SBC sex abuse report

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ugh.

He once called and asked if he could meet with our whole family at our house. He came in and started grilling me about why I wasn’t going to church more and how I was a bad example to my kids. I told him I would be happy to talk to him in private. I had forgotten how much of an *** he was. 

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

My 17 year old is partnered with a 60+ high priest who he has never spoken to a day in his life.  He's been partnered with him since he was 16 (maybe 15) but the man (who i'm sure is very nice but he's also single and a little odd so I don't know anything about him) has never tried to contact him. He's probably as uncomfortable with the assignment as my son is.

But it makes zero sense to require two deep leadership for youth activities and then send out the youth one-on-one with an adult that's not even a part of the youth program to visit other members.

Holy cow, yes.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

True.  And historically, the two-deep rule didn't exist anyway so being alone with an adult wasn't out of the ordinary.

What I don't get is why youth are still assigned to minister one-on-one with an adult even though the two-deep rule is very much a thing.

I think while a youth is that age, the church should have them go with their fathers, even if there is more than one child in that age range in the family. Think of the time spent with their father would mean to their relationship and them seeing their father's service ideas! Or ideas they come up with together. I know that we've had father and son home teachers before. It would be the ideal IMO. 

[Navidad]

I believe it is almost always an error to offer reductionist solutions to complex problems. Abuse, by whatever name or in whatever form is a lot like racism. It is a symptom of both pathology and of sin. It is a human problem; there is almost always something, or better yet, someone who acts, enables, needs, denies, excuses, protects (those involved or the institution), rationalizes, normalizes, generalizes, and ranks those involved. Organizations and institutions are driven in structure, policies, practices, priorities, and values by humans. Blaming an institution for racism or abuse almost never solves the problem. Hate, biases, prejudices, stereotypes, lust for power or conquest, ego, needs, are each and all human-driven sins and pathologies. They become institutionalized by the humans who run the institutions. Humans freeze (in a Lewin sense) and become resistant to change, awareness, and their own blind sports. Humans can unfreeze. Humans can act. Humans often don't do either. Outside of the humans who organize, run, and protect them, institutions are inanimate. An organization is more like a rock, than a plant. Humans are living, have prescience, and can change. Inanimate things cannot. That is why almost all race and diversity training at an organizational level fails. Focusing on the institutional or organizational is a focus on the symptom, not the disease.

There is nothing simple about dealing with abuse when we live in a world of ranking other humans. As long as we have rock stars, celebrities, those whose lives are centered around authority and power, and yes even heroes, humans will enable, defend, and again, rank those in order of blame, desirability, innocence, and value. Then when we involve God or gods, it all becomes infinitely (pun intended) more complicated. A whole other dimension is added to the problem. I know my LDS friends reject the idea that non-LDS Christians seek and receive ongoing revelation. If I had a nickel for every time someone in a non-LDS Christian community claimed that God had revealed this or that, told him or her this or that, and then used that divine direction as an excuse to abuse (rank, stereotype, normalize, generalize, etc), I would have well - a big jar full of nickels.

I could easily go into a host of "reasons" why the SBC has the problems it does, but that would only lead to some on this forum ranking the SBC lower than them, congratulating themselves, and expressing gratitude that our "institution" is not like that. Also, if I wasted time excoriating the SBC denomination (which I certainly could), or any other institution I would have obfuscated the solution to the real problem - dealing with the sin, pathology, ideology, neediness, pain, ranking, and everything else I wrote about in the first two paragraphs that are endemic at the human level to bringing healing and a solution.

In some ways I am saddened when I read the posts in this thread. The majority of them deal with this or that institution, structure, or organization,  when in reality abuse, like racism is a symptom of our humanity and all the challenges that come with it. As people of faith, we are not exempt. Even as the "only," you are not exempt.  Better questions perhaps are: How do I abuse? How do we abuse? How do we rationalize our own abuse of others? How am I guilty of ranking and selecting those who I may someday abuse in some way? What must Navidad be to become less prone to his own neediness and weakness and more apt to Godliness? Now that is a discussion worth having. Thanks to each of you who read this epistle.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Navidad

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

You reminded me of my daughter telling me years after the fact of an overly graphic and intrusive bishop’s interview she had when she was 12. It was definitely traumatizing for her, and I feel kind of guilty for letting her go through that. At the time it wouldn’t have occurred to me to give her advice about a bishop’s interview.

When I was 12, the bishop asked me if I masturbated. When I said I didn’t know what that meant, he explained it in way more detail than was necessary. At the time I didn’t even know such a thing was possible.

After my loss of faith, I told my kids that if the bishop asked them something inappropriate or made them uncomfortable they should leave and tell the bishop they could talk to me. And they needed to tell me. A couple of my kids did exactly that. 

A window in the door might prevent physical abuse but certainly not inappropriate verbal abuse (which graphic sexual questions surely are). At the very least parents need to give kids clear guidelines for such interviews. 

I agree. I have evolved on these issues and am at the point I believe minors should never be interviewed alone. The physical abuse might be rare but the policies still have too much leeway for intrusive questioning. Sexual discussions with a minor are very problematic. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think while a youth is that age, the church should have them go with their fathers, even if there is more than one child in that age range in the family. Think of the time spent with their father would mean to their relationship and them seeing their father's service ideas! Or ideas they come up with together. I know that we've had father and son home teachers before. It would be the ideal IMO. 

