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

[malkie]

Yes, it would be helpful. So cinepro was right when he said, "Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind. "

But malkie objected, "But it's something akin to grooming, and has the same effect of desensitizing the vulnerable person to inappropriate behaviour by some other authority figure. Call it "pseudo-grooming", or "unintentional grooming" - anything you like."

The only question for me is if Bishops asking too-detailed questions are engaging in actual child abuse?

If they are, then it is abuse, and at the very least the Church needs to provide more guidance and training to get it to stop, and those Bishops should be removed. It would probably require some kind of reporting mechanism, where youth can anonymously report the Bishops to the Stake President (assuming it's not something that Law Enforcement would be interested in). I think they should even be teaching the youth what they should expect (and accept) from the repentance process with a bishop. But the issue is that it's actual abuse, not theoretically increasing the odds that the child will be abused by someone else in the future.

The theory that Bishops are doing something that unintentionally makes it easier for other abuse to happen seems a little stretched. It's like we're saying it isn't actual abuse, but we still want to accuse them of doing something nefarious, so we try to stretch the definition of "grooming" to include situations where someone has no intention of actual abuse. At that point, anything anyone does that causes children to trust adults could be considered dangerous, since children trusting adults is one of the key factors in abuse.

If the only question for you is if Bishops asking too-detailed questions are engaging in actual child abuse, then I'm not sure that you are discussing what others in this thread are discussing. Definitions of "grooming" and "abuse" are not the point - behaviour is, as Res points out, regardless of what we call it.

I don't think that anyone in this thread is wanting to accuse Bishops of doing something nefarious. We're not looking for a "gotcha" here.

But we are not talking about just anyone - we're talking about someone in a position of trust. And we're not talking about just anything either - we're talking about a one-on-one conversation that touches on matters of a sexual nature, and telling children and youth that this is normal, acceptable, and to be submitted to. They are told that their religious leaders are chosen by and acting on behalf of their god, and that what they approve or condemn is what is unquestionably good or bad respectively.

So, no, it's not just "anything anyone does that causes children to trust adults".

There's a reason why organisations that work with youth have policies like "two deep" interviews, and acknowledge that even that is not sufficient to stop the problem. However, such secular organisations are way ahead of the church. They also, as far as I know, don't eject leaders who blow the whistle, and push the point. Scouts, for example, would not have "excommunicated" Sam Young - they would, I believe, have acted on his complaints, rather than accusing him of not sufficiently supporting those higher in the organisation.

For this, I'm OK with being called an angry and bitter critic of the church.

Edited to add: cinepro, it seems that you and I are unable to see each other's point of view.

My previous experience of your postings both here and on the "other" board has been that you appear to be one of the most reasonable people around. So it actually bothers me that we seem to be so far apart on this. The difference between us is certainly making me think. Cheers!

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, it would be helpful. So cinepro was right when he said, "Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind. "

But malkie objected, "But it's something akin to grooming, and has the same effect of desensitizing the vulnerable person to inappropriate behaviour by some other authority figure. Call it "pseudo-grooming", or "unintentional grooming" - anything you like."

The only question for me is if Bishops asking too-detailed questions are engaging in actual child abuse?

If they are, then it is abuse, and at the very least the Church needs to provide more guidance and training to get it to stop, and those Bishops should be removed. It would probably require some kind of reporting mechanism, where youth can anonymously report the Bishops to the Stake President (assuming it's not something that Law Enforcement would be interested in). I think they should even be teaching the youth what they should expect (and accept) from the repentance process with a bishop. But the issue is that it's actual abuse, not theoretically increasing the odds that the child will be abused by someone else in the future.

The theory that Bishops are doing something that unintentionally makes it easier for other abuse to happen seems a little stretched. It's like we're saying it isn't actual abuse, but we still want to accuse them of doing something nefarious, so we try to stretch the definition of "grooming" to include situations where someone has no intention of actual abuse. At that point, anything anyone does that causes children to trust adults could be considered dangerous, since children trusting adults is one of the key factors in abuse.

