatory as it was, was valuable.  To the contrary, I found his presentation generally obnoxious and counter-productive.  

3. As I said before:

Quote

I suppose I'm open to the idea of getting bishops some training in this.  But what training?  To what purpose?  And are there any risks?  Do we really want to train bishops to become McCarthy-esque with children regarding sex-related matters?  Doesn't he see how tricky and difficult that could be?  Does he care?  Or is he just interested in lambasting the Church, and so not particularly worried about getting into the nitty gritty?

Matt Long's presentation was not "valuable" in terms of advancing his general proposal.  He offers no particulars.  No proposals.  Just a rant full of accusations and denigrations against the Church, nary a lick of credit to the Church for its efforts, and a healthy dollop of self-aggrandizement on top.  

Again, I am quite disappointed with how Matt Long is going about this.  You don't publicly insult and malign a religious group, try to work up an audience to resent and be angry at it, proverbially slap the group across the face five or six times, and then say "Oh, you don't understand!  I'm here to help you!  I just want you to improve!"  

4. As I also said before, Matt Long is fairly off-track in his characterization of bishop's interviews:

Quote

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. There are all sorts of ramifications and potential pitfalls for what Matt Long is proposing in the abstract, which is why I think he never gets around to presenting the particulars.  Staying vague and abstract allows him all sorts of room to be accusatory and sanctimonious, whereas getting down to the nitty gritty details would perhaps force him to be more circumspect in his criticisms and demands.  For example, Bob Crockett has just now asked some pretty decent questions.  Is the training going to be mandatory?  As in the government?  If so, who is going to develop the training?  As I see it (as, I think, should Matt Long), government-mandated training of ecclesiastical leaders creates all sorts of questions and problems.  

And what if the training is going to be Church-mandated, again, what will the content be?  Does Matt Long 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? 

----

You brought Matt Long's presentation to this board.  I'm discussing it, both in form and content.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

"Training" mandated by whom?  The government?  The government should tell priest and pastors what they should be trained?  What they should ask?  Minimum qualifications for the job as a rabbi?

The government cannot even manage its own house when it comes to matters of sexuality and sexual behavior.  President Clinton boffed an intern in the White House.  President Clinton was disbarred after lying under oath about a sexual affair.  (Can you imagine -- having as President of the United States a disbarred attorney?)  President Kennedy had affairs with actresses.  President Eisenhower had a mistress.  President Trump bragged about assaulting women and hung out with the pedophile Epstein even after the latter had been convicted.  President Jackson's "wife" was a person he never married, and who have left her husband for Jackson without a divorce.  He killed a man in a duel for insulting her about it. He fought over 100 duels over insults to his wife.  He entered the White House partially paralzyzed from duels.  President Buchanan was known to dress up in women's clothes while President, and he never married.    And I've failed to mention all the Presidents who were really atheists or agnostics and hypocritically attended church for appearances only.

You're going to let these kind of people tell Joel Osteen's youth ministers what to say and ask?

Mandated by popular acclaim?  Who is going to define that?  Should instagram and Facebook posters form a committee to tell, say, the Catholic Church what to say and ask?

It is one thing to "mandate" that somebody make a report to the cops, and quite another to prescribe a pedagogical course for mandated reporters to take.

I'm not sure you're aware of the context here. I have been talking about moral obligations to train. I have referenced legalities but at the moment am not focusing on changing the law.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. I agree that the generalized "description of victimization and disclosures are valuable" (though, again, I don't think this description is original or unique to Matt Long).  I have also said, a few times now, that I am open to the idea of training for bishops.

2. I don't really agree that Matt Long's presentation of them, nasty and accusatory and self-congratulatory as it was, was valuable.  To the contrary, I found his presentation generally obnoxious and counter-productive.  

3. As I said before:

Matt Long's presentation was not "valuable" in terms of advancing his general proposal.  He offers no particulars.  No proposals.  Just a rant full of accusations and denigrations against the Church, nary a lick of credit to the Church for its efforts, and a healthy dollop of self-aggrandizement on top.  

Again, I am quite disappointed with how Matt Long is going about this.  You don't publicly insult and malign a religious group, try to work up an audience to resent and be angry at it, proverbially slap the group across the face five or six times, and then say "Oh, you don't understand!  I'm here to help you!  I just want you to improve!"  

