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

[IHAQ]

Looking at the central topic of this thread, and at least one of its branch topics, I'd say:

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that teaches that masturbation by young people going through adolescence (or indeed anybody else) is bad.

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that would have led to me as a teenager being on my own in a room with a person I was taught to regard as having authority over me, who asked me probing questions about whether I masturbated or not, and if so when and how and how often, all the time reminding me that the deity I was taught to believe in disapproved of such activity and was watching me all the time.

I simply CANNOT IMAGINE the mindset of any parent who would allow their son or their daughter to be subject to that kind of encounter. But that of course simply shows my lamentable lack of cultural sympathy for other people's sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't it? I feel the same way about female genital mutilation, child marriage, and so on. What a disgusting piece of work I am!

To add to what you’ve said here, even when that cultural process is followed properly by well intentioned careful Bishops (and evidence shows there are some in that position who aren’t well intentioned), and even when their questioning is sensitive and non specific, this will desensitise vulnerable minors and vulnerable adults to the risk of other adults asking them inappropriate questions or getting them into one on one situations for nefarious reasons.

[IHAQ]

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

Given all the information available to you, and that you are involved in selecting individuals to hold positions of trust over children and youth, I’m absolutely staggered once again by your complacency and naïvété.

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.

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.

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.

In numerous cases the victim doesn’t report because they fear they won’t be believed, or even because the offender has threatened them with consequences if they do. A reporting mechanism has been shown to be completely ineffective. How many examples of the Church covering this kind of thing up and telling people to keep it quiet do you need? And the issue is both the abuse that happens and the desensitising of vulnerable people to adults asking them inappropriate questions. Whether you think it is or not.

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.

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.

[Marcus]

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.

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.

I’m so glad to hear that. Most training courses for educators are taking a similar route in the US, at least in my experience. It’s pretty surprising to read cinepro’s comments in this thread, because they are clearly not supported by best practices and evidence. It’s even sadder that the lds church is so far behind in addressing this. I still recall when they self-defined their practices as “the gold standard” in preventing child abuse. That was so unreal.

[IHAQ]

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.

I’m so glad to hear that. Most training courses for educators are taking a similar route in the US, at least in my experience. It’s pretty surprising to read cinepro’s comments in this thread, because they are clearly not supported by best practices and evidence. It’s even sadder that the lds church is so far behind in addressing this. I still recall when they self-defined their practices as “the gold standard” in preventing child abuse. That was so unreal.

Here is the coverage of the Church proclaiming to operate a gold standard for preventing child abuse…

https://religionnews.com/2016/02/02/mor ... a-problem/

“No religious organization has done more” to prevent and respond to abuse.

“The Church’s approach is the gold standard.”

“While clergy-abuse cases continue to grab headlines, the Church has had almost no child abuse problems with its clergy.”

And Jana points out the erroneous and frankly deliberately misleading nature of the statement.

What’s especially weird about the “Effectiveness” statement is that it’s factually incorrect on several key points. These are enumerated blow by blow in an excellent response on Feminist Mormon Housewives, but let me recap a few of the most glaring errors.

No, Mormons are not leading the charge here. It’s disappointing that an LDS statement would make sweeping and self-aggrandizing generalizations to the effect that “child abuse by clergy may be a problem in other religions, but it’s never a problem with us, no sir! And if it were, our church has the absolute best practices and policies in place for addressing it.”

This is just insulting. Many other faiths are way ahead of us on this score: See here for the 2012 PC(USA) policy statement “We Won’t Let It Happen Here: Creating a Child Safe Church,” building on earlier General Assembly resolutions dating back to 1991. Here is the policy in Reform Judaism.

Here is the Child Protection Policy in the ELCA. Heck, even the Southern Baptists, that loosest of confederations, have now adopted a centralized policy on child abuse. We could go on and on about the proactive ways that other faiths are getting out in front of this issue.

Note one feature that all of these religions have urged to bolster child protection: background checks for every person who works closely with children and youth. So far, Mormon leaders have not followed this lead.

