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

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

I am confused as to why you think it was wrong.

[Meadowchik]

19 hours 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

I don't think that's an accurate statement of what Long is saying. There's a difference between asking top-down directed questions and listening to understand what a child is trying to tell. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am confused as to why you think it was wrong.

Throwing rocks at someone's trailer home seems wrong to me. Neither he or I had the wherewithal to just meet with him and discuss. Like we were afraid of him or something. And our being friends with his sister made it difficult as well. Not sure if she knew anything was going on. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Throwing rocks at someone's trailer home seems wrong to me. Neither he or I had the wherewithal to just meet with him and discuss. Like we were afraid of him or something. And our being friends with his sister made it difficult as well. Not sure if she knew anything was going on. 

Nah, it was right to do. Would have been better if the windows were targeted.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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 don't think that's an accurate statement of what Long is saying. There's a difference between asking top-down directed questions and listening to understand what a child is trying to tell. 

Now I'm really confused.  What would training for bishops be if not including "top down directed questions" (that is, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve authorizing training for bishops in terms of asking questions designed to ascertain whether sexual abuse has occurred)?

Long's thesis is that bishops are not picking up on what he calls "piecemeal disclosures" of abuse, and that they should therefore be getting trained on how to ask more sex-related questions to see if abuse has occurred.  What is it about this summary that you find inaccurate?

As for the "difference between asking top-down directed questions and listening to understand what a child is trying to tell," what do you think that difference is?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, it was right to do. Would have been better if the windows were targeted.

No, it was the wrong thing to do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it was the wrong thing to do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you mean it was an illegal thing to do which I agree with so I would encourage anyone doing it to not get caught. I still maintain it was a right thing to do.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

No, it was the wrong thing to do.  

I think you mean it was an illegal thing to do which I agree with

It's illegal too.  But also wrong.

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

so I would encourage anyone doing it to not get caught.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  Articles of Faith 1:12.

What you are advocating violates this principle.  Rather flagrantly.

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still maintain it was a right thing to do.

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's illegal too.  But also wrong.

Not so sure on the second one.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  Articles of Faith 1:12.

What you are advocating violates this principle.  Rather flagrantly.

Joseph Smith left out the "except when we don't" bit at the end. My great great grandfather even more flagrantly violated that principle when he fought in the Utah War and ordered his men to burn US Army supply wagons. Was he also wrong? Or was it illegal without being wrong?

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

That it would be more effective and long-lasting to call down fire from heaven to consume the trailer while the child molester is in it?

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

Not based on the prophets I have read about in scripture or the God I read about in scripture.

[Bob Crockett]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's illegal too.  But also wrong.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  Articles of Faith 1:12.

What you are advocating violates this principle.  Rather flagrantly.

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would probably be willing the break the guy's knees with a baseball bat and risk loss of my license and prison.

When President Joseph F Smith was asked how it was that he continued to have children with his plural wives after the manifesto, despite admitting that the manifesto was revelation and an agreement with the U.S and that it prohibited such, he told the Senate lawyer:  "I fear my wives more than God."

Edited January 5, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

It's illegal too.  But also wrong.

Not so sure on the second one.

There is no principle of law or equity that provides for the deliberate and extra-legal destruction of another's personal property.

There is also no moral or religious principle that provides for this.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Joseph Smith left out the "except when we don't" bit at the end. My great great grandfather even more flagrantly violated that principle when he fought in the Utah War and ordered his men to burn US Army supply wagons. Was he also wrong? Or was it illegal without being wrong?

I acknowledge that normative rules of conduct and ethics are altered somewhat when a community is in a war setting.  That is not the case here.

I also acknowledge that a person may be justified in committing an otherwise wrongful act in order to prevent a considerably more serious wrongful act to occur (such as may be said about your great-great-grandfather).  But that is not the case here.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

That it would be more effective and long-lasting to call down fire from heaven to consume the trailer while the child molester is in it?

There are more options available that A) extra-legal destruction of another's personal property, and B) "call{ing} down fire from heaven."