I agree.  My husband is in the bishopric so isn't assigned any ministering familes, or I think that my son (hopefully) would have been assigned to him.  

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  My husband is in the bishopric so isn't assigned any ministering familes, or I think that my son (hopefully) would have been assigned to him.  

Agree, and what to do with those that don't have sons is either go with their wives or if no wife, go with another male? Probably tricky situations. 

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I disagree with you. Especially as someone who has needed ecclesiastical support in situations of abusive leadership.

I'm sorry that you have ever needed support in such a situation, but I have to ask: what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

All I'm saying is that it isn't difficult to determine the chain of command, even for leadership. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The issue of actually getting the contact information is one thing, it does get difficult when trying to go above the stake presidency.

Okay, but how often is that needed? If the Stake President isn't the abuser there generally shouldn't be a need to go any higher than that.

 

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But more than that is policy. Members aren't supposed to skip rank.

Without cause.

But one of the purposes of having a chain of command is so that you know exactly who you ought to go to when there's an issue with one link in the chain.

If that link is the Bishop then you go to the Stake President. If it's the Stake President then you go to the Area Presidency. Etc.

 

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They go to their bishop, perhaps sometimes to the SP, then it's those leaders who are meant to send information up the ranks. 

So what are you proposing? That leaders at the highest ranks in the Church need to be apprised of every single instance of alleged abuse?

 

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So that means that a member encounters difficulty if the local leader is the abuser or if they disagree about handling it. 

I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you could give me a hypothetical because I'm having difficulty imagining what kind of difficulties you are talking about here.

 

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As I said before, the structure does not allow for direct communication between members and the higher echelons. When it happens, it's extraordinary. It's not normally allowed.

It's not normally allowed for trivial things (e.g., doctrinal questions, personal requests, etc.). Sexual assault isn't trivial though.

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe it is almost always an error to offer reductionist solutions to complex problems. Abuse, by whatever name or in whatever form is a lot like racism. It is a symptom of both pathology and of sin. It is a human problem; there is almost always something, or better yet, someone who acts, enables, needs, denies, excuses, protects (those involved or the institution), rationalizes, normalizes, generalizes, and ranks those involved. Organizations and institutions are driven in structure, policies, practices, priorities, and values by humans. Blaming an institution for racism or abuse almost never solves the problem. Hate, biases, prejudices, stereotypes, lust for power or conquest, ego, needs, are each and all human-driven sins and pathologies. They become institutionalized by the humans who run the institutions. Humans freeze (in a Lewin sense) and become resistant to change, awareness, and their own blind sports. Humans can unfreeze. Humans can act. Humans often don't do either. Outside of the humans who organize, run, and protect them, institutions are inanimate. An organization is more like a rock, than a plant. Humans are living, have prescience, and can change. Inanimate things cannot. That is why almost all race and diversity training at an organizational level fails. Focusing on the institutional or organizational is a focus on the symptom, not the disease.

There is nothing simple about dealing with abuse when we live in a world of ranking other humans. As long as we have rock stars, celebrities, those whose lives are centered around authority and power, and yes even heroes, humans will enable, defend, and again, rank those in order of blame, desirability, innocence, and value. Then when we involve God or gods, it all becomes infinitely (pun intended) more complicated. A whole other dimension is added to the problem. I know my LDS friends reject the idea that non-LDS Christians seek and receive ongoing revelation. If I had a nickel for every time someone in a non-LDS Christian community claimed that God had revealed this or that, told him or her this or that, and then used that divine direction as an excuse to abuse (rank, stereotype, normalize, generalize, etc), I would have well - a big jar full of nickels.

I could easily go into a host of "reasons" why the SBC has the problems it does, but that would only lead to some on this forum ranking the SBC lower than them, congratulating themselves, and expressing gratitude that our "institution" is not like that. Also, if I wasted time excoriating the SBC denomination (which I certainly could), or any other institution I would have obfuscated the solution to the real problem - dealing with the sin, pathology, ideology, neediness, pain, ranking, and everything else I wrote in the first two paragraphs that are endemic at the human level to bringing healing and a solution.

In some ways I am saddened when I read the posts in this thread. The majority of them deal with this or that institution, structure, or organization,  when in reality abuse, like racism is a symptom of our humanity and all the challenges that come with it. As people of faith, we are not exempt. Even as the "only," you are not exempt.  Better questions perhaps are: How do I abuse? How do we abuse? How do we rationalize our own abuse of others? How am I guilty of ranking and selecting those who I may someday abuse in some way? What must Navidad be to become less prone to his own neediness and weakness and more apt to Godliness? Now that is a discussion worth having. Thanks to each of you who read this epistle.

I really appreciate this attitude of the CRC towards abuse prevention, it expresses institutional humility and a continued quest to improve church practices to prevent and address abuse:

For most members of the CRC, the local congregation is our community. It is our community of believers—our corner of Christ’s body on earth. It elicits feelings of love and loyalty in us, including attachment to our church leaders, who are a vital part of the community. When a church leader is accused of misconduct or abuse, community and personal stability are deeply shaken. We do not want to believe it, and we often do not know what to do. We feel close to the church leader, who is often well-liked and has contributed to the growth and vitality of the congregation. We often dissipate some of our denial and confusion by blaming the victim for bringing forward an allegation that a respected church leader is involved in sexual misconduct. A near-universal response is a desire to make the problem go away as quickly and quietly as possible.

