LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct.

[IHAQ]

I assume you mean those Bishops should be prosecuted, not just removed from their calling? And the way to stop it happening is to stop one to one interviews by Bishops, or anyone else.

Under what laws would a Bishop that asks too-invasive questions be prosecuted? I'm not a lawyer, so it's a sincere question.

You said “The only question for me is if Bishops asking too-detailed questions are engaging in actual child abuse?” so I was responding to that.

Here in California, we have some controversies over what is being taught to children during sex ed in the classroom. If a teacher or other consultant were to teach stuff to kids and it made one of the kids uncomfortable because it was too explicit, would that teacher or consultant also be guilty of sexual abuse?

When you answer the question, try to do it from the standpoint of someone who would have to interpret the laws and apply them in a court room, not from the perspective of "I hate creepy Mormon Bishops and wish they would be locked up, but sex ed at schools is a wonderful and beautiful thing, even if it makes kids or parents uncomfortable..."

Look at how you are actually defining and applying your assumptions.

It’s not a theory. The risk of unintentional grooming and how to ensure you aren’t doing it is, an integral part of the UK’s education child safety training for teachers.

Do you have a link to this expanded definition of "grooming" being applied in the UK?

I’m afraid I don’t, because it’s in-person training. Here is a link to the summary of topics covered though, check out the PDF for specifics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... being-safe
To give an example from the training. It is explained to teachers that one of the ways predators groom children is to desensitise them to touching. They may pat a child on the back or touch their arm. Over time they will extend the length of time their hand is on the child. Then the touching gradually progresses to hugging, then hugging for longer etc. You can see where that chain of events leads and how the predator, over time, has desensitised the child. Teachers are trained to not put their hands on children, not to put an arm round them not to hug them etc for two reasons. 1. To avoid giving the appearance that they are being inappropriate with a child/student in their class. And 2. To avoid desensitising the child to an unrelated adults touch in other scenarios away from the classroom - like that overly friendly touchy member at Church on a Sunday who likes to hug people, or the kids sports coach who gives hugs and bottom pats.

Teachers, Sports Coach’s, Bishops, Church Youth Leaders etc should not be making physical contact with people over whom they have responsibility. It either is them being predatory, or they are desensitising them to the actions of a predator - inadvertent grooming.

[malkie]

I’m afraid I don’t, because it’s in-person training. Here is a link to the summary of topics covered though, check out the PDF for specifics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... being-safe
To give an example from the training. It is explained to teachers that one of the ways predators groom children is to desensitise them to touching. They may pat a child on the back or touch their arm. Over time they will extend the length of time their hand is on the child. Then the touching gradually progresses to hugging, then hugging for longer etc. You can see where that chain of events leads and how the predator, over time, has desensitised the child. Teachers are trained to not put their hands on children, not to put an arm round them not to hug them etc for two reasons. 1. To avoid giving the appearance that they are being inappropriate with a child/student in their class. And 2. To avoid desensitising the child to an unrelated adults touch in other scenarios away from the classroom - like that overly friendly touchy member at Church on a Sunday who likes to hug people, or the kids sports coach who gives hugs and bottom pats.

Teachers, Sports Coach’s, Bishops, Church Youth Leaders etc should not be making physical contact with people over whom they have responsibility. It either is them being predatory, or they are desensitising them to the actions of a predator - inadvertent grooming.

As a teacher of a class of students from 16 to 60s, some with emotional needs, I had a class policy that I explained as being for the protection of both student and teacher:
- the teacher does not initiate any physical contact with a student
- a student may not initiate physical contact with the teacher while they are alone
- a student who would like a hug may share a hug only in the presence of another adult staff member who is asked in advance to supervise

Some of the students laughed about the last point. I was quite serious about it.

I had to tell off one student in particular who would sometimes give me a quick squeeze as she left the classroom - often as the last student to leave.

[doubtingthomas]

Teachers, Sports Coach’s, Bishops, Church Youth Leaders etc should not be making physical contact with people over whom they have responsibility.

I don't think anyone disagrees here. The vast majority of Bishops don't do it.

But let me ask you, would it be "inadvertent grooming" for a branch president (who is single and wants to get married in the temple) to flirt with a woman (who is also single and a member of the same branch)? Assume the branch president works overtime in his private life, and assume there is no coercion or sexual harassment.

inadvertent grooming.

Can you share the research on "inadvertent grooming"? When a heterosexual Bishops asks some dude "Do you watch porn?" would his question make the dude more vulnerable to sexual abuse in the future?

What does the research say? We have to be careful with pseudoscience, especially in the field of psychology.

[drumdude]

When a heterosexual Bishops asks some dude "Do you watch porn?" would his question make the dude more vulnerable to sexual abuse in the future?

