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

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

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.

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. 

Broadly speaking, Sam Young wants bishop interviews to stop, or else for bishops to ask no questions whatsoever regarding any sex-related issue.

Broadly speaking, Matt Long wants bishop interviews to be more invasive, for bishops to receive training on how to discern possible "piecemeal disclosures" of abuse from a child during an interview, and to thereafter ask more and more probing sex-related questions to ascertain if abuse has occurred or might be occurring.

What Sam Young wants seems to be quite at odds with what Matt Long wants, and vice versa.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, Sam Young wants bishop interviews to stop, or else for bishops to ask no questions whatsoever regarding any sex-related issue.

Broadly speaking, Matt Long wants bishop interviews to be more invasive, for bishops to receive training on how to discern possible "piecemeal disclosures" of abuse from a child during an interview, and to thereafter ask more and more probing sex-related questions to ascertain if abuse has occurred or might be occurring.

What Sam Young wants seems to be quite at odds with what Matt Long wants, and vice versa.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's not exactly what Sam wants. The in depth interview is about the sexual immorality of the youth with the opposite sex or ? Not the youth that have been sexually abused by someone else. That's for the law or a person trained to do, not the bishop. The bishop should refer the abused to someone that is trained. 

When my little girl was three, she and I were loading the dishwasher and she told me her friend's dad touched her in her private part, while he had her get up on the counter to get some candy out of the cupboard. It's seared in my memory. I still feel great guilt that I allowed her to play at this friend's house. And I'm amazed that at this young age, she was able to tell me this. I went to our bishop and told him. And he called the dad in and he denied it. And then I went to the police and they interviewed my daughter without me in there, and they told me they couldn't outright ask if she was touched inappropriately but used a doll or something like that. So she, I'm thinking, wasn't able to understand what it was they wanted. 

We subsequently gave up on trying, I regret not going to him and asking him if he did this. He happened to be the brother to one of the neighbors who also lived nearby that my husband and I had went out on dates with so that made it difficult. My husband would throw rocks at their place out of desperation in the middle of the night. I have never been the same since.

And my daughter wasn't the only one abused. Another man in the neighborhood abused my other daughter's friend. He was an older man and would wait by the bus stop and hand out candy to the children getting off the bus. He would put the candy in his pocket and they would reach in. Recently I found out that to one of those children, my daughter's friend, he was somehow able to get her alone or maybe with her sister as well. She spoke of it on FB recently while expanding on that by saying she is learning to love herself and raise her self esteem.

This was in a trailer court we lived in while saving money. Not saying that only predators live in trailers. But I remember the ting to this day of the rocks that hit my daughter's abuser's trailer. My husband was wrong doing that, I know, but you can see that it does make one do strange things when they have a child that has been abused and feel helpless. 

So I understand what Matt Long is asking but he shouldn't leave it to the bishop to do that, but training a bishop is always a good thing. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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

Mmm-hmm.  Your [newfound] concern for bishops is touching.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-hmm.  Your [newfound] concern for bishops is touching.

That was a low blow. You've no idea how I feel about bishops. I've had nothing but good interactions with bishops. But that's not all of them. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Broadly speaking, Sam Young wants bishop interviews to stop, or else for bishops to ask no questions whatsoever regarding any sex-related issue.

That's not exactly what Sam wants.

Are you sure?  From this article:

Quote

Young is the director of Protect LDS Children, which is asking the church to change its policy on interviewing children and youth to "no one-on-one interviews, no sexually explicit questions ever."
...
Young said he takes the law of chastity seriously. However, last month he announced that he had come to believe that asking someone if they are living the Biblical law of chastity "is a sex question, period."

From Sam Young's own website:

Quote

I called for the Mormon Church to end one-on-one interviews with children and eliminate the sexually explicit questions that were being posed to them.

So he wants A) no one-on-one interviews, and B) no questions at all about sex.

Quote

The in depth interview is about the sexual immorality of the youth with the opposite sex or? Not the youth that have been sexually abused by someone else. That's for the law or a person trained to do, not the bishop. The bishop should refer the abused to someone that is trained. 

But isn't Matt Long's whole point that bishops often don't go far enough in their questioning to determine if the child has been abused?  And that bishops should be trained to ask more sex-related questions if they think such a thing might have happened?