 

As a community of Christ’s body, however, we must seek justice and mercy; we must seek the path of love for all parties. This is not easy. Each situation is complicated and emotional. The pain is deep. The effects for the claimant, the accused, and the congregation can be life changing.

 

And so, together, in the larger community of the denomination, members of the CRC have searched for ways to prevent abuse in the church and to respond effectively to allegations of misconduct by church leaders. The CRC showed leadership among North American denominations by forming the Office of Abuse Prevention in 1994, in response to a comprehensive study of abuse within our own denomination. Now named the Safe Church Ministry, the office helps congregations develop abuse prevention policies and practices; it facilitates the formation of classical safe church teams; it provides educational resources; and it has developed guidelines for responding to allegations of church leader misconduct.

 

From the beginning, the CRC officially recognized that sexual misconduct by a church leader, particularly by a pastor, always represents an abuse of power and authority; consistent implementation of this understanding, however, in action and in attitudes, remains a challenge. The report to Synod 1994 from the Synodical Committee on Abuse Prevention stated that “abuse by people in positions of leadership is always abuse of power. There is always a differential in power between the abuser and the victim” (Agenda for Synod 1994, p. 147). The following year Synod 1995 approved “Guidelines for Ministerial Personnel in Their Interpersonal Relationships.” These guidelines unequivocally placed responsibility for proper relationship boundaries on ministerial personnel.

 

Abuse committed by ministerial personnel is always abuse of the authority committed to them by the church, as well as a serious betrayal of trust essentially assigned to ministerial personnel by those who need pastoral care and spiritual direction. . . . To abuse that authority and to violate that trust are a breach of ministerial responsibility that disregards a person’s dignity in a setting of unequal power at a time of vulnerability. . . . Furthermore, sexual contact between parishioner and ministerial personnel is always abuse because of the authority entrusted to leaders. . . . The responsibility to assure that no abusive behavior takes place always belongs to ministerial personnel. The consent of the other person is never a justification, nor is the provocation by another person a defense for abuse.

 

(Agenda for Synod 1995, pp. 555-56

 

Abuse of authority and power through sexual misconduct harms not only the victim but also the church. As stated in the first abuse study report presented to Synod 1992, “Abuse by clergy undermines the credibility of the ministerial profession and ultimately of the gospel itself. Prevention of such abuse and appropriate discipline for its occurrence are of paramount importance for the health of the church” (Agenda for Synod 1992, p. 352). The understanding of sexual misconduct by ministerial staff as an abuse of power remains as important and valid today as nearly two decades ago when synod received that first report.

 

Over the years the Christian Reformed Church learned that sexual abuse by church leaders occurs more often than we want to believe. We also learned that victims struggle for years or a lifetime to regain a sense of hopefulness and peace within the body of Christ. Regrettably, many victims leave the church.

 

Building on what we have learned, we continue the search for more effective pastoral responses that demonstrate justice and mercy through love and healing toward the victim, the offender, their families, and their congregations. This report is one more step toward bringing Christ’s love and restoration to those individuals and communities confronted with an allegation of abuse by a church leader.)

https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/abuse-victims-task-force-discussion

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And when they do, they are going against the guidelines and policies of the Church, and are putting themselves at risk.

Ok. So? Does this prevent such things? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In the bishop's office.  With a chaperson a few feet away.

So?  Does this totally prevent abuse?  Does it prevent questions and probing that are not appropriate? Nope. Not one bit.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If we have any sort of substantive problem with bishops abusing kids during such interviews, I think the Church would be wise to take appropriate remedial measures (such as, for example, putting small windows in the door to the bishop's office, or else putting a video-only (no audio) CC system in the bishop's office so the chaperon could monitor the behavior but not the communications going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok that may help.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

He advanced him, but then he said, very loudly at a “Young Women in Excellence” meeting, “So, who’s going to ordain your son? Obviously, *you* can’t do it.”

Did I mention this bishop was kind of a jerk?

More than a jerk.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm sorry that you have ever needed support in such a situation, but I have to ask: what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

All I'm saying is that it isn't difficult to determine the chain of command, even for leadership. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

Okay, but how often is that needed? If the Stake President isn't the abuser there generally shouldn't be a need to go any higher than that.

 

Without cause.

But one of the purposes of having a chain of command is so that you know exactly who you ought to go to when there's an issue with one link in the chain.

If that link is the Bishop then you go to the Stake President. If it's the Stake President then you go to the Area Presidency. Etc.

 

So what are you proposing? That leaders at the highest ranks in the Church need to be apprised of every single instance of alleged abuse?

 

I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you could give me a hypothetical because I'm having difficulty imagining what kind of difficulties you are talking about here.

 

It's not normally allowed for trivial things (e.g., doctrinal questions, personal requests, etc.). Sexual assault isn't trivial though.

 

So when my stake president--going against church policy--wanted to withhold my temple recommend until we abandoned a civil suit, who were we supposed to contact? It's not as if that information is made easily available. 

And it's certainly not as if there is some normalised process for people having serious issues with their local leaders. You speak as if it's common knowledge what to do, personally I think that's just naive misunderstanding of how these things happen in real life. 