Are you aware of any other situations where adults who are not family routinely ask children if they masturbate or watch porn?

[doubtingthomas]

Are you aware of any other situations where adults who are not family routinely ask children if they masturbate or watch porn?

Can you please tell me what you mean by "children"? And would your definition apply in all US states and countries?

But to answer your question, the answer is: No.

Bishops are supposed to create the illusion that "sex is bad and Jesus is watching you", so I would really like to see the research on "unintentional grooming". I do agree one-on-one interviews are a problem because things can and do happen, but most Bishops are not trying to harm anyone.

How exactly is a dude more vulnerable to sexual abuse after a Bishop tells him that sex and porn are bad?

[drumdude]

How exactly is a dude more vulnerable to sexual abuse after a Bishop tells him that sex and porn are bad?

I think teaching a child about chastity and porn is different than asking them if they're masturbating or watching porn one on one in a room with the doors closed.

I don't think teaching about chastity is grooming, but asking them personal questions can be. It teaches them to be ok talking about those things with strangers.

[malkie]

Are you aware of any other situations where adults who are not family routinely ask children if they masturbate or watch porn?

Can you please tell me what you mean by "children"? And would your definition apply in all US states and countries?

But to answer your question, the answer is: No.

Bishops are supposed to create the illusion that "sex is bad and Jesus is watching you", so I would really like to see the research on "unintentional grooming". I do agree one-on-one interviews are a problem because things can and do happen, but most Bishops are not trying to harm anyone.

How exactly is a dude more vulnerable to sexual abuse after a Bishop tells him that sex and porn are bad?

That seem to me to be trivializing what is happening.

If all the Bishop wants to do is to tell children and youth that sex and porn are bad, then they can get them all in a classroom and say it to all of them at the same time, every few months if needed. If the two options are that, and one-on-one closed-door interviews, I'd go for the group approach - no doubt about it.

But that is not the case.

A point that has been made over and over in this discussion is that the continual - and possibly progressive - placing of a vulnerable person in a situation in which an untrained and not properly vetted authority figure asks them, one-on-one, about intimate matters is problematic for at least three reasons

1. It makes it possible, and progressively easier, for the authority figure to take advantage of the person.
2. It desensitizes the person to inappropriate advances, and makes it easier for someone else to take advantage of them.
3. It makes it possible for the authority figure to be unjustly accused of trying to take advantage of the person.

I agree with you that most Bishops are not trying to harm anyone. I don't think that anyone in this discussion has suggested that they are. But this process facilitates the harm for the few who are intent on harm.

What I do not understand is why, when there is known to be potential for harm, and when there are alternatives, does the church still want Bishops to conduct one-on-one closed-door interviews.

All of this is still ignoring the fact that some of the things that the church demonizes as part of the sin next to murder are actually part of the normal development of the sexual creatures known as humans. I'm talking specifically about young people exploring their own bodies, and - horror of horrors - learning that certain things can be pleasurable. In the normal course of things, this should be no cause for feelings of guilt.

[drumdude]

I wonder how much of the resistance to change the bishop interview is due to the idea being pushed by “apostates.” And they’re continuing this practice purely out of spite now.

They can’t implement the idea, even if they agree with it, until they find a way to spin it in such a way that *they* were the ones who discovered this great new idea through the power of priesthood revelation…

I’m sure that’s getting harder and harder to do. After the priesthood ban change, after the kids of gay parents reversal, it starts to seem like revelation is taking a back seat to public outrage.

[doubtingthomas]

What I do not understand is why, when there is known to be potential for harm, and when there are alternatives, does the church still want Bishops to conduct one-on-one closed-door interviews.

No idea.

If all the Bishop wants to do is to tell children and youth that sex and porn are bad, then they can get them all in a classroom and say it to all of them at the same time, every few months if needed. If the two options are that, and one-on-one closed-door interviews, I'd go for the group approach - no doubt about it.

Bishops are like the police of the church. The "one-on-one" is like an interrogation, Bishops want to know if you committed a serious mystical crime. The "one-on-one" sends a strong message.

When a Bishops asks "Are you doing Fentanyl?" would the question make a dude more vulnerable to Fentanyl addiction? It is true that invasive questions could do harm, but at the same time they could help reinforce the ideas that "all sexual acts are bad" and "Jesus is watching you". So we need research on "unintentional grooming". I don't like making conclusions without looking at some research first.

But this process facilitates the harm for the few who are intent on harm.

I agree, but it wouldn't be "unintentional grooming".

[doubtingthomas]

But let me ask you, would it be "inadvertent grooming" for a branch president (who is single and wants to get married in the temple) to flirt with a woman (who is also single and a member of the same branch)? Assume the branch president works overtime in his private life, and assume there is no coercion or sexual harassment.

I would like to know your opinion.