And c'mon.  Do you really think Pres. Nelson would respond this way?  That the Savior would?

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not based on the prophets I have read about in scripture or the God I read about in scripture.

You are invoking God and scripture and prophets to justify the deliberate and extra-legal destruction of another's personal property.  I ask you to reconsider that.

Again, If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think we need to judge Tacenda's husband's actions as right or wrong.  I view them as the actions of a person in great pain.  Focusing on whether they were right or wrong is, in my opinion, a failure of charity.

Let's consider the woman taken in adultery and the Jewish leaders who brought her to the Savior to see if He would condemn her.  They expected the Savior to focus on justice when instead He led with mercy. 

We could definitely say "If we ask the Savior whether or not it was right or wrong for a woman to commit adultery, what would He say?" and get a very justified answer.  But I don't think it would be the accurate answer when applied to an actual person (as the example with the woman taken in adultery shows).

I think the Savior's level of compassion for such a person like Tacenda's husband would be such that He would not even bring up the rightness or wrongness of the action but would simply cry with the person and acknowledge the great sorrow and pain they are going through.  He would not take the opportunity to condemn but would focus on empathizing and healing the hurt.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

It's illegal too.  But also wrong.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  Articles of Faith 1:12.

What you are advocating violates this principle.  Rather flagrantly.

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

I would probably be willing the break the guy's knees with a baseball bat and risk loss of my license and prison.

"Probably."

"Willing to."

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

When President Joseph F Smith was asked how it was that he continued to have children with his plural wives after the manifesto, despite admitting that the manifesto was revelation and an agreement with the U.S and that it prohibited such, he told the Senate lawyer:  "I fear my wives more than God."

If you asked Pres. Nelson if you should do as you describe ("break the guy's knees with a baseball bat"), how do you think he would respond?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

There's only one legitimate answer to these questions.  I think we both know that.

I don't think we need to judge Tacenda's husband's actions as right or wrong. 

Why not?  Just look at how quickly we've escalated.  In this thread we have one fellow saying it's okay to throw rocks at a (purported) perp's house, and now another - a licensed attorney, no less - is saying he would "break the guy's knees with a baseball bat."

Would you be okay with that?  Would you say "I don't think we need to judge {whether a private citizen acting extra-judicially by breaking a purported perp's knees with a baseball bad} as right or wrong?"

What about torturing the perp?  Would that be wrong?  What about straight up killing him?  (You can't really accuse me of hyperbole, since we've already graduated from throwing rocks to breaking kneecaps.)

Quote

I view them as the actions of a person in great pain. 

So do I.  But that doesn't justify the actions.

Quote

Focusing on whether they were right or wrong is, in my opinion, a failure or charity.

I can be charitable and also maintain the moral clarity to know that illegally damaging or destroying another person's property as retribution, or breaking his kneecaps with a baseball bad, are wrongful acts.  And I'm not "focusing" on this.  It came up in the discussion, and I commented on it.

Quote

Let's consider the woman taken in adultery and the Jewish leaders who brought her to the Savior to see if He would condemn her. 

Yes, let's consider that.  The Savior intervened and prevented others from killing her, wrongdoer though she was.  Wouldn't that be akin to intervening and discouraging/preventing Mr. Crockett from breaking a wrongdoer's kneecaps with a baseball bat?

Quote

They expected the Savior to focus on justice when instead He led with mercy.

Exactly.  So how can you then rationalize and excuse extra-legal retributive conduct like damaging property or breaking kneecaps?  Where's the "mercy" in those behaviors?

You will recall that the Lord did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He did not forgive her either.  She would still need to repent.  But as for the rest of us (including those she wronged through her conduct), the Lord's commandment is pretty clear: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  D&C 64:10.  I don't see how that commandment can be reconciled with deliberately inflicting property damage or grievous bodily injury.

Wrongdoers should be punished.  But within the parameters of the law.

Quote

I think the Savior's level of compassion for such a person like Tacenda's husband would be such that He would not even bring up the rightness or wrongness of the action but would simply cry with the person and acknowledge the great sorrow and pain they are going through.  He would not take the opportunity to condemn but would focus on empathizing and healing the hurt.