And realistically, criticism is really hard for leaders to hear, especially when it means that someone they called, or someone called by someone they called, etc..., hurt someone. That's another reason an ombudsman role can really help an organisation deal with internal conflict--their job is to receive complaints, rather than being required to lead while complaints come in as an extra thing to handle.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Meadowchik

[bsjkki]

The ‘culture’ of the church allows more intrusive questioning of youth on sexual matters vs adults. 
 

My husbands interview to serve as a Branch President had him being asked the temple recommend questions. For Bishopric it was , ‘any reason you can’t serve?’ For my service as PP I was not asked any probing questions. 

Why do we allow these questions with the youth? 
 

My 16 year old was asked to explain the law of chastity. Not if she lived it but to explain it to her Bishop. My husband was present. Not one of my adult female relatives or friends had ever been asked to do that. She handled it but that is not an okay thing to do to a teenage girl. Very uncomfortable and none of my adult female friends would want to do that in an interview.
 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by bsjkki

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok. So? Does this prevent such things? 

So?  Does this totally prevent abuse?  Does it prevent questions and probing that are not appropriate? Nope. Not one bit.

Ok that may help.

What about the psychological boundary that is crossed when a bishop asks a minor about their sexuality? None of those measures prevent that intrusion on a child's ownership over their own sexual life.

For most of my life, I lived with others "in my head" when it came to my own sexuality. After I left the church, I gradually banished those voices from my own inner life. And guess what? I still care about sexual morality, I still have moral priorities in regards to sexual activity. I don't need other people to examine me that closely to ensure my morality. 

And I don't think kids need that either. Teach kids respect and reverence for themselves and others, and their morals will extend to everything else in life. Of course there will be mistakes at times, but it's much easier to realign sexual activity with morality when proper boundaries are already honoured. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The ‘culture’ of the church allows more intrusive questioning of youth on sexual matters vs adults. 
 

My husbands interview to serve as a Branch President had him being asked the temple recommend questions. For Bishopric it was , ‘any reason you can’t serve?’ For my service as PP I was not asked any probing questions. 

Why do we allow these questions with the youth? 
 

My 16 year old was asked to explain the law of chastity. Not if she lived it but to explain it to her Bishop. My husband was present. Not one if my adult female relatives or friends had ever been asked to do that. She handled it but that is not an okay thing to do to a teenage girl. Very uncomfortable and none of my adult female friends would want to do that in an interview.
 

 

Yes!  And why ask such questions?  It’s valid to want to make sure the youth understand what the LoC is exactly, but you don’t have to ask baiting questions to do that.

You just have to tell them. No need to be graphic. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by bluebell

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I really appreciate this attitude of the CRC towards abuse prevention, it expresses institutional humility and a continued quest to improve church practices to prevent and address abuse:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have had a great deal of respect for the Christian Reformed Church ever since I pastored in northern New Jersey.  I am intrigued by your use of the phrase "institutional humility."  While I am unsure about attaching human attributes (humility) to an organization, I will give this more thought.  It is clear that the attitude (another human attribute) you attribute to your denomination and humility are human traits that must characterize those in leadership in your church as a whole and in your local congregations. Take care and best wishes.

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The ‘culture’ of the church allows more intrusive questioning of youth on sexual matters vs adults. 
 

My husbands interview to serve as a Branch President had him being asked the temple recommend questions. For Bishopric it was , ‘any reason you can’t serve?’ For my service as PP I was not asked any probing questions. 

Why do we allow these questions with the youth? 
 

My 16 year old was asked to explain the law of chastity. Not if she lived it but to explain it to her Bishop. My husband was present. Not one if my adult female relatives or friends had ever been asked to do that. She handled it but that is not an okay thing to do to a teenage girl. Very uncomfortable and none of my adult female friends would want to do that in an interview.
 

 

I am bothered by the focus the church had/has on pornography. It was/is extreme IMO. And I can imagine the interview questions about it being harmful because in a study I read, it said this shame can further cause the pornography to cement or become worse, where if it was a minor mistake, maybe the youth could move on instead of being labeled as a porn addict (for married men usually, with their wives calling it that too).

Those that have discontinued activity or belief, say miraculously, their porn use either stopped or lessened. I know that reading through the years on this forum, there are several members that have suffered with a porn addiction. I often wonder if they didn't feel shame they might had moved on and not really worry or think about it. 

One 5th week GD lesson, my former bishop got all the parents together and spoke about the problem with porn with the youth. I rose my hand and mentioned how it might worsen the problem the more it's brought up, and he dismissed my comment right off the bat. 

And when a youth has admitted to using porn, or an adult, and told not to take the Sacrament, imagine the shame in this. Almost like a scarlet letter "A" pinned to their shirt/dress.

And if a youth is asked about masturbation or even porn, and didn't know what either meant and looked them up, would something come up online that would cause them to start an addiction. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Tacenda

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have had a great deal of respect for the Christian Reformed Church ever since I pastored in northern New Jersey.  I am intrigued by your use of the phrase "institutional humility."  While I am unsure about attaching human attributes (humility) to an organization, I will give this more thought.  It is clear that the attitude (another human attribute) you attribute to your denomination and humility are human traits that must characterize those in leadership in your church as a whole and in your local congregations. Take care and best wishes.

Just FYI I am not a member of the CRC or any church, but I do appreciate their approach. 