4. As I also said before, Matt Long is fairly off-track in his characterization of bishop's interviews:

5. There are all sorts of ramifications and potential pitfalls for what Matt Long is proposing in the abstract, which is why I think he never gets around to presenting the particulars.  Staying vague and abstract allows him all sorts of room to be accusatory and sanctimonious, whereas getting down to the nitty gritty details would perhaps force him to be more circumspect in his criticisms and demands.  For example, Bob Crockett has just now asked some pretty decent questions.  Is the training going to be mandatory?  As in the government?  If so, who is going to develop the training?  As I see it (as, I think, should Matt Long), government-mandated training of ecclesiastical leaders creates all sorts of questions and problems.  

And what if the training is going to be Church-mandated, again, what will the content be?  Does Matt Long 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? 

----

You brought Matt Long's presentation to this board.  I'm discussing it, both in form and content.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said to Bob, at the moment I am not talking about changing the law, but about what can be voluntarily done to better help abuse victims, generally and in the context of bishop interviews. 

It looks to me that the lecture we both listened to was hosted by a CoC congregation in Arizona as part of a series, but I do not know if subsequent lectures were published. I don't see them on that link's website. But, the What We Know Podcast has much more.

What I have already shared is basic, but it is still an important step that imo can vastly improve an adult's ability to recognise reports and disclosures.

I would be happy to talk about what else can help and of course discuss any suggestions you might have.

Also I plan to summarize some of the more relevant WWK episodes as I am able.

 

Link to post

I will throw this into the mix. I served in Cub Scouts in those last few years before the Church split from BSA. I was required to take BSA's latest (90ish minute online video) youth protection training followed shortly by the Church's (30ish minute online video) training. My feeling is that YPT in BSA has a much bigger impact -- perhaps because BSA's legal troubles have such an impact on the BSA's present (and future, if any). BSA's training included the CEO expressing his view of the importance of YPT along with interview segments from multiple "experts" (of BSA's choosing). It including some discussion of how to prevent leader on youth abuse (mostly about 2 deep leadership which BSA has long required, and the Church has recently adopted, and similar policies), how to prevent youth-youth abuse (things like no cameras/phones allowed in bathroom/shower facilities and some talk of bullying), and ideas for things a leader could look for that would suggest abuse occurring at home/outside of BSA activities. For this last one, they emphasized that we as leaders (nor anyone else at BSA) were trained in investigation and mandatory reporting laws pretty much required any BSA leader who had any reason to suspect abuse at home/outside BSA activities should immediately call law enforcement and let them investigate.

The Church's YPT covered much of the same ground in less time. However, As much as I liked the brevity, I still retained more from BSA's YPT than from the Church's. Perhaps some of this stems from the urgency expressed in the videos. BSA's very future could be at stake and will hinge on how well it has tackled YPT and how well it chooses to tackle YPT going forward. The Church's video doesn't have the same urgency to it.

In hindsight, it seems to me that the Church has mostly outsourced YPT to BSA. Things like 2 deep leadership only applied to BSA/YM activities but did not extend to youth activities in general. With the break from BSA and the additional scrutiny that has come from the Catholic and other scandals (I recently read a publication by some researchers suggesting that abuse is just as common among Protestants, but doesn't get noticed because Protestants are not as centrally organized), the Church has established YPT guidelines and policies. A lot of the question in my mind is how strictly will they be enforced (will every Primary class throughout the Church be required by local leadership to have 2 teachers present every Sunday?). The Church is relatively new to developing and enforcing YPT guidelines, but hopefully it can learn from others' and establish good policies and practices and enforce them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I will throw this into the mix. I served in Cub Scouts in those last few years before the Church split from BSA. I was required to take BSA's latest (90ish minute online video) youth protection training followed shortly by the Church's (30ish minute online video) training. My feeling is that YPT in BSA has a much bigger impact -- perhaps because BSA's legal troubles have such an impact on the BSA's present (and future, if any). BSA's training included the CEO expressing his view of the importance of YPT along with interview segments from multiple "experts" (of BSA's choosing). It including some discussion of how to prevent leader on youth abuse (mostly about 2 deep leadership which BSA has long required, and the Church has recently adopted, and similar policies), how to prevent youth-youth abuse (things like no cameras/phones allowed in bathroom/shower facilities and some talk of bullying), and ideas for things a leader could look for that would suggest abuse occurring at home/outside of BSA activities. For this last one, they emphasized that we as leaders (nor anyone else at BSA) were trained in investigation and mandatory reporting laws pretty much required any BSA leader who had any reason to suspect abuse at home/outside BSA activities should immediately call law enforcement and let them investigate.

The Church's YPT covered much of the same ground in less time. However, As much as I liked the brevity, I still retained more from BSA's YPT than from the Church's. Perhaps some of this stems from the urgency expressed in the videos. BSA's very future could be at stake and will hinge on how well it has tackled YPT and how well it chooses to tackle YPT going forward. The Church's video doesn't have the same urgency to it.