No, “preventing and responding to child abuse” is not “the subject of a regular lesson during Sunday meetings.” Where does this assertion even come from? I’ve never been in a church meeting that was devoted to issues like learning the signs of abuse, counseling victims, documenting cases, and reporting suspicions to the police. And I sure don’t see this in our Sunday curriculum.

No, we don’t have a policy that prohibits an adult male from ever being alone with a minor. The so-called “two-deep” policy the “Effectiveness” statement boasts of isn’t mentioned anywhere in the 2010 church handbook for bishops and stake presidents, and in fact that handbook states that “worthiness interviews should be private” (7.1.1). In the section for youth, there’s a mention that parents are encouraged “to stay close to their children and counsel them,” but it’s not clear whether that parental involvement is specifically supposed to occur during a teen’s worthiness interview with the bishop or is just general advice about parents being involved in their kids’ lives (7.1.7).

In practice, I don’t see Mormon parents accompanying their teens for their annual interviews; if this has begun to happen, that’s good news that I’d love to hear more about. (Here’s a powerful post at Doves and Serpents about how inappropriate youth interviews can be, offering concrete recommendations for change.)

No, we don’t always call the authorities. On the contrary, some of the documented cases of Mormon abusers show church leaders keeping quiet about the abuse and encouraging victims to handle it privately, if at all. That’s one of the most disturbing facets of the Frank Curtis case, for example. There’s no record that LDS leaders reported Curtis to the police for the abuse and pedophilia that caused his excommunication. And it gets worse: when an apparently penitent Curtis was later rebaptized, he was given another calling with children!

Since that firestorm the Church has not exactly moved heaven and earth to improve matters. 6 years on it might be time for Jana to revisit the subject to investigate what, if anything, has changed…

[malkie]

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.

A couple of years ago I was at a conference for teachers of adults. In a small group we got to talking about how to avoid situations in which either vulnerable students could be taken advantage of, or teachers could be wrongly accused of taking advantage of students.

Without disclosing the organisation I was talking about, other than that it was religious, I described the 1-on-1 bishops' interview process.

The other teachers were absolutely horrified at the potential for harm to students, and the potential harm to teachers' reputations.

[Marcus]

I’m so glad to hear that. Most training courses for educators are taking a similar route in the US, at least in my experience. It’s pretty surprising to read cinepro’s comments in this thread, because they are clearly not supported by best practices and evidence. It’s even sadder that the lds church is so far behind in addressing this. I still recall when they self-defined their practices as “the gold standard” in preventing child abuse. That was so unreal.

Here is the coverage of the Church proclaiming to operate a gold standard for preventing child abuse…

https://religionnews.com/2016/02/02/mor ... a-problem/

“No religious organization has done more” to prevent and respond to abuse.

“The Church’s approach is the gold standard.”

“While clergy-abuse cases continue to grab headlines, the Church has had almost no child abuse problems with its clergy.”

And Jana points out the erroneous and frankly deliberately misleading nature of the statement.

What’s especially weird about the “Effectiveness” statement is that it’s factually incorrect on several key points. These are enumerated blow by blow in an excellent response on Feminist Mormon Housewives, but let me recap a few of the most glaring errors.

No, Mormons are not leading the charge here. It’s disappointing that an LDS statement would make sweeping and self-aggrandizing generalizations to the effect that “child abuse by clergy may be a problem in other religions, but it’s never a problem with us, no sir! And if it were, our church has the absolute best practices and policies in place for addressing it.”

This is just insulting. Many other faiths are way ahead of us on this score: See here for the 2012 PC(USA) policy statement “We Won’t Let It Happen Here: Creating a Child Safe Church,” building on earlier General Assembly resolutions dating back to 1991. Here is the policy in Reform Judaism.

Here is the Child Protection Policy in the ELCA. Heck, even the Southern Baptists, that loosest of confederations, have now adopted a centralized policy on child abuse. We could go on and on about the proactive ways that other faiths are getting out in front of this issue.