I don't think it's novel to attribute human qualities to human institutions. They are extensions of humans, so they will inevitably behave in ways that mimic individual and collective human behaviour. ETA an institution is an example of individual or collective human behaviour.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Meadowchik

[bsjkki]

It’s not just temple recommend or missionary service or BYU endorsements. The youth have annual interviews. The guidelines allow the interview to explore and expound on a range of topics. They use the Strength of Youth as a guideline on commandments. This opens up these interviews way too much. 
 

I don’t trust the judgement or experience of Bishopric members to hold these conversations with children. Most might be fine but they are not trained and have been given too much subjective guidance. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am bothered by the focus the church had/has on pornography. It was/is extreme IMO. And I can imagine the interview questions about it being harmful because in a study I read, it said this shame can further cause the pornography to cement or become worse, where if it was a minor mistake, maybe the youth could move on instead of being labeled as a porn addict (for married men usually, with their wives calling it that too).

Those that have discontinued activity or belief, say miraculously, their porn use either stopped or lessened. I know that reading through the years on this forum, there are several members that have suffered with a porn addiction. I often wonder if they didn't feel shame they might had moved on and not really worry or think about it. 

One 5th week GD lesson, my former bishop got all the parents together and spoke about the problem with porn with the youth. I rose my hand and mentioned how it might worsen the problem the more it's brought up, and he dismissed my comment right off the bat. 

And when a youth has admitted to using porn, or an adult, and told not to take the Sacrament, imagine the shame in this. Almost like a scarlet letter "A" pinned to their shirt/dress.

And if a youth is asked about masturbation or even porn, and didn't know what either meant and looked them up, would something come up online that would cause them to start an addiction. 

 

 

I am very glad that the new handbook instructs bishops to stop being so quick to stop people from taking the sacrament as an aspect of repentance.  

Edited May 24, 2022 by bluebell

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And when they do, they are going against the guidelines and policies of the Church, and are putting themselves at risk.

Ok. So? Does this prevent such things? 

The Church's guidelines, if followed, substantially lower the risk of misconduct.

You appear to be suggesting that anything short of 100% perfection ("does this prevent such things...") is worthless.  If so, I don't think that's a reasonable approach to this issue.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In the bishop's office.  With a chaperson a few feet away.

So?  Does this totally prevent abuse? 

See?  You seem to be demanding absolute and error-free precision and perfection.  A "totally prevent abuse" standard of requirements and expectations asserted against the Church and its local leaders is, I think, unreasonable.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Does it prevent questions and probing that are not appropriate? Nope. Not one bit.

I disagree.  I think the Church's guidelines help quite a bit because, well, bishops who follow them do not ask inappropriately "probing" questions.

"Not one bit?"  Are you sure about that?  This sort of all-or-nothing absolutism is a metric that the Church - and every other individual and institution on the planet - is guaranteed to fail.  There will always be a risk of error or misconduct.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

If we have any sort of substantive problem with bishops abusing kids during such interviews, I think the Church would be wise to take appropriate remedial measures (such as, for example, putting small windows in the door to the bishop's office, or else putting a video-only (no audio) CC system in the bishop's office so the chaperon could monitor the behavior but not the communications going on.

Ok that may help.

I'm glad we agree on that point.  But I'm curious why you are seemingly okay with measures that only "may help."  There are no measures on earth that can meet your "totally prevent abuse" standard.  We can reduce risks.  We can mitigate.  We can provide instruction and guidelines.  We can provide oversight and supervision.  We can impose safety precautions.  We can do all of these things and still not "totally prevent abuse." 

And yet you fault the Church for failing to "totally prevent" such things.

Back in 2019 I posted this:

Quote

Quote

Most people, sorry if that's harsh, can see a problem right away. I'm sad you can't see it. Would you want this man interviewing your daughter?

Would you want any of these women teaching your sons?