In hindsight, it seems to me that the Church has mostly outsourced YPT to BSA. Things like 2 deep leadership only applied to BSA/YM activities but did not extend to youth activities in general. With the break from BSA and the additional scrutiny that has come from the Catholic and other scandals (I recently read a publication by some researchers suggesting that abuse is just as common among Protestants, but doesn't get noticed because Protestants are not as centrally organized), the Church has established YPT guidelines and policies. A lot of the question in my mind is how strictly will they be enforced (will every Primary class throughout the Church be required by local leadership to have 2 teachers present every Sunday?). The Church is relatively new to developing and enforcing YPT guidelines, but hopefully it can learn from others' and establish good policies and practices and enforce them.

I think your point about training impact is significant. Sometimes simple or obvious concepts "sink in" more or less depending upon the approach. Also how we think about them and then talk about them can affect their impact.

Link to post
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I will throw this into the mix. I served in Cub Scouts in those last few years before the Church split from BSA. I was required to take BSA's latest (90ish minute online video) youth protection training followed shortly by the Church's (30ish minute online video) training. My feeling is that YPT in BSA has a much bigger impact -- perhaps because BSA's legal troubles have such an impact on the BSA's present (and future, if any). BSA's training included the CEO expressing his view of the importance of YPT along with interview segments from multiple "experts" (of BSA's choosing). It including some discussion of how to prevent leader on youth abuse (mostly about 2 deep leadership which BSA has long required, and the Church has recently adopted, and similar policies), how to prevent youth-youth abuse (things like no cameras/phones allowed in bathroom/shower facilities and some talk of bullying), and ideas for things a leader could look for that would suggest abuse occurring at home/outside of BSA activities. For this last one, they emphasized that we as leaders (nor anyone else at BSA) were trained in investigation and mandatory reporting laws pretty much required any BSA leader who had any reason to suspect abuse at home/outside BSA activities should immediately call law enforcement and let them investigate.

The Church's YPT covered much of the same ground in less time. However, As much as I liked the brevity, I still retained more from BSA's YPT than from the Church's. Perhaps some of this stems from the urgency expressed in the videos. BSA's very future could be at stake and will hinge on how well it has tackled YPT and how well it chooses to tackle YPT going forward. The Church's video doesn't have the same urgency to it.

In hindsight, it seems to me that the Church has mostly outsourced YPT to BSA. Things like 2 deep leadership only applied to BSA/YM activities but did not extend to youth activities in general. With the break from BSA and the additional scrutiny that has come from the Catholic and other scandals (I recently read a publication by some researchers suggesting that abuse is just as common among Protestants, but doesn't get noticed because Protestants are not as centrally organized), the Church has established YPT guidelines and policies. A lot of the question in my mind is how strictly will they be enforced (will every Primary class throughout the Church be required by local leadership to have 2 teachers present every Sunday?). The Church is relatively new to developing and enforcing YPT guidelines, but hopefully it can learn from others' and establish good policies and practices and enforce them.

Two deep is required in every primary class. For driving/car pooling no one on one. I like the new safety training and protocols but feel it needs to be extended to all church functions including ministering. I do feel like one on one Bishop interviews with other proper safety protocols can be beneficial when sought by the youth.

I like that youth never are required to have one on one interviews anymore. 
 

I applaud the changes the church has instigated the last few years.
 

 

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Two deep is required in every primary class. For driving/car pooling no one on one. I like the new safety training and protocols but feel it needs to be extended to all church functions including ministering. I do feel like one on one Bishop interviews with other proper safety protocols can be beneficial when sought by the youth.

I like that youth never are required to have one on one interviews anymore. 
 

I applaud the changes the church has instigated the last few years.
 

 

I applaud those that spoke up about the harm that can occur in those one on ones. The church usually are reactionary instead of being the lead on these things. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think your point about training impact is significant. Sometimes simple or obvious concepts "sink in" more or less depending upon the approach. Also how we think about them and then talk about them can affect their impact.

Interestingly enough, it is Matt Long's approach to which Smac97 has objected most strongly, yet you have been chiding him for practically the entire thread for focusing on that approach rather than on what you say is the valuable content or substance Matt Long has to offer.  So which is it?  Are you simply interested in chiding the people with whom you disagree?  If they criticize approach, you will chide them for that, but if they criticize content, you will also chide them for that?  Are we danged if we does, and danged if we doesn't? :huh: :unknw: 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also how we think about them and then talk about them can affect their impact.