Quote

When my little girl was three, she and I were loading the dishwasher and she told me her friend's dad touched her in her private part, while he had her get up on the counter to get some candy out of the cupboard. It's seared in my memory. I still feel great guilt that I allowed her to play at this friend's house. And I'm amazed that at this young age, she was able to tell me this. I went to our bishop and told him. And he called the dad in and he denied it. And then I went to the police and they interviewed my daughter without me in there, and they told me they couldn't outright ask if she was touched inappropriately but used a doll or something like that. So she, I'm thinking, wasn't able to understand what it was they wanted. 

What are your thoughts about what happened here?  The bishop spoke with the man, and the man denied it.  Do you think the bishop should have done more?  If so, what?

Meanwhile, you went to law enforcement, and they could not get sufficiently helpful information from your daughter (understandable, given her age).  Do think think something else should have been done?  If so, what?

Quote

We subsequently gave up on trying, I regret not going to him and asking him if he did this. He happened to be the brother to one of the neighbors who also lived nearby that my husband and I had went out on dates with so that made it difficult. My husband would throw rocks at their place out of desperation in the middle of the night. I have never been the same since.

I am very sorry for what happened, but I am not sure what you are proposing.  

Quote

And my daughter wasn't the only one abused. Another man in the neighborhood abused my other daughter's friend. He was an older man and would wait by the bus stop and hand out candy to the children getting off the bus. He would put the candy in his pocket and they would reach in. Recently I found out that to one of those children, my daughter's friend, he was somehow able to get her alone or maybe with her sister as well. She spoke of it on FB recently while expanding on that by saying she is learning to love herself and raise her self esteem.

This was in a trailer court we lived in while saving money. Not saying that only predators live in trailers. But I remember the ting to this day of the rocks that hit my daughter's abuser's trailer. My husband was wrong doing that, I know, but you can see that it does make one do strange things when they have a child that has been abused and feel helpless. 

Yes, that is an understandable feeling.  But I'm not sure what you are proposing be done about it, particularly in the context of bishop interviews.

Quote

So I understand what Matt Long is asking but he shouldn't leave it to the bishop to do that, but training a bishop is always a good thing. 

What sort of training do you have in mind?  I mean, if Young thinks a question as circumspect as "Do you live the Law of Chastity?" is "a sex question, period," and therefore should be 100% off-limits, how do you think Matt Long's proposal can be implemented?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2021 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

19 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.
 

 

 

4 hours 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.

 

2 hours 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? 

 

2 hours 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? 

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

 

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-hmm.  Your [newfound] concern for bishops is touching.

 

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That was a low blow. You've no idea how I feel about bishops. I've had nothing but good interactions with bishops. But that's not all of them. 

Tacenda, if you ally yourself with, or express sympathy toward, people who see bishops as predators or as potential predators, I think you need to be prepared for the fact that (surprise, surprise!) people are going to think that you see bishops as [potential] predators.  Sam Young sees bishops as [potential] predators.  So if you say, in essence if not in fact, "I agree with Sam Young," you shouldn't be surprised if people say, "Oh, okay, so Tacenda sees bishops as [potential] predators."  You can say, "Oh!  Heeeeey!  Unfair!  Low blow!"  And you may not like it, but it's simple logic.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, Matt Long wants bishop interviews to be more invasive, for bishops to receive training on how to discern possible "piecemeal disclosures" of abuse from a child during an interview, and to thereafter ask more and more probing sex-related questions to ascertain if abuse has occurred or might be occurring.

I would add that, after listening to her FairMormon conference presentation, Jennifer Roach is also calling for bishops to be better able to pickup these piecemeal disclosures (breadcrumb was the word she used, IIRC).

The thing that I find frustrating (maybe because we tend to focus on people like these who are on the extremes of the discussion) is that no one ever really gets to the central heart and soul of the issue. It seems to me that the issue really boils down to cost-benefit analyses (for which costs and benefits are poorly quantified and difficult to measure). We tend to focus so much on the extremes that no one ever really talks about how to balance the costs against the benefits. As @Kenngo1969points out, if you go looking for a few bad apple bishops, you will find them. If you go looking for people who have had negative experiences with bishop interviews you will find them. If you go looking for people who have been abused by church leaders/teachers, they are there. If you go looking for cases where church leaders/members overlooked or failed to recognize abuse, those cases exist. By the same token, if you go looking for people who have been helped by bishop interviews or who were rescued from an abusive situation by an observant bishop, you will also find those. If you look for cases where church leaders/members were able to recognize and help people in difficult circumstances, those anecdotes will be found. But we never really seem to talk about how to balance the good against the bad in a way that minimizes the bad while optimizing the good.