I haven't condemned anyone.  As for Tacenda and her husband, they have my empathy.  Every whit.  What they don't have is my agreement that they should damage the guy's property (or, as Mr. Crockett proposes, that they should break his kneecaps with a baseball bat).  Such behavior will not help with "healing."

And I think Pres. Nelson would agree with me on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 5, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no principle of law or equity that provides for the deliberate and extra-legal destruction of another's personal property.

There is also no moral or religious principle that provides for this.

"And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place."

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that normative rules of conduct and ethics are altered somewhat when a community is in a war setting.  That is not the case here.

I also acknowledge that a person may be justified in committing an otherwise wrongful act in order to prevent a considerably more serious wrongful act to occur (such as may be said about your great-great-grandfather).  But that is not the case here.

I would consider myself at war with someone who was sexually abusing my child.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are more options available that A) extra-legal destruction of another's personal property, and B) "call{ing} down fire from heaven."

And c'mon.  Do you really think Pres. Nelson would respond this way?  That the Savior would?

Of course there are. You could beat him with a baseball as was helpfully suggested. You could use a tire iron. You could create an elaborate plan to drive the abuser utterly mad. You could shoot out their kneecaps. You can spray-paint "Child Molester" on the outside of the trailer. You could catch a bunch of foxes and tie their tails together and put firebrands in their tied tails and release them in the person's trailer. They may not all be good options but there are always lots of options.

The Savior has destroyed entire nations, deliberately destroyed the wealth of many, and takes lives all the time so yeah, I think the Savior might respond in such a way. Should we? Pretty sure I should not destroy entire nations but making it clear to someone that is victimizing my child that there are now consequences? Yeah, I might do that.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, If we asked Pres. Nelson if an individual may, through application of the principles of the Restored Gospel, deliberately break the law and damage another person's property (where that person has been accused of injuring your family member), what do you think he would say?  What do you think the Savior would say about that?

I am very wary of those who claim to know the Savior's mind on a specific matter. Jesus almost never gave the obvious expected "right" answer. In general I think breaking the law is a bad thing (and I think President Nelson would agree in general) but it is not the highest thing. Personally I would see throwing rocks at the trailer of someone who did that to their child as an act of almost superhuman restraint.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why not?  Just look at how quickly we've escalated.  In this thread we have one fellow saying it's okay to throw rocks at a (purported) perp's house, and now another - a licensed attorney, no less - is saying he would "break the guy's knees with a baseball bat."

Would you be okay with that?  Would you say "I don't think we need to judge {whether a private citizen acting extra-judicially by breaking a purported perp's knees with a baseball bad} as right or wrong?"

What about torturing the perp?  Would that be wrong?  What about straight up killing him?  (You can't really accuse me of hyperbole, since we've already graduated from throwing rocks to breaking kneecaps.)

Why not?

Because no one is seriously advocating those things.  They are the things people feel and the things people say when confronted with the idea of unimaginable pain and heartache at the hands of someone they trusted.  

And also because the event took place years ago (it sounds like over a decade ago). 

And also because it accomplishes nothing of worth.  What good will random strangers on the internet judging her husband's actions accomplish?  

And also because we have been commanded not to judge unless the actions are somehow in our sphere of authority or responsibility.

Quote

 

I can be charitable and also maintain the moral clarity to know that illegally damaging or destroying another person's property as retribution, or breaking his kneecaps with a baseball bad, are wrongful acts.  And I'm not "focusing" on this.  It came up in the discussion, and I commented on it.

Yes, let's consider that.  The Savior intervened and prevented others from killing her, wrongdoer though she was.  Wouldn't that be akin to intervening and discouraging/preventing Mr. Crockett from breaking a wrongdoer's kneecaps with a baseball bat?

Exactly.  So how can you then rationalize and excuse extra-legal retributive conduct like damaging property or breaking kneecaps?  Where's the "mercy" in those behaviors?