I’m puzzled as to why that would be the only question you’d want to ask. Harm is harm, regardless of intent. I wouldn’t care about the bishop’s subjective intent as much as I would care whether worthiness interviews made my child more susceptible to grooming.

We already know that some Mormon men who sexually abuse children will become bishops. We also would be justifiably suspicious about any adult man who interrogated teenagers about details of sexual activity. So, for me as a parent, my concern would be reducing the risk that worthiness interviews would increase my child’s risk that my child would be abused.

Were I a parent of an LDS teen, I’d have a very direct talk about worthiness interviews. First, that in any other context, an adult asking about sexual behavior of teens is entirely inappropriate and anyone doing so should be reported to me. Second, that the Bishop may have obligations that involve confidentiality, but my child doesn’t. If any adult says or does anything that makes my child uncomfortable, they should tell me. And they should especially tell me in an adult even suggests that something should be kept secret from me.

As we all know that bad people get called as bishops, it would be crazy to not teach our children that bishops can and do sin and that they have boundaries.

The institution of the church could take steps to reduce the risk that a pedophile Bishop could use his position of authority, including the church sanctioned conduct of asking teenagers about sexual activity. Or that a child will conclude that it’s okay for other trusted adults to ask the same kinds of questions. I think it’s fair to criticize the institution for not doing so.

I understand that the unrelenting criticism of the church from some folks is irritating and tiresome. I feel the same way, and I haven’t been LDS for decades. But that shouldn’t prevent folks from taking a serious look at risks that the institution and practices may increase.

[malkie]

Further thought on the Bishops' interviews.

Would a cost/benefit analysis suggest that the level of risk from current one-on-one interviews behind closed doors is acceptable, or that the church institution, the community, the vulnerable youth, and the Bishops themselves would benefit more from a change than the change would "cost" in any way?

Even if the risk to youth is small, I believe that the cost of either discontinuing such interviews, or making them open-door and two-deep is so small as to make the decision to change an easy one.

[malkie]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here: I was molested by a scout leader when I was about 12. I told nobody until I was in my 40s or 50s. The leader told me that, if it came to light, he would say that I initiated the sexual contact, and he rebuffed my advances. He said that no-one would believe me, because I was just a kid and he was a well-regarded leader. He didn't report it, he would claim, to avoid embarrassing me, but he would not hold back if I were ever to tell anyone.

Shortly after the incident I left the scout organisation.

The minister of the sponsoring church called me in for a meeting with him and the scoutmaster and other leaders, because my sudden departure with no obvious reason was puzzling and worrying. My family were long time members, and I was a member of the choir, and the prize winner almost every year in the Sunday School quiz. My dad was a prominent elder. We participated in everything that went on in the church.

I sat in that meeting and cried myself sick. But I had nothing to say in answer to their questions except that I was not coming back, no matter what.

What could I say with my molester sitting at the other side of the table?

A couple of years ago I came across his name in a post on a Facebook page for my home town. When I read the name I almost threw up on the spot.

I'm convinced that, whatever incidents are found out in any organisation, it's probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg - only a small part is ever visible.

I know now that I should have reported the incident regardless of the consequences, and I feel guilty for the other scouts that I could perhaps have saved from similar experiences.

The 12-year-old me just wanted to suppress and forget, and hide my shame. The 73-year-old me has not yet forgiven him for his cowardice.

But I believe that, as responsible adults, we need to do what we can (within reason, of course) to minimise the risks that youth run. It can scar people for life. I think that the changes that many people have proposed are completely reasonable.

[doubtingthomas]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here: I was molested by a scout leader when I was about 12.

I am sorry to hear that. I think you can still sue.

But I believe that, as responsible adults, we need to do what we can (within reason, of course) to minimise the risks that youth run.

Exactly.

[Marcus]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here: I was molested by a scout leader when I was about 12. I told nobody until I was in my 40s or 50s. The leader told me that, if it came to light, he would say that I initiated the sexual contact, and he rebuffed my advances. He said that no-one would believe me, because I was just a kid and he was a well-regarded leader. He didn't report it, he would claim, to avoid embarrassing me, but he would not hold back if I were ever to tell anyone.