Another thing that I find frustrating is that, since most of the data on the issue is anecdotal, is that much of the data does not include any kind of date field. Policies have changed over the years and decades. I don't want to ignore the pain of those who felt victimized by experiences decades ago, but it also seems important to see if there is a trend with time. If you want to talk about an anecdote where a youth was assaulted by a teacher in the years and decades before the Church required two adults in each class (and we believe that 2 deep leadership could have prevented the assault), that seems important to include in the anecdote. It is important to acknowledge the pain associated with the anecdote, but also acknowledge that similar anecdotes should become less common (to the extent that the policy is implemented and enforced). If there is reason to believe that things are getting better as members become more aware of the issues and policies and procedures get implemented and/or changed to address new information, then it would be valuable to identify the positive trends and try to understand what is behind those positive trends. Where negative trends occur, it would be valuable to know what policies/procedures/beliefs/practices are counterproductive to the goal of preventing abuse and/or recognizing abusive situations.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-hmm.  Your [newfound] concern for bishops is touching.

My memory is she has said the same thing before.  It is not inconsistent with her position on protecting children.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My memory is she has said the same thing before.  It is not inconsistent with her position on protecting children.

Okay.

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would add that, after listening to her FairMormon conference presentation, Jennifer Roach is also calling for bishops to be better able to pickup these piecemeal disclosures (breadcrumb was the word she used, IIRC).

The thing that I find frustrating (maybe because we tend to focus on people like these who are on the extremes of the discussion) is that no one ever really gets to the central heart and soul of the issue. It seems to me that the issue really boils down to cost-benefit analyses (for which costs and benefits are poorly quantified and difficult to measure). We tend to focus so much on the extremes that no one ever really talks about how to balance the costs against the benefits. As @Kenngo1969points out, if you go looking for a few bad apple bishops, you will find them. If you go looking for people who have had negative experiences with bishop interviews you will find them. If you go looking for people who have been abused by church leaders/teachers, they are there. If you go looking for cases where church leaders/members overlooked or failed to recognize abuse, those cases exist. By the same token, if you go looking for people who have been helped by bishop interviews or who were rescued from an abusive situation by an observant bishop, you will also find those. If you look for cases where church leaders/members were able to recognize and help people in difficult circumstances, those anecdotes will be found. But we never really seem to talk about how to balance the good against the bad in a way that minimizes the bad while optimizing the good.

I also think that it's important to not overstate the bad while understating or denying the good.  It's important to characterize problems accurately and to not treat the rules (that bishops are kind, loving, helpful, and supportive) as though they are the exceptions (the [very!] rare cases in which bishops have acted without being guided by those traits).  The problem with the Sam Youngs and the Matt Longs of the world is that they fail to do that.

Quote

Another thing that I find frustrating is that, since most of the data on the issue is anecdotal, is that much of the data does not include any kind of date field. Policies have changed over the years and decades. I don't want to ignore the pain of those who felt victimized by experiences decades ago, but it also seems important to see if there is a trend with time. If you want to talk about an anecdote where a youth was assaulted by a teacher in the years and decades before the Church required two adults in each class (and we believe that 2 deep leadership could have prevented the assault), that seems important to include in the anecdote. It is important to acknowledge the pain associated with the anecdote, but also acknowledge that similar anecdotes should become less common (to the extent that the policy is implemented and enforced). If there is reason to believe that things are getting better as members become more aware of the issues and policies and procedures get implemented and/or changed to address new information, then it would be valuable to identify the positive trends and try to understand what is behind those positive trends. Where negative trends occur, it would be valuable to know what policies/procedures/beliefs/practices are counterproductive to the goal of preventing abuse and/or recognizing abusive situations.