You will recall that the Lord did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He did not forgive her either.  She would still need to repent.  But as for the rest of us (including those she wronged through her conduct), the Lord's commandment is pretty clear: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  D&C 64:10.  I don't see how that commandment can be reconciled with deliberately inflicting property damage or grievous bodily injury.

Wrongdoers should be punished.  But within the parameters of the law.

I haven't condemned anyone.  As for Tacenda and her husband, they have my empathy.  Every whit.  What they don't have is my agreement that they should damage the guy's property (or, as Mr. Crockett proposes, that they should break his kneecaps with a baseball bat).  Such behavior will not help with "healing."

And I think Pres. Nelson would agree with me on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'm sure you do think that Pres. Nelson and the Savior agree with you, which is why you brought them up in the discussion.  Personally, I don't think they would agree that the way you have come at this discussion is the compassionate and charitable way to approach it.

We can be theoretically right or doctrinally sound, and still be very much in the wrong.  I believe that was one of the things that Jesus taught during His mortal ministry.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

"And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place."

You are invoking scripture to justify property damage and kneecap-breaking?

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I acknowledge that normative rules of conduct and ethics are altered somewhat when a community is in a war setting.  That is not the case here.

I also acknowledge that a person may be justified in committing an otherwise wrongful act in order to prevent a considerably more serious wrongful act to occur (such as may be said about your great-great-grandfather).  But that is not the case here.

I would consider myself at war with someone who was sexually abusing my child.

And you would be wrong in so considering.  "War" is not that malleable.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

There are more options available that A) extra-legal destruction of another's personal property, and B) "call{ing} down fire from heaven."

And c'mon.  Do you really think Pres. Nelson would respond this way?  That the Savior would?

Of course there are. You could beat him with a baseball as was helpfully suggested. You could use a tire iron. You could create an elaborate plan to drive the abuser utterly mad. You could shoot out their kneecaps. You can spray-paint "Child Molester" on the outside of the trailer. You could catch a bunch of foxes and tie their tails together and put firebrands in their tied tails and release them in the person's trailer. They may not all be good options but there are always lots of options.

None of them comports with the Twelfth Article of Faith, or with D&C 64:10.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior has destroyed entire nations, deliberately destroyed the wealth of many, and takes lives all the time so yeah, I think the Savior might respond in such a way. Should we? Pretty sure I should not destroy entire nations but making it clear to someone that is victimizing my child that there are now consequences? Yeah, I might do that.

You continue to dodge the point. 

What do you think Pres. Nelson would say to your various proposals?  Do you think he would ratify/endorse/justify you breaking a (purported) perp's kneecaps with a baseball bat or a tire iron or a gun?  Or burning down his house?  As "consequences?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

This discussion saddens me. As horrific as child molestation is, seriously considering extra-legal violence against perpetrators is really sad. Not only do "two wrongs not make a right," but from the gospel perspective we supposedly base things on. Even the worst people in the world (and history) are our spirit brothers and sisters, and their horrific decisions and actions are a cosmic tragedy. Of course, they inflict unspeakable horrors on others who are also our brothers and sisters --- that goes without saying.

I'm looking at this from the perspective, too, of helping some of these people come back into full fellowship in God's church. It takes decades, and multiple failed applications to the First Presidency, with extremely long periods of "exemplary" behavior before it is even considered, and they pay the uttermost farthing legally and criminally as part of this. 

A few years ago, a man made an appointment with me and told me he had just finished a 14 year sentence for molestation. I ordered his church disciplinary paperwork (we didn't even know of his existence), which I got through the stake president, but he also handed me a thick file folder with his court transcripts. He warned me that it didn't "paint him in a very good light" (understatement), and I was surprised he would do that when the church paperwork was plenty to let me know that precautions would be necessary. He expressed a desire to overcome and come back into fellowship, but noted that he would rarely be able to be at church because the only work he could find with his record was delivering toxic chemicals to the mines, and this involved Sunday work. We talked about the long road back (I don't want people to have false hope that it wouldn't take decades --- like upwards of three ---, and I assured him that he was welcome. He also said that he fully understood and wouldn't be offended at any precautionary measures I would need to take. 