Shortly after the incident I left the scout organisation.

The minister of the sponsoring church called me in for a meeting with him and the scoutmaster and other leaders, because my sudden departure with no obvious reason was puzzling and worrying. My family were long time members, and I was a member of the choir, and the prize winner almost every year in the Sunday School quiz. My dad was a prominent elder. We participated in everything that went on in the church.

I sat in that meeting and cried myself sick. But I had nothing to say in answer to their questions except that I was not coming back, no matter what.

What could I say with my molester sitting at the other side of the table?

A couple of years ago I came across his name in a post on a Facebook page for my home town. When I read the name I almost threw up on the spot.

I'm convinced that, whatever incidents are found out in any organisation, it's probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg - only a small part is ever visible.

I know now that I should have reported the incident regardless of the consequences, and I feel guilty for the other scouts that I could perhaps have saved from similar experiences.

The 12-year-old me just wanted to suppress and forget, and hide my shame. The 73-year-old me has not yet forgiven him for his cowardice.

But I believe that, as responsible adults, we need to do what we can (within reason, of course) to minimise the risks that youth run. It can scar people for life. I think that the changes that many people have proposed are completely reasonable.

I empathize entirely. Only recently some family members have told similar stories, also from decades past, but the pain is still palpable. Please forgive yourself. expecting yourself as a 12 year old to solve such an adult problem, especially in the environment from 60 years ago, AND when you were being actively threatened by your abuser, is more than a child should ever have to bear. Adults today can’t figure out how to fix it. I only wish there was a way we could curse your abuser.

We are here with you. You have a very empathetic audience here, for the most part, and many of us are more than willing to help ease your burden in any way we can.

[malkie]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here:
...

I empathize entirely. Only recently some family members have told similar stories, also from decades past, but the pain is still palpable. Please forgive yourself. expecting yourself as a 12 year old to solve such an adult problem, especially in the environment from 60 years ago, AND when you were being actively threatened by your abuser, is more than a child should ever have to bear. Adults today can’t figure out how to fix it. I only wish there was a way we could curse your abuser.

We are here with you. You have a very empathetic audience here, for the most part, and many of us are more than willing to help ease your burden in any way we can.

Thank you, Marcus. I appreciate your thoughts and words. It means a lot to me to know that I can unburden myself here to empathetic folks such as you.

If my various selves were completely rational I might feel absolved. The fact is, however, that I know I should have done something. Silence and inaction almost always favour the abuser. I don;t agree with people like Sam Young in everything, but I hugely admire their willingness to stand up to authority.

[doubtingthomas]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here: I was molested by a scout leader when I was about 12. I told nobody until I was in my 40s or 50s. The leader told me that, if it came to light, he would say that I initiated the sexual contact, and he rebuffed my advances. He said that no-one would believe me, because I was just a kid and he was a well-regarded leader. He didn't report it, he would claim, to avoid embarrassing me, but he would not hold back if I were ever to tell anyone.

And again, I am sorry to hear that.

Are you aware of this?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-paym ... 1648077889

That is what bothered me earlier.

Just for correction, I quoted the wrong sentence earlier.

[malkie]

It occurred to me that perhaps I should add a personal disclosure here: I was molested by a scout leader when I was about 12. I told nobody until I was in my 40s or 50s. The leader told me that, if it came to light, he would say that I initiated the sexual contact, and he rebuffed my advances. He said that no-one would believe me, because I was just a kid and he was a well-regarded leader. He didn't report it, he would claim, to avoid embarrassing me, but he would not hold back if I were ever to tell anyone.

And again, I am sorry to hear that.

Are you aware of this?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-paym ... 1648077889

That is what bothered me earlier.

Just for correction, I quoted the wrong sentence earlier.

Thanks, DT, but I have no interest in monetary compensation, or in pursuing anyone from 60 years ago. But I do appreciate your concern.

[doubtingthomas]

Thanks, DT, but I have no interest in monetary compensation, or in pursuing anyone from 60 years ago. But I do appreciate your concern.

That says a lot of about you. I hope you completely heal.