When I first was called into Scouts, I recall a certain set of "old hands" that talked about YPT and other BSA safety policies as "BSA covering its bases." This kind of cynical attitude sometimes gave me the impression that these policies are mere legal formalities that applied to BSA (but not necessarily the Church), and that one wasn't always expected to follow the policies. When the Church adopted its 2 deep leadership for all youth (as @bsjkkiemphasized), I saw a few people in small wards branches (where everyone already has multiple callings) express concern that it might not be practical or even possible to assign two adults to every single primary/youth class. Covid has really thrown a wrench in regular class attendance, so I don't know how things are progressing, but I still wonder how well we are doing implementing even this most basic of YPT practices.

I work in a chemical industry, and we often have the same problem with safety and chemical hygiene issues. An employer can have good safety policies in place, but if they don't get "buy in" from the employees, then the safety policies don't truly get implemented.

A big part of making the Church's youth protection work is getting the average member/teacher to buy into the importance of these practices. A big part of that is, as you say, how cynically or enthusiastically we talk about the policies.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Two deep is required in every primary class. For driving/car pooling no one on one. I like the new safety training and protocols but feel it needs to be extended to all church functions including ministering. I do feel like one on one Bishop interviews with other proper safety protocols can be beneficial when sought by the youth.

I like that youth never are required to have one on one interviews anymore. 
 

I applaud the changes the church has instigated the last few years.
 

 

In our stake driving has to always be two deep as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

... I like that youth never are required to have one on one interviews anymore. 
 

I applaud the changes the church has instigated the last few years.
 

 

Not required, no.  However, the new policy allowing a youth to bring someone else into a bishop's interview has "solved" the all-but-nonexistent problem of bishops preying on youth and has created other potential problems, such as the potential for an abuser to accompany a youth to an interview: "No, really!  I'll be happy to go with you Son/Daughter!  After all, we wouldn't want you airing any dirty family laundry with the bishop, now, would we?  As you well know by now, I won't be too happy with you once we get home ..."  That's what happens when the exceptions are treated as though they are the rules, but that's "progress" for you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

As I said to Bob, at the moment I am not talking about changing the law, but about what can be voluntarily done to better help abuse victims, generally and in the context of bishop interviews. 

Right.  And I and others are talking about the potential pitfalls and ramifications about what you and Matt Long are proposing we "voluntarily do."

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It looks to me that the lecture we both listened to was hosted by a CoC congregation in Arizona as part of a series, but I do not know if subsequent lectures were published. I don't see them on that link's website. But, the What We Know Podcast has much more.

Having been thoroughly unimpressed with Matt Long's offerings in my first outing, I'm not particularly enthused to spend hours on a second outing.  Same goes with Anne McMullin.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What I have already shared is basic, but it is still an important step that imo can vastly improve an adult's ability to recognise reports and disclosures.

I don't understand.  What is it that you think the bishops of the Church can do to "vastly improve?"

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I would be happy to talk about what else can help and of course discuss any suggestions you might have.

A biggie would be for Matt Long and his ilk to cut out the obnoxious rhetoric.  It really undercuts his credibility.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also I plan to summarize some of the more relevant WWK episodes as I am able.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not required, no.  However, the new policy allowing a youth to bring someone else into a bishop's interview has "solved" the all-but-nonexistent problem of bishops preying on youth and has created other potential problems, such as the potential for an abuser to accompany a youth to an interview: "No, really!  I'll be happy to go with you Son/Daughter!  After all, we wouldn't want you airing any dirty family laundry with the bishop, now, would we?  As you well know by now, I won't be too happy with you once we get home ..."  That's what happens when the exceptions are treated as though they are the rules, but that's "progress" for you.

I take it you've never tried to see outside the box and read the letters on Sam Young's protect every child's website about one on one interviews? 

Also, youth have other ways to report abuse besides the bishop don't they? 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I take it you've never tried to see outside the box and read the letters on Sam Young's protect every child's website about one on one interviews? 

Also, youth have other ways to report abuse besides the bishop don't they? 

Right, anybody who disagrees with you cannot think outside the box!  <_< :rolleyes:  Nice ad hominem there, Tacenda!  Your masters have taught you well! ;)

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:
Quote

Not required, no.  However, the new policy allowing a youth to bring someone else into a bishop's interview has "solved" the all-but-nonexistent problem of bishops preying on youth and has created other potential problems, such as the potential for an abuser to accompany a youth to an interview: "No, really!  I'll be happy to go with you Son/Daughter!  After all, we wouldn't want you airing any dirty family laundry with the bishop, now, would we?  As you well know by now, I won't be too happy with you once we get home ..."  That's what happens when the exceptions are treated as though they are the rules, but that's "progress" for you.