He did show up to church twice, before we moved, and once he went to use the restroom during sacrament meeting. I sent a note to my pre-mission-but-soon-departing son via a deacon and just told him to follow him and be with him wherever he went, including the restroom. Don't let him out of your sight! Anyone can probably figure out the why, but that's the best I could do with confidentiality. 

The other Sunday, he got up to bear his testimony. As he sat on the stand waiting his turn, I went and sat by him and quietly explained that he couldn't do that with his discipline status. He was horrified and embarrassed, and I told him that I would sit with him for a few speakers so that it wouldn't be as obvious that he had been prevented from speaking. Hopefully, it just looked like we chatted a while while others spoke and then he sat back down. It's the best I could do in "real time" at the moment.

I've tried putting myself in his and others' shoes. If I was a repentant molester, I definitely wouldn't want vandalism, harassment, and violence against me. I feel the same way about "scarlet letter" yard signs for those jurisdictions, or the Facebook witch hunts where people post addresses from the public offender registry. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by rongo

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure you do think that Pres. Nelson and the Savior agree with you, which is why you brought them up in the discussion.  Personally, I don't think they would agree that the way you have come at this discussion is the compassionate and charitable way to approach it.

How do you think both of them would approach this discussion? Honest question. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

How do you think both of them would approach this discussion? Honest question. 

As I've already said, I think they would approach it with compassion, focusing on the person that needs love (Tacenda's husband, in this instance) and not on the problem of whether or not it's 'right' to throw rocks at trailers.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've tried putting myself in his and others' shoes. If I was a repentant molester, I definitely wouldn't want vandalism, harassment, and violence against me. I feel the same way about "scarlet letter" yard signs for those jurisdictions, or the Facebook witch hunts where people post addresses from the public offender registry. 

I agree.  We recently had an heartbreaking issue with an active member of my ward that caused a bit of a ward rift and lots of hard feelings against the man, who was prosecuted for child porn.  I supported his access to church (with precautions which he and his wife fully supported) and never wished him any harm and hoped for his rehabilitation.  There were others that did not, at least at first, but seemed to come around.

Sometimes it takes us time to come around to where the Savior wants us.  

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've already said, I think they would approach it with compassion, focusing on the person that needs love (Tacenda's husband, in this instance) and not on the problem of whether or not it's 'right' to throw rocks at trailers.

I think a prophet of God and God Himself would also talk about forgiveness and compassion towards those who wronged them. Not just focus on the person who needs the love. I also think they would talk about how corrosive hate towards people who wrong them is. 

Specifically, as it relates to the violent suggestions about what to do towards the perpetrator, I think everyone knows what both of them would say about that when asked.  

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think that's an accurate statement of what Long is saying. There's a difference between asking top-down directed questions and listening to understand what a child is trying to tell. 

I haven't listened to Long so I can't say anything about what he said or what he was like or agree or disagree with him.

I do agree with the bold though.  Unfortunately I have found that few have the skills to really listen (and I am one of the many who don't!)

This last year I learned about empathic listening from The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and there was so much I learned!  It's hard to do though and takes constant practice for me.

I think if bishops were just taught those skills and they developed them it would go a long way not only when talking about sexual abuse, but so many things.  

It need not be lots of questions of a sexual nature to get to the heart of discovering abuse if you are really listening well.  

Edited January 5, 2021 by Rain

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've already said, I think they would approach it with compassion, focusing on the person that needs love (Tacenda's husband, in this instance) and not on the problem of whether or not it's 'right' to throw rocks at trailers.

I think they would too. 

But I think they would not endorse or authorize a person to damage a (purported) perp's property, or to inflict grievous bodily injury on him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've already said, I think they would approach it with compassion, focusing on the person that needs love (Tacenda's husband, in this instance) and not on the problem of whether or not it's 'right' to throw rocks at trailers.

Focus is the right word.  When we focus on compassion the other things get taken care of.  Compassion doesn't mean wimpy or letting others commit wrongs etc.  True compassion/charity is what helps them correct what they are doing wrong