Abbie Jane Swogger; Abigail Holloway; Adrienne Laflamme; Adrienne Laflamme; Alexandria Vera; Alison Mosbeck; Alison Peck; Allenna Ward; Amanda Athey; Amber Jennings; Amber Marshall; Amira Sa’Di; Amy Beck; Amy Bramhall; Amy Elder; Amy Elder; Amy Lilley; Amy McElhenny; Amy N. Miller; Amy Northcutt; Amy Yarbrough; Andrea Fox; Andrea Martinez; Andrea Martinez; Angela Christine Coffey; Angela Comer; Angela Palmer; Angela Stellwag; Anna Bettencourt; Anne Knopf; April Watson; Ashley Hall; Ashley Flores; Autumn Leathers; Barbara Anderson; Becci Hill; Beth Ann Chester; Beth Raymond; Beth Shepherd; Bethany Sherrill; Brandy Lynn Gonzales; Brenda Baillargeon; Brenda Osborne; Bridgett Szychulski; Brittni Colleps; Cameo Patch; Carmen Brown; Carol Flannigan; Carrie McCandless; Carrie O’Conner; Cathy Heminghaus; Celeste Emerick; Chandra Franks; Christel C. Gravlin; Christie Elliot; Christina Gallagher; Christina Oliver; Christine Duda; Christine Scarlett; Christine Jouini; Christine McCallum; Christine Spaich; Christy Anne Brown; Christy Martin; Claire Richards; Courtney Bowles; Courtney Jarrell; Cris Morris; Crissy Hisey; Crystal Wells; Cynthia Horvath; Danielle Jones; Danielle Watkins; Darcie Esson; Dawn Welter; Deanna Bobo; Deborah Reeder; Debra LaFave; Denise Keesee; Diana Canter; Donna Washburne; Dorothy Dixon; Elisa Martinelli; Elisha Kingsley; Elizabeth Livesay; Elizabeth Miklosovic; Elizabeth Munn; Elizabeth Stow; Ellen Garfield; Ellen Niemiec; Emily Elizabeth Housley; Emily Morris; Erica Baker; Erica Rutters; Erica Umosella; Erin McLean; Erin Queen; Ethel Anderson; Franca and Antonia Munoz-Juvera; Gail E. Gagne; Gay Lyn Turley; Georgianne Harrell; Gina Marie Watring; Gwen Cardozo; Haven Kirkpatrick; Heather Lea Burroughs; Heather Ingram; Heather Kennedy; Heather Thorsby; Heather Lynne Zeo; Hope Jacoby; Hope Johns; Jacquelyn Faith Garrison; Jamie Armstrong; Jamie Waite; Janelle Batkins; Janelle Bird; Janet Hughes; Janet Parker; Jaymee Wallace; Jennifer Cisco; Jennifer Dempsey; Jennifer Dorland; Jennifer Espinosa; Jennifer Mally; Jennifer Rice; Jennifer Tarkenton; Jennifer Whiting; Jessica Bailey Wishnask; Joan Marie Sladky; Jodi Church; Julia Lund; Julie A. Denno; Julie Pritchett; Kalyn Thompson; Kalyn Darby Thompson; Kandace Christopher; Kanesa Hopkins; Karen Patton; Karen Robbins; Kasey Johnes; Katherine J. Harder; Katherine Hicks; Katherine Tew; Kathy White; Katie Cross; Katryna Martin; Kellie Ann Cormican; Christina Oliver; Kelly Ann Garcia; Kelly Dalecki; Kelsey Peterson; Kenzi Friday; Kesha D. Manuel; Kimberly Lynch; Kinsley Wentzky; Kirsten Kinley; Kristen Margrif; Kristi Oakes; Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo; Kristyn Breeds; Lakina Stutts; Laura Lynn Findlay; Laura Pace; Lauren Cosgrove; Lauren Harrington-Cooper; Leslie Baird; Linda Hardan; Linda Nef; Linda Pithyou; Lindsay Massaro; Lisa Lavoie; Lisa Robyn Marinelli; Lynn Saunders; Marcie L. Rousseau; Marcy R. Fisher; Margaret De Barraicua; Maria Guzman Hernandez; Maria Saco; Mariella Brenlla; Marla Gurecki-Haskins; Mary Jo Spack; Mary Kay Letourneau; Megan Mahoney; Megan Sainsbury; Megan Snipes; Melinda Deluca; Melinda Dennehy; Melissa Andreini; Melissa Bare; Melissa Chase; Melissa Deel; Melissa Diana Koeh; Melissa Lavender; Melissa Dawn McCord; Melissa Moss; Melissa Snow; Melissa Weber; Meredith Hollen; Meredith Kane; Michelle Farley; Michelle Kush; Michelle Morano; Michelle VanMeter; Michelle Zulkowsky; Natalie Fraxedas; Natasha Sizow; Nicole Barnhart; Nicole Dufault; Nicole Kurowski; Nicole Long; Nicole Pomerleau; Pamela Balogh; Pamela Diehl-Moore; Pamela Smart; Pamela Rogers Turner; Rachel Burkhart; Rachel Holt; Rachelle Heenan; Rachelle Vantucci; Rebecca Boicelli; Rebecca Becker and Maria Zurita; Rebecca Bogard; Rebecca Ann Bramlett; Rebecca Lee Kelley; Rebecca Noonan; Rebekah Todd; Rebecca Robertson-Shaffer; Regina McKay; Rhianna Ellis; Rita Brum; Robin Gialanella; Robin Winkis; Rosanna Encinas Brown; Samantha Solomon; Sandra Binkley; Sandra Borrego; Sandra “Beth” Geisel; Sarah Bridges; Sarah Joel; Sarah Raymo; Sarah L. Tolzien; Shannon Best; Shannon Herring; Shannon Young; Sharon Rutherford; Shebana Rajput; Shelley Allen; Sheila Vazquez; Sheral Smith; Sherry Brians; Sheryl A. Namahine; Stacy Hopkins; Stephanie Adams; Stephanie Burleson; Stephanie Giambelluca; Stephanie Diane Harris; Stephanie Ragusa; Stephanie Seabury; Stephanie Ann Stein; Stephanie Jo Walters; Summer Hansen; Susan Clickner; Tabitha Adams; Tamara Ryman; Tara Driscoll; Tawni Wimberley; Teresa Engelbach; Tina Mason; Toni Allexy; Toni Woods; Traci Tapp; Valynne Bowers; Wendie Schweikert; and Yvette Starzyk.

This is a list of female school teachers who have been accused and/or convicted of sexually assaulting minor students (from, I believe, this list, published in 2014).

More recently:

Quote

At least 135 teachers, aides charged with child sex crimes this year alone

By Jessica Chasmar | Published May 19, 2022 9:45AM | Crime and Public Safety | FOX News

 

 

At least 135 teachers and teachers’ aides have been arrested so far this year on child sex-related crimes in the U.S., ranging from child pornography to raping students.