Note one feature that all of these religions have urged to bolster child protection: background checks for every person who works closely with children and youth. So far, Mormon leaders have not followed this lead.

No, “preventing and responding to child abuse” is not “the subject of a regular lesson during Sunday meetings.” Where does this assertion even come from? I’ve never been in a church meeting that was devoted to issues like learning the signs of abuse, counseling victims, documenting cases, and reporting suspicions to the police. And I sure don’t see this in our Sunday curriculum.

No, we don’t have a policy that prohibits an adult male from ever being alone with a minor. The so-called “two-deep” policy the “Effectiveness” statement boasts of isn’t mentioned anywhere in the 2010 church handbook for bishops and stake presidents, and in fact that handbook states that “worthiness interviews should be private” (7.1.1). In the section for youth, there’s a mention that parents are encouraged “to stay close to their children and counsel them,” but it’s not clear whether that parental involvement is specifically supposed to occur during a teen’s worthiness interview with the bishop or is just general advice about parents being involved in their kids’ lives (7.1.7).

In practice, I don’t see Mormon parents accompanying their teens for their annual interviews; if this has begun to happen, that’s good news that I’d love to hear more about. (Here’s a powerful post at Doves and Serpents about how inappropriate youth interviews can be, offering concrete recommendations for change.)

No, we don’t always call the authorities. On the contrary, some of the documented cases of Mormon abusers show church leaders keeping quiet about the abuse and encouraging victims to handle it privately, if at all. That’s one of the most disturbing facets of the Frank Curtis case, for example. There’s no record that LDS leaders reported Curtis to the police for the abuse and pedophilia that caused his excommunication. And it gets worse: when an apparently penitent Curtis was later rebaptized, he was given another calling with children!

Since that firestorm the Church has not exactly moved heaven and earth to improve matters. 6 years on it might be time for Jana to revisit the subject to investigate what, if anything, has changed…

I had forgotten her response to that. I’m glad she didn’t pull any punches, but yes, it would be interesting to see, years later, if anything has changed.

[cinepro]

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.

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?

[doubtingthomas]

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.

I understand one-on-one interviews are a valid concern, but I honestly would like to see the research on "unintentional grooming", I never heard of that before. So when some heterosexual Bishop asks some dude, "Do you watch pornography?" would his question make the dude vulnerable to sexual abuse in the future? What does the research say? Or am I misunderstanding everything? Hopefully IHAQ is able to give us some references.

but sex ed at schools is a wonderful and beautiful thing, even if it makes kids or parents uncomfortable..."

Or transgender women using the ladies room.

I am not oppose to it, but it is uncomfortable for many.

[Marcus]

but sex ed at schools is a wonderful and beautiful thing, even if it makes kids or parents uncomfortable..."

You need to quote cinepro in context. The above is not.

Or transgender women using the ladies room.

I am not oppose to it, but it is uncomfortable for many.

This thread is not about that. Start your own topic.

[Marcus]

Where were we?

Looking at the central topic of this thread, and at least one of its branch topics, I'd say:

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that teaches that masturbation by young people going through adolescence (or indeed anybody else) is bad.

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that would have led to me as a teenager being on my own in a room with a person I was taught to regard as having authority over me, who asked me probing questions about whether I masturbated or not, and if so when and how and how often, all the time reminding me that the deity I was taught to believe in disapproved of such activity and was watching me all the time.

I simply CANNOT IMAGINE the mindset of any parent who would allow their son or their daughter to be subject to that kind of encounter. But that of course simply shows my lamentable lack of cultural sympathy for other people's sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't it? I feel the same way about female genital mutilation, child marriage, and so on. What a disgusting piece of work I am!

To add to what you’ve said here, even when that cultural process is followed properly by well intentioned careful Bishops (and evidence shows there are some in that position who aren’t well intentioned), and even when their questioning is sensitive and non specific, this will desensitise vulnerable minors and vulnerable adults to the risk of other adults asking them inappropriate questions or getting them into one on one situations for nefarious reasons.