I take it you've never tried to see outside the box and read the letters on Sam Young's protect every child's website about one on one interviews? 

I commented on this back in August 2018:

Quote

I understand the emotions that can be stirred up when reading those stories.  But a few thoughts:

First, those stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Second, the fact that Sam Young seems to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., rather strongly speaks against the merits and reasonableness of his demands, or at least makes me very cautious about them.  Mr. Young isn't looking to persuade others to his position through reasoning and evidence.  He is instead looking to whip people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  He's creating a mob mentality.  An hysteria.  

Third, Mr. Young's selective outrage is really disconcerting.  Why is he targeting bishops interviews?  Doesn't that seem way down on the list of things we could do to reduce sexual abuse of children?  As I recall, Mr. Young started all of this because a bishop purportedly asked his daughter some inappropriate questions.  Is that all this is, then?  Mr. Young's personal resentments against one bishop's misconduct blown up into a full-blown moral panic?  How else do we account for his utter disregard of the many other, and far more dangerous, factors that lead to sexual abuse of children?

Fourth, Mr. Young's self-aggrandizement is really a concern to me.  This issue seems to be all about him.  He's always front and center.  Talking to the media.  At the literal center of the marches and protests.  And now he's in the middle of a hunger strike, and claiming that Jesus will descend and sit in a chair next to him

I ask you to consider if you have succumbed to what Mr. Young was trying to do: a fomented moral panic, a hysteria.

Also, I think Ken has a point.  A non-statistically-insignificant number of abusers of children are the child's parents.

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, youth have other ways to report abuse besides the bishop don't they? 

Well yes, yes they do.  

I'm curious as to how you feel about the apparent tension between Sam Young's demands of the Church relative to Matt Long's demands.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right, anybody who disagrees with you cannot think outside the box!  <_< :rolleyes:  Nice ad hominem there, Tacenda!  Your masters have taught you well! ;)

I'm sorry that I insinuated that you haven't read the letters maybe you have, or that you don't look outside the box. That was a low ball statement. But in the past it seems that people haven't taken the time to read the letters on the website of instances with bishops. The bishops can harm with the kinds of questions asked and also with discipline as well, so the majority are not always with the bishop abusing physically, but maybe psychological.

And I'm not saying no one on ones with youth that ask to see the bishop to get things off their chests. I believe in those wholeheartedly. But the yearly mandated interviews, especially with youngsters, I don't see a problem with parents or maybe a youth leader attending with them. 

Link to post

Tacenda, if someone says s/he's looking for instances untoward behavior by bishops, what do you think that, Lo and behold!, s/he's going to find?  If s/he as much as says that s/he's got an axe to grind and is looking for people to help him or her grind that axe, what do you think s/he's going to find?  And how many of the alleged accounts that Sam Young has gathered have been verified?  I don't know, but I would guess not many.  Whether or not any untoward behavior occurred, all it would take for anyone to contribute an alleged instance of untoward behavior is for someone to say, "I don't like my bishop," and the next thing you know, that bishop has been accused of untoward behavior. If someone says, "I want to find out what's going on," that's one thing.  If s/he says, "I'm looking for instances of [x]," what do you think she's going to find? 

Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I commented on this back in August 2018:

I ask you to consider if you have succumbed to what Mr. Young was trying to do: a fomented moral panic, a hysteria.

Also, I think Ken has a point.  A non-statistically-insignificant number of abusers of children are the child's parents.

Well yes, yes they do.  

I'm curious as to how you feel about the apparent tension between Sam Young's demands of the Church relative to Matt Long's demands.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll have to listen to the podcast again, it's been a long time, to see what you mean in order to answer. Unless you want to fill me in on exactly what you're asking me to answer. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Tacenda, if someone says s/he's looking for instances untoward behavior by bishops, what do you think that, Lo and behold!, s/he's going to find?  If s/he as much as says that s/he's got an axe to grind and is looking for people to help him or her grind that axe, what do you think s/he's going to find?  And how many of the alleged accounts that Sam Young has gathered have been verified?  I don't know, but I would guess not many.  Whether or not any untoward behavior occurred, all it would take for anyone to contribute an alleged instance of untoward behavior is for someone to say, "I don't like my bishop," and the next thing you know, that bishop has been accused of untoward behavior. If someone says, "I want to find out what's going on," that's one thing.  If s/he says, "I'm looking for instances of [x]," what do you think she's going to find? 

Which is a great reason for a witness for that bishop. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...