Yep.  Matt Long and Sam Young appear to be stuck in the 1960s in that regard.  Or at least they appear to be unwilling to give the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any credit for adapting its approach over the years.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[MrShorty]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I also think that it's important to not overstate the bad while understating or denying the good.

On the flip side, it seems that so many defenders/apologists are busy overstating the good while understating or denying the bad. A lot of the criticism for Sister Roach's presentation seemed to be directed at her tendency to downplay the concerns while hyping the possible good she sees in bishop interviews. As you say, accuracy is important, but it seems rather difficult to find any one individual really going for accuracy. Sometimes it feels like we are hoping that, with a contingent of critics on the one pole and a contingent of defenders on the other pole, that the polarization will lead to something balanced in the middle. I sometimes wish I could find a group willing to talk about it accurately, but it just seems too easy to fall into polarized camps.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  From this article:

From Sam Young's own website:

So he wants A) no one-on-one interviews, and B) no questions at all about sex.

But isn't Matt Long's whole point that bishops often don't go far enough in their questioning to determine if the child has been abused?  And that bishops should be trained to ask more sex-related questions if they think such a thing might have happened?

What are your thoughts about what happened here?  The bishop spoke with the man, and the man denied it.  Do you think the bishop should have done more?  If so, what?

Meanwhile, you went to law enforcement, and they could not get sufficiently helpful information from your daughter (understandable, given her age).  Do think think something else should have been done?  If so, what?

I am very sorry for what happened, but I am not sure what you are proposing.  

Yes, that is an understandable feeling.  But I'm not sure what you are proposing be done about it, particularly in the context of bishop interviews.

What sort of training do you have in mind?  I mean, if Young thinks a question as circumspect as "Do you live the Law of Chastity?" is "a sex question, period," and therefore should be 100% off-limits, how do you think Matt Long's proposal can be implemented?

Thanks,

-Smac

I could be reading Tacenda wrong but I don't think she shared that heartbreaking story because she is trying to propose anything.  I think she was just sharing how the subject of children being sexually abused is not rhetorical for her, it's personal.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I could be reading Tacenda wrong but I don't think she shared that heartbreaking story because she is trying to propose anything.  I think she was just sharing how the subject of children being sexually abused is not rhetorical for her, it's personal.

I appreciate that. I've nothing against bishops, I am amazed at the service I've seen them do. I just have a problem with one on ones with children in a closed door environment, which includes many people, teachers need to be careful and so many others in authority over children do as well. 

[Tacenda]

dbl posted

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My memory is she has said the same thing before.  It is not inconsistent with her position on protecting children.

Thanks Calm. I shared that story, but had misgivings at the same time. I believe we all need to be trained. Nowadays I'd be more careful to not let my child play at someone's house at that young age with a male I didn't know very well, just knew he was the brother to the couple we hung out with. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

. I sometimes wish I could find a group willing to talk about it accurately, but it just seems too easy to fall into polarized camps.

Without data on numbers, hard to discuss though.  And since the Church isn’t (understandably) releasing either numbers of abuse cases bishops are involved in as counselors and results good and bad as well as cases of clergy abuse, not sure what can be said besides we know both good and bad happens. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Nowadays I'd be more careful to not let my child play at someone's house at that young age with a male I didn't know very well [...]

I've noticed this is a much more common attitude nowadays, as opposed to when I was growing up. I know tons of people who won't let their kids have sleep-overs any more. Instead, they have 'late-overs' now.

I remember my wife first telling me about this when our daughter wanted to have friends over for one of her birthdays. My initial reaction was to take a bit of offence at the unstated implication that I might be an abuser. I recognize that they were just making an across-the-board policy for their kids, not trying to say something about me specifically, but it still seemed kind of off-putting. 

Oh well, at least I only had to deal with a house full of pre-teen girls until 11 PM, rather than having to listen to them all night long.  

 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I recognize that they were just making an across-the-board policy for their kids, not trying to say something about me specifically, but it still seemed kind of off-putting. 