An analysis conducted by Fox News Digital looked at local news stories week by week featuring arrests of teachers and teachers’ aides on child sex-related crimes in school districts across the country. Arrests that weren't publicized were not counted in the analysis, meaning the true number may well be higher. 

The analysis found that at least 135 teachers and teachers’ aides have been arrested in 41 states between January 1 and May 13, which works out to about an arrest a day on average. 

The vast majority of the arrested educators were men. 

Of the 135 arrests, at least 102, or 76%, involved alleged crimes against students. 

...

Many of the arrests involved especially heinous allegations.

On April 11, police in California charged Anthony James Phillips, a 61-year-old former teacher at Cupertino Middle School in Sunnyvale, with aggravated sexual assault of a child, forcible penetration with a foreign object, and forcible penetration with a foreign object upon a child.

Phillips is accused of raping a student in 2009 when he was still a teacher at Cupertino.

Anessa Paige Gower, a 35-year-old former biology teacher at Making Waves Academy in Richmond, California, was charged with 29 counts of child molestation on April 8. 

Gower is accused of sexually abusing seven students between 2021-2022 when she was a teacher at Making Waves, with allegations including forcible sodomy of minors and sharing sexually graphic photos over online platforms. She is due back in court on June 2.
...
"Educator sexual abuse is a major problem that largely gets ignored because it's so uncomfortable to talk about," Sanzi said in a statement. "While a very small fraction of educators and school employees prey on the children in their care, one bad actor can do damage to many students." 

"The last federally commissioned study on the issue was in 2004, pre-smart phone and those who study the issue closely say that the problem has been exacerbated by the ease of communication that a smartphone provides," she continued. "We need to get much more honest about the problem, study it again and ensure that we have policies and laws in place that protect children. It is currently legal in Massachusetts and Rhode Island for teachers and other adults in positions of authority to have sexual relationships with students once they turn 14. After a 5-year effort, RI finally appears poised to change that this year."

Sanzi was referring to a bipartisan bill in Rhode Island that would make it a crime for a teacher or person of authority to have sexual contact with someone under the age of 18.

Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said the lack of research on teacher sex crimes against students is a "travesty."

"The public school system has a serious child sex abuse problem," he told Fox News Digital in a statement. "The last significant federal study on this topic, which was conducted by the Department of Education in 2004, suggested that millions of American schoolchildren are victims of teacher sexual misconduct in each generation of K-12 students—and there hasn't been any significant research since then. 

"This is a travesty," he continued. "Parents deserve to know exactly what's happening in the public school system and deserve to have tools for protecting their children from abuse. Congress should immediately fund a $25 million research program into child sexual abuse in public schools and provide complete transparency for parents. The first duty of public schools is to keep kids safe—and, tragically, that's not happening in far too many cases."

This is a horrible situation, to be sure.  And we need to address it.  But in the end, every part of society in which humans interact with each other carries the risk of misconduct.  We can work to mitigate and reduce that risk, but as long as there are malevolent people in the world, they will find a way to injure others.

The Church teaches much about morality, choosing the right, the Law of Chastity, sexual ethics, and so on.  Additionally, the Church has policies and procedures in place to prevent or reduce the risk of misconduct during Church-sponsored events, meetings, etc.  The "two deep" rule.  Published guidelines as to interview parameters.  Consistent and clear over-the-pulpit counsel condemning any form of abuse.  The hotline.  The Church's stated policy of complying with "mandatory reporting" laws.  And on and on and on.

None of this matters, apparently, because we have not -as you put it - "totally prevent{ed} abuse."  And because we have not succeeded with 100% precision, your response to the Church's extensive efforts to safeguard abuse victimes is . . . "Ok.  So?"

It is my understanding that many critics of the Church find one of its most substantial defects to be perfectionism.  And that point is not without some merit.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

LDS Perfectionism: Research Reveals Pros & Cons

By Danielle B. Wagner February 09, 2015 02:53 PM MST

 

“You’re such a perfectionist!” 

It’s a phrase many Latter-day Saints are familiar with. It’s something I’ve been told most of my life. Though it’s often said in a joking way, there’s no denying the negative connotation that comes with the word “perfectionist.” And in a church that strives for perfection and has high expectations, members frequently find themselves coming up short, which can lead to discouragement, dissatisfaction, and stress.

But according to Professors G. E. Kawika Allen and Kenneth T. Wang, perfectionism, or striving for high standards, is not the problem. 

In a recent study focusing specifically on Latter-day Saints, Allen and Wang surveyed around 267 highly active members in Utah. In their study, they asked questions about anything from satisfaction with life to inward and outward religious commitment. They ended up identifying three main groups. 

The first group, 22% of people surveyed, were not perfectionists, that is, they don’t believe they hold themselves to high personal standards. The rest were considered perfectionists, but had an interesting split among them – a new type of perfectionism. Of the perfectionist group, 30% were classified as what Allen and Wang labeled maladaptive perfectionism, while 47% were classified as adaptive.

“Adaptive perfectionists are likely to feel acceptance of themselves and their efforts, even when they fail or fall short of the high personal standards they have set for themselves,” their original study release explains. “They were also more inwardly and outwardly committed to their LDS faith, which supports previous peer-reviewed findings that religious commitment plays a role in achieving better psychological health.” That means adaptive perfectionism is actually healthy. 

However, not all types of perfectionism are healthy. “Individuals in the maladaptive group experienced less satisfaction with life, often feeling depressed or anxious. They showed increased scrupulosity, which is the fear of sinful behavior and punishment from God.”

