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

[IHAQ]

I’m staggered. You do understand how grooming happens, right?

Yes, I do. That's why I'm not worried about Bishop's interviews.

How are you defining "grooming"?

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

Anybody can be a groomer, no matter their age, gender or race. Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years. Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy or authoritative.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child- ... /grooming/

Children and young people can be groomed online, in person or both – by a stranger or someone they know. This could be a family member, a friend or someone who has targeted them – like a teacher, faith group leader or sports coach.

A well intentioned Bishop can also inadvertently groom a minor or vulnerable adult making them more susceptible to abusers in other situations by making them accustomed to inappropriate questions from adults. The church instructs Bishops to build up 1-2-1 personal relationships with youth, which is exactly what groomers want licence to do.

[cinepro]

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Exactly. I do not think the risk of a bishop building a relationship of trust and emotional connection with my child so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them is at all likely.

Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind.

Coaches, teachers, parents and other adults build relationships of trust and emotional connections with children and young people all the time and it's not always "grooming."

A well intentioned Bishop can also inadvertently groom a minor or vulnerable adult making them more susceptible to abusers in other situations by making them accustomed to inappropriate questions from adults. The church instructs Bishops to build up 1-2-1 personal relationships with youth, which is exactly what groomers want licence to do.

You cannot inadvertently "groom" a minor. Intent is part of the definition.

I certainly don't agree with Bishops who ask overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth. But I don't consider it "grooming." I consider it "a religious leader asking overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth." If a Bishop does or says something that is actual child abuse, then I am especially against it, because it's actual child abuse.

But it's still not "grooming."

[doubtingthomas]

But it's still not "grooming."

Of course not.

[IHAQ]

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Exactly. I do not think the risk of a bishop building a relationship of trust and emotional connection with my child so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them is at all likely.

Are you joking? Given the number of reported cases of exactly that, plus the leaks showing how many times Kirton McConkie has dealt with exactly this kind of thing, it is unbelievable you that you hold such an opinion. Staggering even.

In August 2017, former LDS Church bishop Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two teenage boys from his congregation in Mapleton, Utah. The abuse occurred in June 2014 during his tenure as bishop. Hughes received concurrent 1–15 year prison sentences on the sexual abuse counts, and 0–5 years in prison for witness tampering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases
I’m sure the boys parents also thought it wasn’t “at all likely”.

Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind.
Coaches, teachers, parents and other adults build relationships of trust and emotional connections with children and young people all the time and it's not always "grooming."

You cannot inadvertently "groom" a minor. Intent is part of the definition.

I certainly don't agree with Bishops who ask overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth. But I don't consider it "grooming." I consider it "a religious leader asking overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth." If a Bishop does or says something that is actual child abuse, then I am especially against it, because it's actual child abuse.

But it's still not "grooming."

Let me explain. Through the normal course of a Bishop asking vulnerable people intimate “worthiness” questions in a 1 on 1 situation that everyone around is comfortable allowing to happen, the vulnerable person becomes desensitised to the risk of an unrelated adult male in a position of trust asking them inappropriate questions. That desensitised vulnerable person is then easier prey for an abuser in other scenarios such as with neighbours or sports coaches or teachers etc etc etc.

[Moksha]

Sam Young had a website set up detailing the results of bishop interviews. Did anyone here ever see it?

[malkie]

You cannot inadvertently "groom" a minor. Intent is part of the definition.

I certainly don't agree with Bishops who ask overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth. But I don't consider it "grooming." I consider it "a religious leader asking overly detailed or invasive questions to the youth." If a Bishop does or says something that is actual child abuse, then I am especially against it, because it's actual child abuse.

But it's still not "grooming."

OK - let's not call it "grooming" in these non-intentional situations - if the person in authority has no intention of himself taking advantage of the vulnerable person, and perhaps is not even aware of the effect that his behaviour is having.

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.

Shakespeare would know how to talk about this: a Montague by any other name would still be considered an enemy of the Capulets.

[Moksha]

Here is a video on how grooming persistence pays off. [Do not try this at home!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kwTnMS9naw

[doubtingthomas]

Here is a video on how grooming persistence pays off. [Do not try this at home!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kwTnMS9naw

WTF?

[cinepro]

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.

[Chap]

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!