It was a bit of a shock (not offensive, I just thought way overkill) when my bil, the psychologist who specializes in homosexuality, but does family therapy as well, told us no sleepovers for any of their kids back in the early 90s.  First I had heard of that choice; after a few seconds remembering some stuff he had told me about trends he had seen of child abuse (who, when, where including sleepovers being a common ‘where’ by both adults and peers) I decided we would do the same. And they did say they did across the board because it was fair and because it wasn’t easy to guess who the predators are) However, when one of their kids was early teens, we took her with us to visit family...so not completely ruled out.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Without data on numbers, hard to discuss though.  And since the Church isn’t (understandably) releasing either numbers of abuse cases bishops are involved in as counselors and results good and bad as well as cases of clergy abuse, not sure what can be said besides we know both good and bad happens. 

We don’t have data to analyze so it comes to anecdotal experiences and that varies from person to person. It’s hard then to do a ‘risk’ analysis based on the real numbers. At this point, trusting a Bishop is difficult because based on my experiences, the risk of Bishop interactions causing harm is high. My default was the opposite but my Pollyanna lenses were stripped away. 
 

I’m not even discussing clergy physical abuse but we know that has happened. We don’t know how often. 
 

I don’t think most men understand how easily their interactions with teenage girls can be found uncomfortable. My advice to all is don’t touch them. No friendly hugs, shoulder squeezes etc. You might think nothing of it and are just being a friendly guy but in my experience, a lot of young women are uncomfortable with this.
 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

ttrusting a Bishop is difficult because based on my experiences, the risk of Bishop interactions causing harm is high.  
 

For me, it would depend on the kid, but default until I saw interaction between bishop and child would be me being there.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

On the flip side, it seems that so many defenders/apologists are busy overstating the good while understating or denying the bad. ,,,

I disagree, but I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I've noticed this is a much more common attitude nowadays, as opposed to when I was growing up. I know tons of people who won't let their kids have sleep-overs any more. Instead, they have 'late-overs' now.

I remember my wife first telling me about this when our daughter wanted to have friends over for one of her birthdays. My initial reaction was to take a bit of offence at the unstated implication that I might be an abuser. I recognize that they were just making an across-the-board policy for their kids, not trying to say something about me specifically, but it still seemed kind of off-putting. 

Oh well, at least I only had to deal with a house full of pre-teen girls until 11 PM, rather than having to listen to them all night long.  

 

We did a few sleepover with our older boys and then decided to have a family rule of no more sleepovers.  Nothing bad happened but we just realized that the risk was too great.  Things are different now than they used to be (not to say it didn't used to happen), especially with how easily porn is accessed, often without the parents even knowing, in kids rooms now.  And with the growing porn problem (and sexualization of kids/society in general) came the growing pedophile problem, which in my opinion makes it more likely for kids to be molested now than when I was growing up.

And then some church leaders came out against it and I realized that, for our family, I wasn't willing to risk my kids for the payout.  

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t think most men understand how easily their interactions with teenage girls can be found uncomfortable. My advice to all is don’t touch them. No friendly hugs, shoulder squeezes etc. You might think nothing of it and are just being a friendly guy but in my experience, a lot of young women are uncomfortable with this.
 

Definitely. 

Be friendly, because girls need to know the men in the ward are in their corner just as much as the boys do, but no touching, and no personal attention that goes beyond general friendliness and interest that is shared equally with all the youth.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I've noticed this is a much more common attitude nowadays, as opposed to when I was growing up. I know tons of people who won't let their kids have sleep-overs any more. Instead, they have 'late-overs' now.

I remember my wife first telling me about this when our daughter wanted to have friends over for one of her birthdays. My initial reaction was to take a bit of offence at the unstated implication that I might be an abuser. I recognize that they were just making an across-the-board policy for their kids, not trying to say something about me specifically, but it still seemed kind of off-putting. 

Oh well, at least I only had to deal with a house full of pre-teen girls until 11 PM, rather than having to listen to them all night long.  

 

I don't remember from which church level I heard it, but I heard it around 1995. We also made it across the board and I was glad I did. There are just too many people who would become very offended had I said they were one of the few I didn't trust.  By having it for everyone I never had to deal with the fallout of that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t think most men understand how easily their interactions with teenage girls can be found uncomfortable. My advice to all is don’t touch them. No friendly hugs, shoulder squeezes etc. You might think nothing of it and are just being a friendly guy but in my experience, a lot of young women are uncomfortable with this.

Men at church hug teenage girls? This is so far out of my experience/observation that I'm taken aback.