Though Allen admits that circumstances limited their study largely to young adults in their early to mid-20s, it seems an appropriate population to study—it’s a time of life when there is perhaps the most pressure to live up to high “perfectionist” expectations of missions, marriage, and education. 

When asked how the study could help Latter-day Saints who struggle with maladaptive perfectionism, Allen explained that, while he doesn’t have all the answers or solutions, the study can still be helpful. “Maladaptive perfectionists are those folks who have high standards and high expectations for themselves, but when they are unable to meet those expectations, whether it’s school, family, or personal expectations, they struggle a little more with feelings of failure, feelings of not being good enough, disappointment, discouragement, and they feel down about themselves because they’re not able to meet those high standards.” 

On the other hand, adaptive perfectionists know how to strive for the best, but accept if they fail. “The only difference between the maladaptive and adaptive is the fact that, yes, they have high standards, but they don’t beat themselves up if they’re not able to meet every high standard and expectation they have for themselves.” Allen goes on to explain that adaptive perfectionists are more resilient to discouragement and create a “buffer” for themselves if they fail —allowing themselves a chance to simply try again and again and again and do their best. 

It's an interesting article, particularly the end where it gives some gentle advice on how to avoid the sort of "maladaptive perfectionism" that is described above.

I present this because I think you are imposing on the Church and its local leaders and members a set of expectations that are akin to the foregoing "maladaptive perfectionism."  Again:

Quote

“Maladaptive perfectionists are those folks who have high standards and high expectations for themselves, but when they are unable to meet those expectations, whether it’s school, family, or personal expectations, they struggle a little more with feelings of failure, feelings of not being good enough, disappointment, discouragement, and they feel down about themselves because they’re not able to meet those high standards.”

I think this sort of thinking is corrosive and unhealthy for us as individuals and groups.  I also think it becomes considerably more harmful when these unreasonable and untenable "high standards and high expectations" are imposed on individuals from someone else - like a parent or church leader. 

And maybe when they are imposed on us by critics, particularly those who previously were previously part of us.  When such a person publicly disparages and faults us because we have not reached a very high standard with 100% success and precision, when we have not, as you put it, "totally prevent{ed} abuse," well, that sort of frustrating.  We are not perfect.  We are not utterly successful in all that we do.  But we are trying very hard.  But critics and their unreasoned demands of absolute perfection are disheartening. 

It is stuff like this, this relentless faultfinding, the casual and glib dismissal of the substantial of the efforts of the Church and its members with responses like "Ok.  So?", that make me fairly wary about taking many of critics seriously.  Their critiques along these lines are unreasonablel, and very often lack good faith and good will.  No matter what the Latter-day Saints do, an angle can always be drawn so as to find fault.

I sure hope you and yours are never have to cope with being held to the same impossible standards of perfectionism you are imposing on us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My point is that parents should prepare kids ahead of time as to what to do if things go awry in the interview.

I suppose.  The same general preparation can be given as to kids interacting with teachers, relatives, and anyone else that may pose a risk.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, when my son said he didn’t want to discuss what the bishop was getting into, the bishop threatened to not advance him in the priesthood if he didn’t answer. Needless to say, I told the bishop he had no business discussing such things with a 14 year old, and if my son wasn’t advanced in the priesthood, that was on the bishop. 

I think it is almost always unnecessary for the bishop to press this point, or to become adversarial, or to present ultimatums.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That is interesting about not asking questions that arouse curiosity or experimentation. How exactly does one draw that line?

I"m not sure there is a "line."  

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I would think the best bet is to keep things general, such as, “Do you keep the law of chastity as the church teaches it?”  Most priesthood-age kids understand the question, and I can’t think of a reason to dig deeper.

That could work, and I think that's the way is often does work.  I think it could also help to read from For the Strength of Youth, with addresses these issues with tact, decorum and restraint.

Would you find that to be unduly "probing" or invasive?

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I wonder if a lot of bishops just do interviews the way they were interviewed as children. That would explain a lot to me. 

That's an interesting question.  Clear instruction from the stake president would also be helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Those that have discontinued activity or belief, say miraculously, their porn use either stopped or lessened. I know that reading through the years on this forum, there are several members that have suffered with a porn addiction. I often wonder if they didn't feel shame they might had moved on and not really worry or think about it. 

I wonder if for some of these people the reason is because, since they are no longer active or believe, they are having more actual sexual experiences with women so don't need to look at the porn anymore. 

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"I’m not sure there is a "line."  

It’s completely subjective. 

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it could also help to read from For the Strength of Youth, with addresses these issues with tact, decorum and restraint.

Would you find that to be unduly "probing" or invasive?

Yes. I have grown to dislike the wording on many things in that book. It’s not doctrine and changes with the times

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I have grown to dislike the wording on many things in that book. It’s not doctrine and changes with the times

I'm curious what examples you have of FtSoY changing over time. It seems to me to be remarkably stable from the 1980s to the present. Excluding artwork or graphics, of course!  

I think anyone would be hard-pressed to improve on the concise explanation for the law of chastity in it (which covers fornication, masturbation, homosexuality, etc. in a concise, clear way, IMO). 

I would be very interested in anyone here's "sandbox," hypothetical re-writes of that or anything else. What can people suggest that would be better than what we have?